Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the August 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Our Chair and Vice Chair are absent this evening, so we'll go ahead and have our Planning Commissioners vote on an Acting Chair for the evening. First, I'll call the roll to establish a quorum. Please refrain from excusing any absences. I'll start with Commissioner Kinnear.

Present.

Commissioner Tomachek.

Present.

Commissioner Dunn.

Here.

Chair Bosher. Vice Chair Carpenter. Commissioner Young. Commissioner Pegg.

Here.

Commissioner calling. Here. Commissioner Morris. Here. Thanks. We have a quorum present. I'll go ahead and ask the commissioners if you have any nominations for an acting chair. If you can please raise your hand, I'll call on you one at a time. Commissioner Kinnear.

I would nominate Commissioner Dunn. I'd nominate Commissioner Dunn.

Commissioner Dunn. All right.

Accept.

Commissioner Dunn, do you accept?

Not at this time.

Okay. Do we have another nomination? I'd like to nominate Commissioner Kinnear. Commissioner Kinnear. Commissioner Kinnear, do you accept?

Sure.

all right commissioner kinnear oh any other discussion nominations all right commissioner kinnear you will be our chair this evening if you want to make your way to the center chair and we don't need to vote um because since uh commissioner kinnear was the only member who was nominated and accepted he is acting chair by acclamation

Commissioner Kinnear, if you'd like to proceed with calling on a motion for the previous meeting minutes.

Yes, thank you. So I would call for a motion and a second to approve the prior meeting minutes of July 14, 2026. So moved.

Seconded.

Can we do a voice call?

All right. Commissioner Tlmachuk?

Upstate.

Commissioner Dunn.

Yes.

Commissioner Pegg.

Yes.

Commissioner Colling. Yes. And Commissioner Morris. Abstain. And Commissioner Kinnear.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right, for the audience, if we have anyone who would like to speak that has not already signed up, there's a sign-up sheet in the back of the room. And please go to the table and sign up to speak. We will now open the public hearing. We have two items on the agenda tonight. Item 3A is a public hearing and recommendation on proposed amendments. Excuse me. to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to Support Provision of Affordable Housing. And Item 3B, Public Hearing and Recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Development Plan Amendment for the Kaiser North Redevelopment Proposal. I hereby open the public hearing for Item 3A, Public Hearing and Recommendation on Proposed Amendments. Excuse me again. to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to support provision of affordable housing. Mr. Spurgeon, you can begin your presentation.

Thank you, Chair Kinnear. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Andrew Spurgeon, Principal Planner with the Community Services Department. I'm here tonight to present proposed text amendments to the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan intended to support provision of affordable housing in Westminster. With this presentation, the Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and then make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendments. We did not receive any questions from the public nor any of the commissioners in advance of the meeting. We are aware of an online discussion that one of the commissioners participated in and we're happy to clarify any questions that came out of that or misunderstandings associated with that. With this presentation, staff is hereby entering the agenda memo and its attachments into the public record. Notice of this public hearing was published in accordance with public hearing protocols of the City of Westminster. As the Community Services Department formalizes a housing team to implement affordable housing led by our new economic development and housing manager, Vivi Del Pizzo, that group will be implementing affordable housing, CDBG administration, and other housing services that may facilitate good faith attainment of the city's affordable housing needs. When we talk about affordable housing with a capital A, We're referring to income-restricted housing provided through entities such as Maker, Foothills, or St. Charlestown. These affordable housing partners helped the City achieve its Proposition 123 commitment, and as staff prepares for the next cycle, efficiencies are being identified to facilitate future capital-A affordable housing. These affordable housing partners development practice is typically developments that are entirely affordable units, such as you see at St. Mark's Village, Maker at the Uplands, and Overlook at the Uplands, which this commission provided input on when those ODPs were before you. And for context, we'd like the Commission to understand that during a housing study session with City Council earlier this year, staff was directed not to pursue inclusionary zoning. That is not the purpose of this amendment. It appears that the social media discussion about this item may have misunderstood that. So we'd always suggest that if commissioners have questions, they should direct them to city staff and we're happy to answer them. In the context of the comprehensive plan, the plan sets a vision for providing a mix of housing opportunities for a range of incomes, ages, and lifestyles. Supporting affordable housing opportunities is also encompassed in the first strategic plan priority that the City Council put in place this year. There's relatively little land available for new housing development in Westminster, with vacant developable land at only about 2.3% of the city's land area, about 500 acres. The median parcel size is about three quarters of an acre, so we really need to get creative with doing more with less land. The city's 2024 housing needs assessment identifies a density bonus in infill situations as a strategy to support production of capital A affordable housing units. A revised definition for affordable housing has also been requested by the city's housing staff and Vivi is here tonight if the commissioners have questions on that revised definition. My understanding is this will improve our alignment with external programs and funding opportunities to support all the good work that team is doing. The density bonus was proposed as part of the larger UDC project that this commission's had six work sessions on. The city attorney kindly pointed out that we would need to do this comp plan amendment in order to effectuate that UDC amendment. But rather than waiting for that UDC amendment, we thought it we could go on and bring this now if there's a interested developer out there that was able to use this under our existing regulations. We wanted to make this available and we have been in meetings with affordable housing providers about using this provision. Putting these affordable housing provisions in place now also provides the opportunity to evaluate this impact, the impact of this amendment and determine if additional actions are needed. So this is a good time to put this in place and then as we're finalizing EDC, what are the other levers that we can pull to support the housing needs in Westminster? There's basically two parts to this amendment. As I described on the previous slide, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment will include a density bonus that would yield additional housing units above what would otherwise be permitted under the comprehensive plan. For example, a five acre site where residential density is permitted up to 18 units per acre, that typically yield 90 units with the 30% bonus, that would be up to 117 units. Limiting this amendment to capital A affordable projects is a manageable municipal service impact. In the last five years, only two affordable projects would have been eligible if this amendment had been in place. Our public work staff has evaluated the impact and thought at that pace that our water supply would have a de minimis impact and this is something that the city can do. The more constraining factor is typically the available infrastructure for a site, the water and wastewater and so forth. The existing affordable housing definition is limited to those earning 0% to 80% area median income, which is what is maintained in this for renters, but for home ownership, it is expanded to up to 120%. Increasing home ownership is a priority of our city council, and this would allow more types of housing to be included. Staff recommendation for the Commission is to hold a public hearing and then to recommend to City Council to approve an ordinance adopting the proposed amendments to the plan. The Commission has several options. You could choose to approve the amendments as presented. You could choose to amend the provisions if there's specific ways the Commission would like to revise those. If four members supported that, that's an option you have. You could also think this is a terrible idea and you could recommend denial to City Council, which would result in no density bonus and the existing affordable housing definition would remain in place. And we will absolutely share with City Council what the findings are on this matter of the Commission. As I mentioned before, this is a strategic plan priority. It's literally the first priority if you look at the strategic plan. Updating administrative provisions for affordable housing will benefit future affordable housing developments, and in turn, promote affordable living and stable options for future residents of such developments. This concludes our presentation, but I'm happy to take any questions, Vivi's happy to take any questions, and we're pleased to have this amendment before you tonight.

thank you uh we do not have an applicant obviously since effectively the city is the applicant so do any of the commissioners have any questions uh for staff uh yes i do okay so i think my first question is where does the uh 50 fraction of units come from we will let our housing and economic development manager address that question commissioner peg

already says that at least 50% or more of the units would have to serve a specific AMI to be considered affordable. We didn't want to deviate too much from the current affordable definition that we have. We just wanted to expand to be able to include some of the funding revenues that are available out there. So we include the definition for Prop 123, allowing developers to apply for those funds, and other ones. But currently we already have it as at least 50% of the units.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

So that's for compatibility with existing things like Prop 123?

Yes. And also our current definition.

Great, and where is our current definition in the, is that municipal code, is that in comp plan?

It's in the comprehensive, this, what's before you is changing the definition in the comprehensive plan.

I think, let's see, I read the packet, see if I can find it again. Yes, yes, I see that definition, but this is also paired with a density bonus?

The affordable housing definition would live independently. The density bonus is proposed for affordable housing units, but the affordable definition would change without regard to the density impact, the density bonus.

Gotcha. And I guess my questions are, there are additional definitions allowed here, the ones from HUD, CHAFA, and DOLA. I'm not familiar with those. Could you talk me through those?

Yes. So HUD currently, it's very similar to the one that we have adopted in our comprehensive plan, which is just new proposed residential developments up to 80% of the area medium income. For home ownership, that's extremely challenging. Somebody that makes up to that AMI to be able to afford a purchased at home. The one from Prop 123 is very similar to what we have right now. We didn't want to just have one definition and that only moving forward. We specifically listed HUD, CHFA, DOLA because oftentimes they change. Unfortunately we don't have an affordable housing definition that is for the federal or state or local that everybody has adopted. A lot of our regional partners are changing their definitions as well in order to comply with not only Prop 123, but some other funding mechanisms. And this was the way that we found that we would be able to, if we have a developer or a partner coming in that is applying for LIHTC funds to CHFA, if we have it here, this is our definition, or if they meet one of these criterias, we would support them in the applications that they would have.

Okay. And sorry, I think I missed it if you went through it. What were the requirements for CHFA and DOLA? the AMI and fraction of units?

Sometimes it depends on the program. Some of them has to be more than 50%. Some of them require the entire project to be deed restricted with a certain AMI level. Typical standard in Colorado is up to 80% for rental units and up to 120 for home ownership. Some programs might have a more specific definition of this many units at 30%, this many at 50%. So it kind of varies a little bit. The definition that we are proposing kind of encompass all of them. The home ownership, Prop 103 was already looking at potentially raising it to 130 to 140 in the mountain cities. They are already using up to 160% AMI. Sometimes these change from year to year. That's why we wanted to put something that we felt comfortable with for Westminster, the residents earning up to 120 would fit. However, if there is a difference of funding source, if it would comply with their definition, that we would consider it as well.

Gotcha. Okay, thank you. And I guess my next question is about this density bonus, which, sure, is in an independent part of the code, but is nevertheless being proposed in the same agenda item. What's the idea behind density bonus here? What's the idea behind allowing more units with a given threshold?

When we've met with affordable housing providers, they're typically, they go right to the bottom line. They need to know how many units they can achieve and they have identified that a modest density increase would help them achieve these projects without having to go through a whole comprehensive plan amendment process and do, all the steps involved with that because we're trying to provide some regulatory relief. This is a best practice. It was recommended in the housing needs assessment specifically, but this is something that's used elsewhere in Colorado as well as places that are at the forefront of affordable housing development, Austin, Texas, Portland, Oregon, San Jose, California. Denver used to have it, they got rid of it actually, but other places in Colorado do have it. Some places it's as low as 10% and other places it's as high as 50%. We landed on the 30% because again, our water resources staff reviewed it and they thought that was a manageable impact.

That's the 30% density bonus. Okay. And let's pair that again with this 50% definition. So I think in the 30% paragraph you had an example. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You could have, I think that was, I've got to do math now. you could have 90 units on this hypothetical lot. And then with the density bonus, you could have up to 117. And then just for clarification, 50% of the 90 units or 50% of the 117 units would have to be deed restricted affordable.

It would be 117 and any of the staff in the rooms welcome to correct me. I've never seen that type of project. I've only seen fully affordable or we're in a downtown where we have the 10% or 5% downtown. But otherwise when we work with Maker, Foothills, etc. we're seeing 100% of the units being restricted.

Yeah, and just to add, thank you, Andrew. The 50%, not only it does align with the current definition that we have, but it also aligns with Prop 123 as the minimum requirement to be able to have developers apply for our expedited review process that is coming up, we'll be bringing to council for affordable projects. But as Andrew mentioned, Typically, the affordable ones that have subsidies that apply for LIHTC or different other types of funds, they are 100% restricted. This was just to put at least a minimum. What we wanted to avoid is having a developer and say, oh, I have three units that are . That's the minimum, but the majority of them are the full project.

What I'm hearing here is that the 50% requirement was picked as a convenience to mesh with other regulations.

and to also allow for more opportunities if there were other funding avenues that would allow that to happen and developers would be able to make it pencil, that would bring more inclusionary housing as well. If we have the development that was able to do currently with the structure and all of the funding availabilities there are in our state, it would be really hard for a developer to be able to make that happen. However, the goal is for regular housing developments to have rackery units along with some units that are deed-restricted, so we have more inclusion within the community.

I think we're getting to what my problem here is with this 50% threshold, is that if you allow 30% more units, But then 50% of the total units have to be deed-restricted affordable housing. You end up with fewer market rate units. And so if a developer who did not have some kind of external funding source, some kind of subsidy, wanted to take advantage of the density bonus, it would not be economical.

They could still apply, correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, but they could still apply to request for a density bonus. It just wouldn't be automatic that they would be allowed to have it. Can you please clarify that?

No, it's bracketed just for affordable.

Right. And so if they wanted to use the density bonus, they would actually end up with fewer market rate units.

Typically, we would recommend they pursue a comprehensive plan category that allows that level of density.

Well, why not get private developers to build some deed-restricted affordable units, capital A affordable units? Right? If the 50% or I should say the unit fraction threshold did not exceed the number of density bonus units, then I think it's plausible that some developers may voluntarily participate in this program.

If you can get four members to support your alternate point of view and get that to pass, that can be your recommendation to council.

Okay.

we have any other commissioners with questions for staff yes actually tracy's next

Thanks. You covered a few of the things I had questions about. And I do support the density bonus. I just have a technical question on the density bonus. It's more of a comment on how it's worded, the density and intensity page, attachment one comprehensive plan text edits. Number four, the way affordable house, and yeah, if you can, and then also if you could pull up on the screen this section where you talk about density bonus. you could move the slideshow to that that would be helpful right right go back that one so see how you describe 30 bonus density bonus i mean you describe it a little different than you do on item number four, because you actually list that it would be 90 units. However, with a 30% bonus, you would be able to get 117. It says the same thing, but someone that doesn't understand how to do dwelling units per acre, it might be just helpful just to use the same terminology.

That's all. We could do that. We did not do the same thing with number two up above. So we wouldn't be consistent there.

But if that's something the commissioner... Well, you did because you said, for example, four acre site with the characteristic type that would allow 18 units would be allowed to have a congregate care with 144. So you would say would typically be allowed to have 90 units. with a bonus up to $117.

I see your point.

It's just a little bit cleaner.

That's a good amendment if the commission would like to enact that.

That was my only comment. Thank you.

Commissioner? I'm trying to work through the math just like my fellow commissioners. I'm sort of reading this a little differently. You allow a 30% increase But there's no requirement here to have that 30% increase be affordable housing.

Actually, the very first part of that sentence says affordable housing, comma, as defined, comma, may increase density up to 30%.

Then that is only true if it's 100% affordable housing. Or meets the definition of? Meets the definition. Okay. So effectively, in this case, you're going, you're adding an additional 27 units, but only 14 of those have to be affordable, not all 27. Because 50% don't, can be market rate.

You know, we've never seen a project split up units like that. We see projects that are 100% affordable when we're working with Maker and St. Charlestown and the affordable housing providers who actually work in Westminster. The 50% of 117, though, as Commissioner Pegg pointed out, would be 50, whatever that is, 58, I guess.

So I work, as an engineer, I work a lot with code. And... If you tend to leave a code based on precedent rather than actually wording it the way you intend it to operate, somebody will misuse it to their advantage. So I would suggest that this be clarified to state whether or not you want all 30% increased housing to be affordable or if it can be split between affordable and traditional.

I know what your precedent is. Let's just clarify, this is not a code amendment. It's a comprehensive plan, so it's a policy statement. Yeah. We believe that it's worded correctly, but if you could maybe help us understand, because I'm not sure I'm tracking. You have to meet the definition of affordable housing, which we just talked about the 50% and all the great programs that Colorado has to support that. Right. If you meet that, you can qualify for the entity bonus. We are not trying to legislate X specific units are affordable and which ones are not. We're just saying you can qualify for the entity bonus. As I mentioned, we've worked with several affordable housing providers that are interested in doing this. We'd love to bring you development plans for those at a later date.

I don't disagree with the intent of all of it. I'm just saying that if the goal here is to maximize the number of affordable units, then we ought to state such that the increase that you're giving has to be dedicated to affordable housing, not give them an additional capability of putting traditional housing into the mix so right now it's fifty percent of the total units would have to be affordable what i hear you saying is that only the thirty percent of the bonus would be affordable no what i'm saying is is if you've got a hundred units fifty of those are traditional fifty or affordable and then you get a increase of thirty percent well that technically means twenty five of them are affordable and twenty five are traditional if you want all twenty five All 30. to be affordable, if you want that 30% increase to be affordable. John thinks he's tracking with you, so I'll let him clarify. I think I'm tracking with you.

Okay. So what you're suggesting is maybe amend this with support of four of you to ensure that whatever the bonus is that you qualify for is 100% affordable. Correct. The bonus over and above the normal density.

If that's what you're really shooting for. because otherwise you're giving a developer the potential of increasing density on traditional housing that we would not give them anywhere else.

Yeah, no, I understand that. I wonder if Ms. DelPizzo can, if she knows, elaborate maybe on the state's perspective on that, if we know that. Again, we're trying to align definitions with state provisions to qualify for state funding, but I don't know if that's a known

Yeah, when density bonuses are allowed, it's with the intent of being affordable units that would be coming in, not market rate ones. Those projects are really hard to pencil in. The math is just really challenging. So allowing for more density, it also makes the project viable, allowing the developers to create units at a lower, you know, AMI level for rental or if we bring some condos or something like that at a lower sale point.

Let me see if I, I think I can capture Commissioner Collings and Commissioner Tomacheks. We would suggest, if one of you would like to make an amendment, that density intensity number four, affordable housing, comma, as defined, may increase density up to 30%. For example, a five acre site with a character type that allows 18 units per acre typically would yield Up to 90 units with a 30% density bonus would be allowed up to 117 units. Such additional units must be restricted to affordable housing. That's what I'm looking for.

That's already what it says.

So this would be, effectively, this would be 50% of the base-allowed dwelling units, and then the 30% increase, whatever number that is, the difference between the base and the bonus, would all have to be affordable. Right now, the way it's written, you would calculate the bonus in with the base, and then 50% of that. So this should net more affordable units if we make this change.

So then the effective threshold would be somewhere above 50%.

Yes.

I cannot express stronger disagreement with that I do not think that will maximize the number of affordable units we get because that will that will do even more to undercut the ability for developers to trade affordable units for a few more market rate units that they can rent out. If you want voluntary participation in this from folks who don't have funding, and there are a few examples of buildings that are mixed income built by the developer then currently as written, I suspect that this will tend to exclude them.

I don't disagree. All I'm shooting for is that we're clear where that 30% gets allocated. If the intent is to draw the potential for a mixed development, then it's worded fine. But if the attempt is to maximize affordable units at some ratio, then we should clarify what that looks like. That's all I'm saying.

Well, the outcome I'm looking at is not the fraction of units that are affordable, but the total number of capital A affordable units that get built. And without more quantitative data, It's hard to put a very precise number on this, but the fact of the matter is, usually with the density bonus, what you say is, hey developer, if you provide a certain number of capital A affordable units, we will let you build more total units. And the developer's incentive to take that is increased profit from the extra market rate units that they would get. But if we set the affordable housing, the percentage threshold anywhere north of about 30 percent, I'm not going to do math in public, but the numbers close to 30 percent, then we will almost guarantee that that will not happen.

We're not disagreeing on philosophy and further.

I don't think the threshold should be 0% Because that would result in no capital a affordable units being built Right. That's some of the point here. Yeah So I think that gets me to a motion. I

Actually, we need to open this for public testimony. Oh, okay. So we still will have an opportunity for comment, but we need to open it for public comment.

Okay.

Yeah, Commissioner Dunn.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to ask the practical application of this density bonus. For example, If a developer were to receive a density bonus, depending on the physical property, I would imagine, would the developer be allowed to put up extra physical structures on this property? Is there... Is there a plan for that? How would that work?

This wouldn't affect any of the other regulatory requirements for development. All other rules would still apply. This just allows them to seek additional units on their site. In other words, setbacks, height restrictions, you know, landscaping requirements would all still remain the same and in effect.

Okay, then how, and I guess, again, depending on the physical property, how do they increase the number of units by respecting all the statutes in place?

It would be a design question. They would have a design professional team that essentially solves that equation. It's no different than designing any other site. You have a goal, you have a number of units that you would like to build on a site. and you follow the rules, and as you've seen before, occasionally there are requests for exceptions to the rules, and there is some latitude in our PUD system to allow that, and you've worked through those situations before, and I know you're familiar with them.

Okay, so... Using the floor area ratio, for example, does that mean that a developer could amend his design, their design, from single dwelling or so forth to an apartment building type situation. Would that be within the purview of the rules, depending on how, depending on whether they get the density bonus? Would that be a matter of starting over, I guess, with the design if a developer were to get a density bonus? Would that be part of it?

If I understand you correctly, I don't think it would be a scenario where a developer would start over with the design. I think they would engage the city with a potential site for development. they would hopefully understand what the comp plan allows. If not, that's one of the initial conversations that we have. We talk about density, we talk about use type. As you're familiar with our residential comp plan districts, they vary in not only density but dwelling type. So some comprehensive plan districts allow attached housing in apartments when others allow detached housing. And as density goes up, typically the dwelling type is attached housing and apartments. So not sure if that answers your question, but please feel free to respond and refine if it didn't.

No, I understand. I guess what I'm seeing is that a density bonus would lead to crowding and that lower income people end up in a more crowded environment. That's just, I mean, that's the impression I get, but that's okay, thank you.

No, I appreciate the perspective. With this level of a density bonus, as Mr. Spurgeon stated, we reviewed this with our public works and utilities. We do not think it would be a stress on the water supply or any of our other infrastructure. If a developer wanted to exceed that 30%, we'd probably be recommending a different land use category, and then those evaluations may be a little different.

Got you. Thank you, John.

It seems to me as though, so in my experience as a small trade service provider, I work with a lot of housing authorities in a number of different kinds of buildings, including 100% low income or affordable housing, as well as mixed rate. And it seems like the more sustainable and healthier communities are ones in which there are mixed economics. It seems as though the threshold for 30% increase here is kind of that tipping point of profitability or viability, but I'm wondering if the outcome of that producing extra units is really sustainable in both the crowding case that Commissioner Dunn suggested as well as some of the concerns that commissioner tomacek had and i also had a quick question on the land use categories and opportunities to capture the density bonus for market rate developers is there somewhere else that i'm missing that they also still have that opportunity to capture the density bonus the density bonus would be limited to affordable housing

Any other questions?

Sorry, one more. So my understanding is the reason you do the dentistry bonus is to motivate developers to build affordable housing. Is that correct? To motivate them to build it and come to a point where they will actually get to a bottom line number that actually makes it economical for them to actually build the housing. Is that correct?

Yes, and also to, excuse me, to shorten the time of the development. If they were to come to Planning Commission and City Council to ask for that additional density, it does add several months to the development and then with the overhead for affordable projects is just not there. So sometimes they just don't move forward with a project if the length for review is too long. So just allowing it for them to be able to automatically request for that without going through several steps if that is needed to make the project viable is just another way to assist them in that.

So if they're moving forward with affordable housing for 100 units, they can get that done pretty quickly. But they could make it more economical if they could do a 30% bonus, density bonus, right? And they don't have to go through any more permitting to expand the length of time. So they can actually provide more affordable units. Is that correct?

or they sometimes just make the project viable. We've had some developers that reach out and we start the pre-application reviews and when we talk about our current process and how long it takes for each step, this was one that we identified that would make a big difference.

So the comment about the number of units you might have on there, it might become more cramped or tighter, a higher density development. That's understood because that will happen. But you might be able to put some more studio apartments in. That may be what is needed for in certain types of affordable situations. So you may have some more units that are smaller or one bedrooms versus two bedrooms. So they will accommodate the the density within the design process. And so this helps developers do more affordable projects. Larger, got it, thank you.

Any other questions from the commissioners? Okay, well now I will open, hereby open the public testimony for item 3A. Madam Secretary, has there been any public testimony received in the form of emails and or voicemails for this item?

No emails or voicemails were received for this item.

Okay, and has anyone signed up to speak?

I do not have any speakers on the sheet to speak on this item.

Okay. Do we have anybody in the audience who would like to speak on item 3A? Seeing nobody, I'll move on to my next page. All right, I will now close the public testimony and call for a motion from commissioners.

Mr. Chair. Yes, Commissioner Peck. I do have a motion. Let me see if I can get the language down right here. Let's see. I move that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve the Affordable Housing Comprehensive Plan amendments with the change that the percentage of required units be changed to 15% from 50%. This recommendation is based on the finding that the comprehensive plan amendments implement the city's strategic plan and housing needs assessment strategies for affordable housing.

Do we have a second? I'll second. Do we have any other discussion or final comments?

No. Go ahead. Here's how I arrived at that 15% number, because we don't have more precise numbers. Like I said, and I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Tomachek, if the density bonus is less than or equal to the number of affordable units, then that rules out private developers without external funding providing some of these units. And I think that fails to maximize the number of capital A affordable units that get built. I have heard some talk about wanting to maximize the percentage, but I think the more important measure is how many of these actually get built, the count, not the percentage. So on the upper end, 30% is certainly the lowest the lowest maximum I can come up with. And furthermore, if we set the threshold at 0%, then no affordable, capital A affordable units get built. So I'm splitting the difference here, and I'm suggesting 15%.

In your scenario with 15%, would it be true that the number of non-affordable units for this development would increase over what would be otherwise available?

The number of market rate units would increase and that aligns with wanting to incentivize developers to provide capital A affordable units.

Any other discussion or questions? Okay. Well, if there's no further discussion, I will ask the secretary for a roll call vote.

Commissioner Tomanchuk?

Aye.

Commissioner Dunn?

Yes.

Commissioner Kinnear?

Yes.

Commissioner Colling? No. Commissioner Morris? Yes. And Commissioner Pegg?

Yes. okay it appears that uh the motion has passed five to one if i did my lawyer math right yes okay um very good we will now uh move on uh we could take a bio break quickly if we oh yes um

Can I get some clarification on that motion? I didn't really hear anything related to the definition of affordable housing.

Could you read back the specific wording? Did someone write that down? Okay, the idea here is that in the definition of affordable housing, there is the phrase in which at least 50% of the units are restricted. Okay. And that should change to in which at least 15% of the units are restricted. Okay, thank you very much. I just want to check that everybody that voted yes understood it that way.

Okay.

If we need a quick bio break, we can do that. Otherwise, we'll move on to item 3B. Seeing no scurrying to the restroom, we will move on. We will now open the public hearing for item 3B, public hearing and recommendation for a comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary development plan amendment for the Kaiser North redevelopment proposal. Hereby open public hearing and recommendation for comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary development plan amendment for Kaiser North redevelopment proposal. We said that twice. And we will ask Mr. Beierhoff to begin his presentation for the staff.

All right. Commissioners, we think Mr. Beierhoff stepped out for just a moment, so he should be back in just a moment, we assume. Very good. We apologize.

He did need the bathroom break that you were asking about.

He jumped the gun. Okay. Well, we will pause for a moment. All right, we have Mr. Beierhoff who has been doing his last-minute studying for this presentation and welcome you to begin.

My apologies, I thought we were doing a bio break. All right, good evening commissioners. My name is Carson Beierhoff, planner with the city's planning division. As part of bringing this project before you, a staff agenda memo has been created and tonight's public hearing has been properly noticed. The agenda memo, its associated attachments, tonight's PowerPoint presentation, and the public notices as sent with the mail notices and posted sign notices are hereby entered into the public record at this time. The notices of the public hearing were mailed to 743 property owners, tenants, and HOAs within 1,000 feet of the parcel under consideration tonight. Five public notification signs are posted on the subject property in both English and Spanish languages. The city has also posted the hearing date and time on its website. The approximately 16.35-acre subject property is located within the Kaiser North subdivision and consists of two parcels as identified in red on the vicinity map. The northern parcel, legally described as Block 1, Kaiser North Filing 1, includes the currently addressed 11245 Huron Street Medical Office Building. The southern parcel includes the unplatted parcel on the northwest corner of West 112th Avenue and Huron Street. On the left of this slide, you will see the Southern Parcels current comprehensive plan land use designation commercial. The adjacent image on the right shows the proposed Southern Parcels comprehensive plan land use designation amendment to neighborhood office. Section 11.521 of the Westminster Municipal Code contains 10 criteria that are to be considered when reviewing land use plan amendments. These cover compliance with the city's regulations and policies, analysts of planning and impacts on surrounding communities, site constraints, and impacts on existing infrastructure. Staff received this comprehensive plan amendment from the applicant to allow for the redevelopment of an existing medical office building. The proposed land use amendment is compliant with the surrounding character areas and will match the current neighborhood office character designation of the northern parcel. As detailed in the criteria for analysis in the agenda memo, staff finds that the application generally meets the criteria for land use plan amendments. The image on the right of the slide shows the proposed site plan for the preliminary development plan amendment, which shows the proposed access points into the site from the west, south, and east. The plan shows the overall phasing for the project, including the general location of the proposed redevelopment on the southern parcel and the demolition of the existing facility and expansion of the parking lot on the northern parcel. The plan also considers a potential future building expansion on the southern parcel. Section 11.514 of the Westminster Municipal Code contains 10 criteria that are to be considered when reviewing preliminary development plans and amendments. These include compliance with the comprehensive plan, sound planning, compatibility with the surrounding context, circulation and access, and performance standards related to design and architecture. As detailed in the criteria for analysis in the agenda memo, staff finds the application generally meets the criteria for amendments to preliminary development plans. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and recommend that City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Development Plan Amendments. The city's strategic plan priorities of opportunity to thrive and healthy and safe are met by facilitating a redevelopment of an existing medical facility, thus keeping those vital medical services within our community and providing additional opportunities for the community to engage with open space. This concludes the staff presentation and the applicant is here with us as well this evening and has a presentation as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Applicant, please come forward.

Good evening, Commissioners. Chair Kinnear, congrats on your interim appointment.

Thank you, short-lived.

Good evening, my name is Skylar Dennis and I am the Director of Land Use for Kaiser Permanente. Before I begin this brief presentation, I just wanna give a big thank you to Kaiser Beirut-Hoff and the rest of city staff for their partnership throughout this whole process. It has been a highly collaborative effort and what you see here tonight collects that collaboration and shared commitment to creating a project that responds to the city's goals and community needs. And I'm really hoping you all agree with that tonight. Next slide, please. Just a little bit about who Kaiser Permanente is. What this means, we are an integrated healthcare system. So this means that we both care and coverage, plus our health plan, medical facilities, and physicians work together in coordinated care. So simply what that means is members can see a doctor, pick up a prescription, lab test, x-rays under one roof, in a single visit at most of our KP facilities here in Colorado. Kaiser Permanente has been providing healthcare in Colorado for over 50 years and precisely why I'm here tonight. We have a facility that's over 50 years old and I think this is our opportunity to really tell the city of Westminster that we're here to stay. Next slide please. The existing medical office is located at 11245 Huron Street at the intersection of Huron and 112th. The subject site is bounded by the city of North Glen to the south and east. And we are adjacent to the Westminster T-ball field and residential to the west and the recently constructed Acadia West Pines Behavioral Health Hospital directly to the north. The Kaiser Permanente ownership is comprised of two lots. The north lot, as you see there with the actual medical office building on it, is about eight and a half acres. And the south lot, it's vacant. That's about seven and a half acres for a total of roughly about 16 acres and change. Up until recently, you can see in that south parcel, there was an open air irrigation ditch. This was fed by the High Line Canal. This is actually the Owners of this lateral would be Tri-State Generation and the Ranch Golf Course. That has since been relocated. It's along that frontage along 112th and Huron and it's underground. Kaiser Permanente is looking to replace the 97,000 square foot medical office building there and replace with 136,000 square foot outpatient medical office facility. And we hope to start construction by the end of this year and look to be operational by Q3 of 2028. Next slide, please. The project includes a replacement of the existing outpatient medical office building with a new three-story facility that will include expanded services such as ambulatory surgery and urgent care. To implement and replace the building on the vacant land, a comprehensive plan amendment is required to change the land use commercial and neighborhood office. Both land use designations allow for medical office. However, neighborhood office is the only one that permits it as a primary use. Commercial is only a secondary use per the comprehensive plan. To implement the comprehensive plan, a preliminary development plan request is to define the development standards and design guidelines for the medical office and the future phase two development, which I'll touch on later in the presentation. An official development plan has been filed with the city and is currently in its second round review. Next slide, please. The comprehensive plan amendment to change the south parts of commercial neighborhood house will bring the entire Kaiser Permanente ownership into one unified comprehensive plan designation of neighborhood office. As noted in the slide, the proposed use will implement many comprehensive plan goals, including balance of compatible land uses, maintaining professional employment base, and environmentally minded development and landscape design. Additionally, the Phase 1 scope, excuse me, a traffic study was prepared and concluded that the proposed project including Phase 1s and Phase 2s will have a nominal impact on traffic circulation. Additionally, the Phase 1 scope includes a new driveway along West 112th Avenue providing both ingress and egress as well as a dedicated right-hand turn lane on westbound 112th into the site. These improvements will help alleviate on-site and off-site chewing at the existing Huron Street driveways. A water and sewer capacity study was completed, including that the change in land use designation will not have adverse effects on the existing infrastructure. Further, as part of our official development plan, we are replacing the water mains on 112th and Huron Street along our frontages. So those will be replaced as part of our ODP package. Next slide, please. The subject site has a zoning designation and plan unit development and therefore subject to a preliminary development plan. As noted previously, the PDP processes to ensure that the official development plan is compliant with the underlying development standards and design guidelines. And then furthermore, the PDP request has a phase two of roughly about 16,000 square feet for future development. There's nothing on our capital plan right now is driving that it's just really for you know should membership need we need the demand, we would have a little bit of our room for some growth on site next slide please. Casa Permanente is requesting one PVP exception pertaining to building materials to include metal panels as the primary material as opposed to brick, which is defined in the retail and commercial design guidelines. Along the East Street frontage, metal panels will be offset with varying projections ranging between zero to four inches from the building plane. Additionally, along the east and south street frontages, portions of the facade will incorporate two inch deep metal panel, vertical rib articulation at various spacing. The east and south facades are to include glazing setback from outside face of metal panel by a minimum of three inches. And then there's the curtain wall system on the north, south and east facades will incorporate a mixture of mullion cap depths within a pattern of each facade ranging from zero to six inches. And the signage will actually be updated. What you see there is actually our old branding, we have some new branding that's rolling out. So that will be incorporated in our official development plan. Next slide, please. The building is located at the corner of Huron and 112. This is to really activate that corner of a visual, make more visual interest. There are three existing points of, existing vehicle points of access provided with a new service, with a new point of access, as I mentioned before, from 112th Street. This will really be really focused on employees and the service yard. The service yard is on the west side of the facility. Other project improvements include an eight-foot decorative wall between the proposed service yard and the adjacent residential, and a transition to a shorter, more passive wall fence beyond the service yards towards a stormwater detention basin to the north. Next slide, please. This is my favorite part. Of note, a trail throughout the campus will offer our members, staff, and the community the opportunity to walk along a beautifully landscaped Thrive Trail. The landscape design along the Thrive Trail will include interpretive signage that tells the story about the pollinators that will frequent the plants along this trail. People will walk through a portion of the trail that includes a food forest where they will have access to fruit that they can pick right off the tree. There will be a signage that describes the relationship between the pollinators and the fruit-rearing trees. Additionally, you will find seating along the trail and a series of decorative metal panels that will incorporate images of plants, fruits, pollinators to help reinforce the design intent and story. This is a collaboration with the Butterfly Pavilion and the Denver Urban Gardens is an important component as they will help enhance the story, offer education and proper maintenance and monitoring after the project is built. Next slide. This concludes my presentation. I kept it kind of broad, so if you have any questions, we're happy to get into the nuts and bolts of this. I also have the whole Kaiser Permanente team is here, subject matter experts, so I think we're well prepared to have your pointed questions. Thank you.

Did you bring an orthopedic surgeon? Not yet. Do we have any commissioners with any questions for staff or the applicant? I have a few questions.

So along that Santa Fe, which backs onto those single-family homes, there's not going to be a road there.

Well, there's not a road proposed as part of this project. All Kaiser Permanente is doing is dedicating the remaining 25 feet of right-of-way. The HOA, when it was approved, dedicated 25 feet for that future Santa Fe. We are just completing that dedication.

Okay, so it's a dedication for a right-of-way for Santa Fe, but it will most likely never be a road. And that's where you're putting that stone wall?

The stone wall is actually on Kaiser Permanente property, opposite, so it would be on the Kaiser Permanente side of that right of work.

On the east side, yeah. Okay, so it's just a vacant piece of ground, so there's no additional buffering happening for the people on that side for this new development?

Well, there'll be the eight-foot wall that will be there, and they have the landscaping on our side of the wall, but there will be an eight-foot wall between, from 112th all the way up past our service yard, so it will be screened.

Okay, and all the access will be, there'll be one access point off 112th and two off of Huron, and then one that goes east to that, whatever that is, 113. Okay. That's correct. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you.

In terms of the building height, and sometimes we'll have comments about viewscapes, as I understand it, to the east of Huron and the southeast corner, those are all businesses. Is that right?

There are no... Yeah, on the east side is businesses. Residential is only to the south and west.

Okay, great. Thanks.

I have one more question, sorry. I noticed in your notes on sheet two of the Kaiser North Subdivision filing for the PDP, tell me a little bit about why you guys chose not to do public art and instead did cash and lieu. Is that my understanding of what that says? Cash and lieu for both art pieces, is that correct?

Correct. So that is part of the direction that we received from the Parks, Recreation and Libraries Division. They typically find that except for in rare instances that cash and lose preferred as it gives the city more control as to where those sites go versus on private development. It could lead to any sort of conflict.

So it goes into some kind of fund and it's used for a public location. Correct. That might be more visible or something. Correct. And then we don't see a lot of these recovery costs, which is the next paragraph that talks about road improvements on 112. Can you just walk us through that a little bit, exactly what that paragraph's about? I'm just curious to understand a little bit. It says roadway improvements to 112 as documented in an ordinance from back in 2010. The recovery cost was determined to be $212,000 plus interest. Explain to us what that's about.

Go ahead and take it for a stab.

It's not going to be very eloquent, but there were some improvements that benefited the original official development plan. That would benefit our future project. Now that that project is going forward, that we're activating that south parcel, we're on the hook to reimburse for those improvements that were done decades ago.

Reimbursement to the city of Westminster for improving the roads 112th. Okay. That's what I thought it was great. That makes sense.

Thank you Any other questions Okay, well I will open the public testimony for item 3 B Madam Secretary Has there been any public testimony received in the form of emails and or voicemails? I

Any emails we received? We didn't receive any voicemails. The emails that we received went out in the packet addendum this afternoon.

Thank you. And has anyone signed up to speak this evening?

I do have a name on the sign-up sheet for Chris.

That was a mistake.

Oh, no worries. No one else on the list.

Okay. Then I will ask if there's anyone in the audience who did not sign up to speak who would like to anyway. Seeing none, I will close the public testimony. And I guess now I will call for a motion and a second on the item. Yes, Commissioner Culling.

I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve... to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Kaiser North redevelopment. This recommendation is based on the findings that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is supported by the criteria in Section 11-5-21 of the Westminster Municipal Code.

And is there a second? I'll second.

Madam Secretary, if we could have a voice roll call.

Commissioner Tomechek.

Yes.

Commissioner Dunn.

Yes.

Commissioner Kinnear.

Yes.

Commissioner Colling. Yes. Commissioner Morris. Yes. Commissioner Pegg.

Yes. The motion has passed unanimously. And...

That's it for item 3B. I believe there needs to be a second motion as well for the preliminary development plan amendment.

Okay.

Can I have a motion for the preliminary development plan amendment? Thank you. Go ahead.

Yeah. I don't know what the script says. I move that the Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the Preliminary Development Plan Amendment for the Kaiser North redevelopment. This recommendation is based on the finding that the Preliminary Development Plan Amendment is supported by the criterion of the Westminster Municipal Code.

And do I have a second? Second. Okay, roll call on this motion.

Commissioner Tlumachek?

Yes.

Commissioner Dunn.

Yes.

Commissioner Kinnear.

Yes.

Commissioner Colling. Yes. Commissioner Morris. Yes. Commissioner Pegg.

Yes. This motion also passes unanimously. And so that concludes our business with respect to item 3B. Thank you very much, Mr. Spurgin, and thank you to the Kaiser Group for showing up in force and forcing our hand. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any old business? Seeing none, do we have any miscellaneous business for discussion?

I do. On the July 27 City Council meeting, there was a resolution put forward to adopt zoning interpretation regarding prohibition of data-centered land use. And if I understand the Planning Department's position on it, is that they felt that the resolution was not necessary because the interpretation of staff is that data centers within Westminster are already prohibited based on our UDC, or our existing land use capabilities. Could you run through that for us?

Yes. So the city code requires that the planning manager myself interpret the zoning ordinance, all of our land use regulations and our comprehensive plan. And I outlined this in a little bit more detail in that memo and I would love to share that with you because I'll go off of memory here. But essentially, as I noted in the memo and in the opinion, Land use regulation, zoning regulation, is permissive by nature. And what that means is in zoning you have a list of permitted uses. If your use is not on that list of permitted uses, it's not allowed, period. And we do not have data centers anywhere in our vocabulary. It's not defined in the zoning ordinance. And in fact, as I noted in the memo, the data centers that we're most concerned with and that we're seeing proliferate around the country are very large and very different from data centers that were originated 10 years ago, 15 years ago, or even older. And so I also noted that in the comprehensive plan, we have a specific language about each land use category from residential to commercial to industrial. Those focus on employment land uses, commercial land uses. There's no definition for data centers. There's no mention of data centers. and there's no contemplation of data centers as being an employment land use. When we talk about employment, we talk about people working in places and a data center is not that. There are computers running 24-7 with very few, if any, employees. And so, again, I explained it a little more detail in that memo and I would love to share it with you when it's convenient. Or I can email it to you if it's more convenient. I would probably read it to you if I had it here. But the resolution I do think was very important because the city council agrees with that opinion. That opinion was vetted through our city attorney's office and was agreed upon. And the resolution is City Council's way of affirming to our community that data centers are not an allowed use. So it tells the community and it tells potential developers that data centers are not something that the city would accept as a land use.

Okay. So the reason I asked for this is because there's already three data centers existing within the boundaries of Westminster.

We researched that. We found one business that called itself a data center, but it's no longer in business anymore. And it's actually, it was in church ranch corporate center and it was actually not a data center. by the definition that I included in the memo. It was approved as data processing about 15 years ago. And in the memo, I clarified that a data center is not data processing. Data processing is people working in offices processing data. Now, is there a potential that there's a data center out there that may not be permitted? I didn't find one. I only found the one. Okay. So I have a, oh, I'm sorry. Are you done? If there's one out there, it's not allowed. It's not permitted. Do you know three of them? I know three of them. Yeah. Yeah. So those are not allowed and we would need to investigate that for a land use violation if that's the case. Okay.

So this is probably a classical problem that happens a lot in more industrialized environments than in data center uses. I don't think anybody who wants to use an existing building ever looks at land use requirements. They look at the building space, the utility availability, and so on and so forth. And I'm not entirely sure building departments go look at the land use when they get a set of plans that come across their desk. So I suspect unless this becomes a more promoted position, you're going to end up with data centers in the jurisdiction, whether you want them or not.

I'll disagree with you on that and I'll talk about the process by which we become aware of new tenants and new land uses and existing buildings. So all businesses are required to get a business license. When that license is applied through our system, it's run through several city departments. The first one it comes to is our department. So we'll analyze the proposed land use, the proposed business. If it's unclear as to what they're doing, we ask questions and we get answers. So if they apply for a business license and they identify themselves as a data center, we would deny that license and we would not allow that use. I will caveat that with there are on occasion businesses that occupy spaces without getting permits or licenses, but usually it's the business license process that we become aware of new businesses. Occasionally we do become aware of new occupants just by random inspections. An inspector is in a building or nearby, they see a new tenant, they see something different and they go look at it. But most of the time it's the license.

Okay.

Do we, given the information out there about the demands for energy and water use for these types of data centers, I'll use that phrase types of data centers, would that be something that utilities would pick up on that we have a incredible spike in demand for water at this particular, or is that something that you're tied into?

Well I'm aware of it and so as a citizen I as most of us we that have yards we water our yards and so you're probably aware that the city uses these smart meters now and so I can log into my city account and I can see the days that I've watered because the the bar spikes up so the the city does have the ability to recognize spikes and changes in water usage. Well, I'm not but I'm being watched. I know that. Thank you for that. Any other miscellaneous business? Well, let me just add this if I might. You mentioned the UDC and I did clarify with the City Council because they are very concerned about the land use that where we don't define data centers in our current code and we don't recognize them or define them in the comp plan, we will propose amendments to those to clarify with more certainty and unambiguous language that this policy that the council has currently on a prohibition of data centers is carried over with more clarity in the UDC. And that's warranted for sure.

Okay, thank you. Any other miscellaneous business?

I would just like to thank Mr. Kinnear for stepping up to do this, and I thought you did an awesome job.

Thank you for putting me on the spot. I would like to request that we increase his pay. Double it? Can we give him a 30% pay bonus? No, only 15.

Okay, if we have no more business, we are adjourned.

Nice.