Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to 28 2025 p.m. [music] Our screen is Heat. Heat.

I don't It's

[music] or torture.

Cool. a few slides on the musical instrument. Remember looking around thinking, is that door locked? That's why I was I was just thinking [music] Hello everyone and welcome to the October 28th, 2025 meeting of the city of Westminster Planning Commission. I'm calling this meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. If you wish to speak tonight and have not done so already, there's a signup sheet in the back of the room and your name will be called in the order in which the sheet was signed. Um, can we get a roll call, please? Commissioner Peg here. Commissioner Conir here. Commissioner Jeang

excused. Commissioner Mayo here. Commissioner Carpenter here. Chair Bosch here. Commissioner Calling here. Commissioner Dunn excused. Commissioner Tomichek excused. So we have a quorum tonight and both alter alternates will be voting. We need to go ahead and approve the meeting minutes. Can we do both meetings approval with one motion? Uh, yes, you may. As long as there are no changes to the minutes, that's fine.

All right. Can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes for September 9th and September 23rd? Vice Chair Carpenter. Uh I move that we approve the minutes from uh September 9th and September 23rd meetings of planning commission and second. I second. Thank you Commissioner Peg. Do we No, we just do this on a voice vote. So all in favor please say I. I. I. I.

All oppose please say nay. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So, at this time, I would like to open the public hearing. We have one item on tonight's agenda. That's item 3A, public hearing and recommendation for a remand of an official development plan for Upland's filing, block 2, PA2. I hereby open the public hearing and uh I believe tonight's presentation is Mr. Kaza. And you're welcome to start. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jacob Kaza, principal planner with the city's planning division. As a part of bringing this remanded 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, the public notices published in the Westminster window, the mailed notices, and the posted notices are hereby entered into the public record at this time. The notices of the public hearing were mailed to 2,293 property owners and tenants within 1,000 ft of the parcel under consideration tonight. Seven public notification signs were posted on the subject property. The city has also posted the hearing date and time on its website. Here's a map of block two filing number two of the Upland's development. The project site is located on the southwest corner of LOL Boulevard and Bradburn Drive. This site plan is from sheet 30 of the ODP as it was originally submitted. The plan includes 26 custom single family home lots. On August 11th, 2025, city council considered the ODP at a public hearing. City council remanded the ODP back to the planning commission to address five

concerns that they identified. The five concerns were one, evaluate a potential redesign of access points, potentially adding a second access on Bradburn Drive. Two, provide clarity on maintenance and access of the gate. Engage the neighborhood to determine if closing the gate and restricting access to emergency vehicles would alleviate their concerns on cut through traffic. Three, ensure access to West 82nd Avenue from this development is for emergency vehicles only. Four, evaluate the height allowed on lot 13 to reduce the impact on the view corridor. And five, address the guest parking deficiency. The applicant has prepared two different options to address the concerns. The first option would change the notes regarding the gate and limit access specifically to emergency vehicles only as shown in attachment 9. The second option would sever the alley connection to West 82nd Avenue and utilize city property for a compliant firet truck turnaround as shown in attachment 10. Staff have reviewed both options for feasibility but have not conducted a technical review. The first option does not address staff's concern about the alley connection. The second option does generally address staff's concern around the alley connection. The applicant does not want to reduce the unit count and without reducing the unit count, there are no other viable options for access on the site. In either option, the applicant proposes to reduce the height allowance for lot 13 and can provide two or more additional guest parking spaces adjacent to the alley. If city council were to approve the proposed ODP with either option, staff recommends that the ODP be sent back to technical review to include the changes in the development plan. If city [snorts] council were to approve option two, staff would recommend that city council authorize the city manager to

sell that portion of city property back to the developer at current fair market value as city policies generally do not allow the use of city property for private development. Section 11515 of the Westminster Municipal Code contains 17 criteria that are to be considered when reviewing official development plans. Overall, neither [clears throat] option prepared by the applicant to address the remand from city council sufficiently addresses all the concerns identified by staff. Staff finds that the official development plan does not meet these criteria as outlined in detail in the agenda memo. Staff recommends that you hold a public re a public hearing and recommend that city council deny the ODP. Staff finds that a recommendation of denial of the application would meet the city's strategic plan priorities, access to opportunity, and resilient infrastructure as the development proposal lacks diverse housing choices and includes inefficient provision of public infrastructure. And the applicant is with us tonight and has a presentation to share with you as well. and thank you for your attention. And we have uh several staff members with us this evening who can help answer questions.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners, Mr. Chair. Thanks very much for this opportunity. My name is Marcus Pchner. I will be I'm a land use and community outreach consultant. I'll be presenting on behalf of our team tonight along with Kaylee who will walk through some of the plan changes. Um, as Jacob mentioned, we are here of course tonight to talk about B2. I do just want to say and we'll probably do this a little differently than normal. Um, just to give a brief history of kind of how we got back to where we are today. So, we actually did concept review on this site with this underlying plan back in December of 2023. We then brought this plan, plan A. You'll hear plan A and plan B, but we brought this plan that's on the screen, plan A, to you in June of this year. You voted 4 to one to recommend approval. I want to note and I fully appreciate that staff is being consistent with their feedback and recommendation. At that hearing, they also recommended denial. Nothing has changed from that. That's consistent from staff viewpoint, but planning commission voted 4 to one to recommend approval. We took the said underlying plan, plan A, to city council on August 11th. And as Jacob very accurately noted on a five to one vote, they said there are five specific things that we want you to go discuss. We want you to go discuss them with the neighborhood and to take it remand it back to planning commission planning commission so you can address those items and share how that discussion has gone with the neighborhood. That is how we got here. So, we are fully consistent that we know planning staff has recommended denial previously and tonight. Again, we would argue that we meet all approval criteria, but we are only focusing our presentation tonight on those five remand criteria and so not going through all of the background of the site. Um,

this these are the five items that were mentioned that were specific for the remand issues that city council asked us to address. They're in a little bit of different order uh than was uh articulated by staff only because it makes sense kind of logically to go through them this way in the way we show the evolution of plan A, the underlying ODP plan and then a very good plan B revision that really has been something that we've worked very collaboratively with with staff and the neighborhood to bring forward plan B. So these five items again the gate closure or the maintenance access note a modification of the plan A. So there is no application of that to plan B to work with the view corridor specifically on lock 13. That will affect both plans. Uh on the third one is the evaluate right-of-way connections and access points. Again that doesn't apply to plan A because it's the same plan. But plan B, this is the very significant change and directly made at the suggestion of the neighborhood. Actually, in testimony in front of you, a neighborhood up uh a neighbor stood here with an alternative plan. It's basically a variation of that plan that we're bringing forward. Finally, we're going to summarize the neighborhood outreach and then also the guest parking. I will note on the guest parking, we never really got to that issue. We never talked about parking or guest parking. So, in some ways, we're almost just focusing on that issue for the first time. Um, Kayleie is going to walk further through three and then I'll come [clears throat] back and address the last two.

Good evening, chair, vice chair, and commissioners. Kaylee Gillespie with Norris Design. Thank you so much for your time this evening. And Marcus, thank you for providing the broader context and outlining how we got to this point through the remand process. I'd like to take a few m few minutes to focus on the specific details of the remand from city council and walk through which plan and the changes that it applies to. The first item applies to plan A only. Plan A represents the current official development plan under review shown here on the screen. It is the same plan that we presented back to you in June of this year. City Council and the neighboring community have requested removal of HOA access vehicles and that this connection be limited to emergency access vehicles only. In addition, they have requested that the gate remain in the locked position at all times. The note on plan A has been revised to um reflect these changes. Access will be limited to emergency vehicles only and HOA will will be responsible for maintenance and gate will be remain will remain in the locked position for emergency use only. Item number two, city council requested consideration of the height limitation for the home located on lot 13 that is outlined in red on the screen in the northeast corner of the B2 neighborhood. This change impacts both plan A and plan B. For both plans, lot 13 will be restricted to a ranch with a walkout basement. The view corridor from Lel Boulevard was dedicated to the city to preserve and showcase the mountain views. The following images were taken from the

high point along L Boulevard illustrating how the view corridor functions. Both images show the home on lot 13 which is located within the B2 neighborhood and sits outside of the designated view corridor which terminates at the property line. In the image on the left, lot 13 is outlined in blue, consistent um with its presentation at the prior planning commission and city council meeting. The image on the right reflects the revised design for lot 13 as outlined in blue, which limits the future home to a singlestory ranch with a walkout basement. This revision to both plan A and plan B broadens and enhances the preserved mountain views beyond the required view corridor. Finally, here's a look down Bradburn looking west showing lot 13 with the red arrow above the home. The image on the left shows um the the prior version that we brought forward while the image on the right shows the height limitation on lot 13. This adjustment affects both plan A and plan B. Item number three provides a comparison of plan A, which is shown on the left, and plan B on the right. Plan A, as discussed earlier, provides modifications that have been made to restrict access along the lower pink line to the emergency access vehicles only. At the entry uh point, signage will be provided indicating no semis. And within the orange circle area, a turnaround is provided to serve dayto-day delivery and trash trucks, while the yellow denotes the residential uh resident and emergency routes.

Plan B is the alternative and preferred plan shown on the right. This is the first time you are seeing plan B, which we worked very closely with staff and neighbors on for this revised plan. Access to West 82nd Avenue has been fully removed as indicated by the red X and the area in yellow denotes the routes for residential and emergency traffic. A larger turnaround is proposed shown within the orange circle to better serve the emergency vehicles and meets all city fire aerial apparatus standards. And lastly, lot 25 has been relocated and highlighted by the pink outline. This home will front off of Oyola. With that, I'm going to pass this back to Marcus.

So folks, again, just a few slides on this. This is the first time you're seeing the revision of plan B, [snorts] but this was the idea to go work with the neighbors on working on a solution. So, the fourth item we were addressed or asked to address was to do additional neighborhood outreach to go talk with them about these changes and get their feedback. So, we actually had an informal meeting with them right on the culde-sac of 82nd. We all met there on site so we could see at grade if you will the connection and really understand it from a plan view. So we met there at at the gentleman's house, the family's house and were able to discuss it. Um we then had formal meetings on 107 and 10:22. that interim time between that we were working with the city to be sure that we could reach technical compliance in the future um from them and we got at least the sign off that that is possible on alternative B. So that's why we had that. So again we had a full neighborhood meeting on 107 and then a virtual meeting on 10:22. Every neighbor in attendance supported option B and was supportive of moving that option forward. understanding to all of you. Plan A is still there because it is the underlying ODP and it keeps our application moving. Right? So that is the reason but those are the three neighborhood meetings that we have had to discuss this since we went to city council. The guest parking issue again I'll just note I just want to show how we meet the parking overall. The parking requirement just to re uh kind of show for the first time we meet it on plan A or B in exactly the same way. uh we are required to have 104 and we are require and we are providing 104 off streetet that is two per garage and two per driveway in addition to that we have uh 17 spots on Oola and two additional

on Newton Court which I'll talk about. So folks we're at 4.73 parking spaces per unit. This is it has very ample parking. What then came up is the second part, that revision that you see that council said, where is the guest parking in case people really figure out that there's a terrific park in the back of this site and is there any guest parking or public parking for that site? So, as you see there on that star, we're denoting that we can add two plus parking spots there. We actually probably show five or six parking spots there. um we're denoting that we'll go with staff if we're able to move forward and determine that final number, but there is the opportunity to add guest parking available right by the park to really provide that opportunity. So again, a very ample parking for A or B scenario, but this allows us also to add guest parking for the site. Um this is that summary again, that chart we wanted to show. Uh we believe we are fully compliant with the request from council. Hey, there's five issues. We want you to address the five issues and go through that. We're showing how they have that effect. We do want to and we would offer this with our wholehearted support and I think the neighbors will do the same. We said that we would advocate for plan B. Um that is a revision. It removes all of the doubt that there will be no connection to West 82nd Avenue. at city council. In fairness to this planning commission, there was probably double or triple the number of uh speakers and they really focused probably 90% of them focused on this issue of a connection to 82. This just removes that possibility. It doesn't make it emergency access only. It doesn't have a gate. There is just no connection. Um again, for all of those reasons, we really believe that the city and the neighborhood and our team have all worked together to try to find a solution to that. uh we fully acknowledge we believe we are compliant with the underlying uh approval criteria

and in support and working with the community uh we would ask that you support or recommend approval uh for a preferred plan B and again we didn't go through the underlying presentation because we've done that before you all previously but we're happy to answer any questions that you have and we'd certainly ask for your support thank you very much

thank you I have a Question for staff. Are we in our motion tonight? Can we um insist that we only consider plan B or is this hearing considering only plan A? Chairperson. So you you as the planning commission can make any recommendation to city council. You can recommend option or plan A, plan B. Um, you can come up with alternative options. You can recommend an aisle. It's it's totally up to the planning commission.

Okay. We would need a motion to reflect which plan we are.

Yes. I think as part of your motion, if you if you're recommending um uh uh if you're recommending the city council approve it, I would I would um note that you recommend they approve it with a specific plan to change the the um to address the remand issue. Um and then if you um in in the memo there's alternatives that the city that that the planning commission can make u which include uh conditions of sending the ODP back to a technical review to include all these items. Um and then for city council they have this further consideration is a a motion for the city manager to sell the property back to the developer for plan B.

Okay. So, we would need two motions if we No, you would only need one motion. City council would need two separate motions. Oh, okay. I see. Okay. Thank you. That's good clarification. I wanted all commissioners to know what was available tonight. So, okay. Um I'd like to ask the U associate planner, did we have any electronic email or Oh, we've got a question over here. I'm sorry. Uh yeah, we do have a question. Um Commissioner Peg,

in the memo and the uh uh packet for tonight, uh we have reference to option one and option two, but in the applicant's presentation, we have um reference to plan A and plan B. Could we get some clarity on which those are? Sure. Yes. Option one is plan A and option two is plan B. I I thought we coordinated on it, but that's okay. [laughter] Good question. Anything more, Commissioner? Sorry, that's all from me. Commissioner Conir,

thank you. I have a question for Deputy City Attorney Graham on [clears throat] a remand from city council. Are we to consider the application as a whole as amended or proposed to be amended? Or are we to consider just the five concerns that city council expressed uh uh in their meeting to be remanded for? Uh thank you, Commissioner Caner. Uh it's kind of both. Uh primarily, however, the city council remanded to the planning commission to address the five issues that they identified. So that should be your main focus.

Thank you. And that actually brings up another question. Where does staff stand on plan B?

So plan B does address the concerns for the alley connection, the cut through um traffic is kind of as we saw or the hope hopefully with plan B with enough signage of no outlet, no semis and such, we shouldn't see issues of like semi-truckss or um large delivery trucks getting stuck up there. The oversized or the firet truck turnaround is larger than the previous one we had. The previous turnaround in the original submitt was designed for a 30ft box truck. So this one is um designed for our largest fire truck we have and should accommodate even larger ones to turn around. Um so from a cutthrough perspective for the Observatory Heights neighborhood, we don't find we find plan B is the best option to solve that. Plan A with just putting in the notes and restricting it still has the possibility that the gate falls apart, the gate breaks down, the gate never gets replaced, the gate never gets maintained or somehow somebody just breaks it open and starts utilizing it either way and it just becomes an enforcement issue for the future. So plan B is the better option to address the cut through traffic issue. um either option as the city staff sees it doesn't address the other one other concerns that staff had with the original application and so we left all that information in the packet and just specifically highlighted the remand um for our analysis.

Okay, thank you. All right, chair person I should address the other two items because it was more than just the cut through. The other ones they had was uh reach out to the neighborhood. They did do that. Um we we've confirmed they have done that. the guest parking. They're ready to provide um options for guest parking. I think that's something we'll we're looking for input on from both the planning commission, the city council, and the neighborhood on the guest parking amount. But either either way, we can work with the applicant on that. And the height limitation, they're prepared to um modify the requirement on the height limitation with either plan. So, okay. Thank you.

So, no further questions. Um, associate planner Ben, did we get any electronic email or voicemails? There was a there was a packet addendum sent to you all this afternoon with I believe a letter. Uh, no voicemails. Okay. So, uh, in that case, I would like to open the public testimony portion of the hearing. If you have signed up, your name will be called in order of the sign up. If you wish to speak and were not able to sign up, uh, is there still a sheet back there? Okay, you can still sign up at this time. Five minutes or is it three minutes now that each speaker is allowed? Five.

Five minutes. Okay. Uh please keep your comments um only on this item and uh if someone else has spoken and expressed your views uh you can just say that the previous speaker uh gave your point of view and um you would not have to speak your entire piece then. [snorts] Okay, let's go ahead and open the public testimony. The first speaker is Edward Rosalik. I'm so sorry. Thank you. [clears throat]

Excuse me. Good evening, counselor or uh commissioners. My name is Ed Brazlowick. I live at 3870 West 82nd Avenue. And I am actually here to speak on behalf of most of my neighbors. uh we all kind of had an agreement and this is what we decided. Um we wish to express our strong support for option B of the proposed uplinks B2 development as homeowners living directly adjacent to the proposed access point. We have been closely following this process and we want to thank the city councilors for remanding the plan back to the planning commission to allow for additional discussion around access and neighborhood impacts. That decision gave residents like us an important opportunity to be heard and to collaborate with the developer on a more thoughtful solution. The original plan presented at the city council hearing raised significant concerns for us and our neighbors. Under that layout, a new connection would have routed substantial vehicle traffic directly in front of our homes, introducing safety risks, noise, congestion that would have drastically changed the character of our streets. Many of us worried that this would create a new cutthrough route rather than maintaining the quiet residential nature of our neighborhood. Since then the developer has come back with two alternatives of O of these option 2B option B excuse me clear clearly represents the best and most balanced solution. It eliminates the through connection, replaces it with a proper hammerhead turnaround for service and emergency vehicles, and it adds additional parking near the pocket park, improving functionality without

addressing unnecessary traffic without adding unnecessary traffic, excuse me. Option B effectively addresses the community's concerned about safety, access, and livability while still supporting the broader goals of their development. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the planning commission to approve option B and the necessary land purchase to implement uh the option. This approach demonstrates responsiveness to the community feedback and ensures that neighborhood safety and character remain protected. And I want to thank you again for your attention and for your willingness to revisit this issue to find a better outcome for everyone involved. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the list is Linda Greybel.

And the last speaker signed up is Chris Durham. if you'd like to queue up in the front. Hello, commission. I'm Linda Graio. I do not live in the area around there. I live in the Trendwood District over off of uh 92nd in Pierce. However, I taught up at that school up on the hill for 20 years. I'm the president of the historical society. So, I have a vested interest. Here's the deal. when I know there's going to be a beautiful sunset, this is the place I come to be. And it's because of the unobstructed view I come there. And I see that the uh Uplands is addressing that issue by reducing the height of lot 13. I notice in slide six that there's a house just to the southwest of that that seems to be pretty tall, too. I don't know where that is on the plan, but um I you know have a question about that. I It doesn't say what the lots are. Um but the thing that I notice it's I want to break into song to dream the impossible dream. I want everybody to have what they want and what Uplands wants. And they've they they're really doing a thorough job and I support them wholeheartedly because I love their philosophy. It's an impossible dream because you're working with a property that happens to be very tough in a topological area to work with, but it happens to have the best view of all the properties that they're working with. So, I understand that and I appreciate their efforts of consistently redoing redoing redoing the plans. Uh I just want to I I think in a historical view the uh Arapjo used to have a semi-permanent encampment there uh in that area and they enjoyed unlimited views and then the first settlers that came enjoyed unlimited views. Well that

was then this is now but I'm thinking of the future and whatever you do today is recommendation or future. what we do in the present informs the future. And so I'm just I thank Lans very much for uh hearing that the view is important. Uh I don't know if anybody can tell me of a better view in the whole Westminster that's unobstructed because I've got some pictures unedited of you just look straight ahead. All you see is the grassy field and you see the foothills, you see the mountains and you see the sky and the clouds. and I've got goosebumps going up and down my legs right now because it takes your breath away. So, I'm just wanting to preserve that for future people. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you. I'm very appreciative of this time. Um, what I'm wanting to speak with you about Before you start, can you give us your address, name and address, please? I'm at 8171 L Place Court. Okay. [snorts]

Um when Marcus had come to uh speak to the community about this new option uh plan B, which I support as well, uh he did also talk about additional guest parking being on Bradburn. That's what I want to talk to you about. As it is now where the curbs are, Bradburn is not wide enough to accommodate both parking, parked cars and free flow of traffic. Three times I have had to when there's been like some cars parked along there probably dealing with the construction and another car is approaching this way. I've had to stop because I could and allow that car to pass. So I was not able to continue with free flow driving with some parked cars and then if the way that was proposed to us is that there'll be parking on both sides. Okay, then that's going to lead to traffic not being able to go either way. And then it gives me concern about snow and ice. Of course, um, one of the things I'd like to additionally point out is that all the streets and the surrounding neighborhoods, I'll say like the three surrounding neighborhoods are wide enough to accommodate both parked cars on both sides and free flow of traffic, but the where the curbs are set now, that does not allow it. So, when the conversation gets to about additional parking on the street, I really encourage you to take a look at this because it's just going to be packed cars. We can't drive and park the way it is now. Thank you.

Thank you. That was the last speaker on the list.

Okay. Is there anyone who did not get a chance to sign up who would like to speak? Seeing none, I will close the public testimony portion of the hearing and uh entertain questions from commissioners or comments. Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh just a couple of questions. U number one this in plan B we have this proposed turnaround that's going to require uh the city selling land back to um the developer in order to build this turnaround. What happens if city council denies that land sale or that land [clears throat] sale can't uh come through? What's the what what happens? So, the selling it is one option. The city could also decide to sell an easement rather than selling the property itself. Um, I suppose city council could um I probably have to consult with our attorneys, but allow for the turnaround to be built on city property. Um, it would um it would stay with the city, but I guess that's the reason why we don't allow it is because we for one, it's city property that belongs to the public and anything that occurs on public property needs to have a public purpose. Um, so this obviously is to develop this property. This is not necessarily a public purpose. Um, and uh, I think they would have the option of possibly considering just allowing it on city property without that. Um, the other option is city council could tell them this is not an acceptable plan and you need to figure out something else. So, and and this property that's going to be sold is part was part of the PLLD for public land dedication for for the uplands parcels. Is that so? this was part of their land and then they they already dedicated it to the city. Is that

correct? They've already dedicated to the city a few years back um as part of city council's um uh approval conditions. They they required that the uplands developer dedicate all of the public land dedication at the time of the first plat of any parcel of land. Okay. All right. Thank you on that one. And then uh had a question uh there was a comment uh raised about the parking and the street width uh has and would like just some feedback on that.

Sure. So um Bradburn Drive is actually not a part of the application for Upland's B2. It was considered as part of Upland's B1.

Um so I just pulled up that uh ODP on my on my screen here. It is a a an 80 foot ride ofway section. Um 11 foot tree lawns, 8 foot sidewalks, and then the pavement section is 30 ft of pavement uh with 2 and 1/2 ft of curb and gutter. The the way the lanes work is there are 10ft travel lanes with sherrows and then a 7ft parking including the gutter. And so it's it's a modified um minor collectors I believe what we would call it. But of course, we're welcome to have our assistant city engineer come up and speak more about it if you'd like. Okay. Did you have a comment on that as well?

I just wanted to be sure and show the slide, commissioner, and that does show uh the Bradburn parking. I didn't mention that. It shows in the plan that's already built from B1. It shows 49 parking spaces there on the south side. Yes, also on the north side there's parking. So, everything Jacob said is of course accurate, but just showing that in plan view. We didn't count those 49 units in that 4.73 spaces. So that's outside of that street parking. So that those are additional spaces to the ones you're adding in internal to the to uh this application. Yes, that is correct.

Okay. Thank you on that. And then there is uh uh Miss Graial uh brought up the u that view with the other lot that's high. I can't it's it's hard for me to tell what lot that is, but there was a question about that. So, if you can address um she very kindly mentioned the southwest lot. I think that would be lot 12. Um the lot immediately to the west of that. Um it is you can see it in either image there. It's the one just to the left of the home that we're restricting. Um, I think the challenge for us as you move to the west on that and I think we thought of it almost like a protractor angle, right? If you look at the angle in that image on the right that shows that protected view corridor, we are effectively expanding the angle of that view, right? And so the first home it hits is 13. So we're opening it up there. She's fairly saying, could you go further on that? the problem starts to become on those as you move west lots, you start to see the B1 homes. So, it doesn't have that same impact. There is no doubt that lot 13 does, but as you can see on that angle, you start to now pick up the homes across the street and you could see that even more on this. You start to see that same image. So, it just doesn't I hate to say it that way, it doesn't have the same impact as it does to restricting that. These are also they're unique lots to start with and getting a ranch style in a kind of a longer lot is a challenge for sure.

Okay, great. All right, I think those are all my questions for now. Thank you. I have a quick question for staff. Is that I think you called it a medium collector street Bradurn Drive. A minor collector. Minor collector. Is are they designed to have parking on both sides and uh traffic in both directions? I will kindly ask that our assistant city engineer. Okay, they come and address your question.

Good evening commission. Heath Klein, assistant city engineer. Yes, the minor collector crosssection does just [clears throat] as Mr. causes stated has 30 ft of asphalt and then we have 2 feet of gutter pan on either side. That does allow for us to have because that's 34 ft of a total cross-section. So parking up against the curb and a 7 foot parking where the car is still leaves that 20 ft in the center of the road for uh 10 ft lanes to pass. And that meets our uh code for the fire and emergency access as well.

Okay. So um traffic should not be obstructed. Traffic would not be obstructed. It does feel uncomfortable when you are driving when there is parking on the site. So that also helps to keep the speeds down because you're not you don't feel like you can just race because everything is so wide open. So it is also a form of traffic calming. Okay. Do you know offhand what the speed limit is on that stretch? Believe it is 30. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Commissioner Conir.

Yeah. On the public land dedication issue, if the city were to sell back uh the property, would there be a concern about the amount or ratio of public land dedication for the project? Uh no. Uh we wouldn't. I think we'd clarify that with city council. Um the overall there was a requirement for how much they had to dedicate a physical land. This is this would be about 3500 square ft that they would need for that. Um if city council wish they could also direct all of that revenue fund into the CIP account that we are reserving for development of the Uplands PLLD parcels. Thank you.

Commissioner Mayo. Yeah, I have a question on the on the turnaround. Um, coming down Newton Court, the private drive, where's the turnaround planned to be? I'm looking at page 40 of the packet.

Commissioner, I believe there's one closer here. I'm going to look real quick and I'm going to turn to our engineer. Okay. because those circular arrows were so big I couldn't. Was that it? Eric, if you can come address this. We'll have him address it. But sir, I think this shows that uh turn around and you can see the radius there as well. Okay. So, that's a little better than the one I was looking at. So, that private drive is going to stop there. It's not going to go all the way down to lot 26. That's correct.

Okay. So, that's different than the one I'm looking at in the packet. Um, I know we talked about the parking in the past, but you know, counting two spaces in the garage is kind of a stretch. You know, you probably won't find in that whole development a unit that has two open spaces in the garage.

Yeah, I I guess I would say that I mean, we try to work really hard. Those are these are semicustom and custom homes and these these will be the most expensive. So I think we'll have you know all they'll be wellsized garages. So we certainly think they would have that but sir not taking numbers with that they would also have the driveway space for two additional callers. So on each home they would have four parking spots. So we think uh that and then seeing of course those on Oola and the guest parking. And I know that's for guest parking, but again, we're at 4.73 spaces compared to all Upland's units. That's a very high parking ratio with that same concern, right? That we would always have two spots to fit two spaces in the garage. So, we think this is ample, but that that's how we're proposing that.

Okay. Um, and there's no on street parking on Newton. it shows uh there is not and I guess sir just to reflect why that is where you see the little stars if you will on that map those are the driveways so there's just not an access there right there really no public street there and that's why you're seeing it only on the south side of Oola so there is no parking there other than the driveway spots but not on the roadway

I think though with your feedback I mean that again we are showing at least two plus on those guest parking spots there um that we can accommodate more than that. As you see, we wanted to draw that. We knew we'd work with staff if we're able to move forward. So, sir, that could be two to six, whatever that number is that we can fit in there. Okay. Thank you. Sure, Commissioner Calling. Thank you. Um I have two questions. Um the first one is how long is the cult before you start down the private drive? Before you start down Newton, how long is Oola? We're going to look at that right now.

Okay. I mean, I know there's a maximum length for fire departments um in Westminster. Um Jacob, do you happen to know what that is? What the the length that cultisex can be in Westminster? Um so, under our engineering code, I believe it's 500 ft maximum. So, the the city engineer has already approved a variance from our engineering standards to allow them to exceed the maximum cold. So, it's more than 500. Correct. So, the um Newton Street is a private drive. Correct. Newton is a private private drive or private alley. Who maintains that? The HOA uh for this development would maintain it.

Okay. Um I guess I want to understand a little bit more because there's a reason why you have um culde-sac links. It's a safety issue for fire, right? And that's why you have your second point of access with a gate so the fire department can gain access that second way. But how do people get out of here if there's a fire and that gate's not open? So, from a safety standpoint,

the fire code only requires two points of access once you go above a certain unit. It's either 100 or 200 units, so it's certainly not 26. Um, so the two points of access is not required by the fire code. Um, that was kind of one of the reasons why we were originally looking at the alley connection. Um, also the reason for the alley connection is as soon as you add that alley, you have to place a fire line in. You have to place hydrants up there so the fire trucks can serve the property from up on the alley. And then you have to loop the the water line through. So the water line comes along Newton and then we'll proceed to connect out by 82nd Avenue in the culde-sac. And we require all of our water lines to be covered by a hard surface, typically asphalt. Um so that's why the alley connection was there from the from the get-go.

Okay, that makes sense. Um so this is kind of an this is requiring us to um amend some of our st well accept variances from our standards, I would say. Okay, that helps. Thank you very much for that. Um on on the diagram that's shown here, B shows lot 25 access provided from Oola Way. Sure. Um [snorts] it's not that lot's not on option A. Is that an additional lot or how is that? Oh, no.

It's a very good question. We're effectively as you see if you see plan A there, there's a lot then kind of the mail kiosk and that gathering area and then another lot. So, it's the lot just to the right of that, if you will, uh, or to the southeast of that. So, we're flipping that. The reason for that is then it gets fronted. You'd access it from the front off of Oola Way, and we don't have to stretch the roadway that far to load that lot, right? So, that was purposeful really to your original question about the length of that roadway. It terminates that and it also gives that why there needs to be no connection over to 82nd. So that was specific effectively flipping that and engaging the street.

Thank you. That was a great explanation. I appreciate that. Um and Jacob, one more question for you on the um this remand from the city council. I'm just trying to understand it a little bit better. So this has been sent back to us, the planning commission from the city council um based on addressing five concerns. Is that correct? Correct. So we're not really looking at the whole application. We're looking at those five items. Is that what we're supposed to be focusing on? I I believe the direction from Deputy City Attorney Graham was that you were sort of both looking at at both the whole plan and the five items mainly focusing on the five items that city council has addressed as their concern.

So we are looking at the whole thing. That's why you you're recommending denial because that was I think that's was your recommendation on the correct that is still city staff's recommendation. I was trying to understand why you were recommending denial if they were addressing all five. So, it's because you're still re recommending denial based on previous concerns you had with this application. Correct. Although you didn't go into any of those details on your presentation tonight. Correct. I don't think it's necessary for us to relitigate the majority of the application. The previous planning or the previous planning commission hearing recommended approval of it. Um but I'm happy to go over all of them if you'd like to.

No, that's okay. I actually didn't attend that hearing, so that's why I was kind of wondering. Um and then back to the applicant. Um item number one, um [snorts] it says to evaluate the potential redesign of access points by adding a second access on Bradford Drive. [snorts] So that's really the one that you were not able to really address or you the one that you absolutely did not do. Is that correct? And that's because you would have to lose a lot in order to do that.

Uh per the engineering uh and the way we looked at it, we'd have to lose three to four lots at a minimum. Um and it's a very substantial change. Um, and we won't kind of go through all that. I think the uh that was the change is to do that. And to the point of the very good questions that everybody's asking about having to buy purchase uh public land back from the city, this is a remarkably constrained site. So you'd have to lose so many lots to make even a connection say back to Bradburn [snorts] or through PLLD to LOL. Think of the implications of that because this site is locked unless you lose substantial locks. Um, so that was the original presentation of that is simply not a buildable plan, right? And we have brought this plan forward with 26 lots. Actually did a comp plan change to bring this forward with 26 lots on three different occasions. So that kind of goes into that. But yes, the staff is absolutely right. We would have to change a substantial number of lots to do that.

It's a little steep, is it? It's very steep. It's remarkably steep. And um we even looked at uh uh planning commission the Oola the or excuse me Newton the alley. Could you bring it back down on a loop to Oola or to yeah to Oola and you can't even do that. It's just too steep. That grade change is so substantial. And you can tell that if you think of the height of those water uh storage tanks behind us, right? So and we can't lower it um or really make substantial walls behind the site as well. So it is a great and very challenging site. Great. Thank you for your answers. I appreciate it. I'm done. Thank you.

I have a quick question for the applicant. Um, you are going to be negotiating with the staff to increase the number of guest parking spots. Can you give us a commitment that you will try to maximize those guest parking spots when you are in u negotiations with staff? Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chair, we fully will acknowledge we'll put the max that we can that staff would support and the one thing you always hear on parking is how expensive it is. Sir, there's a roadway there and this is in front of a park. It's not as not as expensive as it normally would. So, I think it really can be accommodated. Yes, we will try to max out those.

Okay. Thank you. Any further comments or questions? Okay. Now, we need to get a motion here, and I suppose we need a kind of a straw poll. Um, I'd like to see a motion that includes mention of plan B and u I'm assuming that's something that majority of the commissioners can support. Do we have comments on that, Commissioner Peg?

Um, yeah. So, in the um in the memo, uh there is a a motion prepared for option two, which uh per testimony is the same as plan B. Um may I make a motion? Yes. What page are you on? Uh page two of the memo. Oh, okay. It's on the motion sheet.

Oh, it's on the other side. [laughter] Okay, very good. I move that the planning commission recommend city council approve the official development plan for Upland's filing number two block two with option two as proposed by the applicant and subject to the condition [laughter] that prior to uh uh recordation of the ODP and issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall submit for staff review and approval the ODP with the changes shown in option two. This recommendation is based on a finding that the official development plan is not supported by the criteria set forth in section 11-5-15 of the Westminster Municipal Code.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Chair Boser. Yes. Uh I believe and I I think Mr. Kaza was about to turn on his microphone as well. Um, Commissioner Peg read the motion and included the word not supported and I think is supported. You want to remove the not from that? Um, it is supported.

Okay. Can I get some clarity on the ODP? So sorry this recommendation blah blah blah the in that sentence the official development plan is is the revised official development plan that they will submit. Is that how I am to understand it? I'll turn this I think it might have just been a drafting error when we were writing the motions for you and we we copied it wrong. All right. Uh chair, may I uh restate that motion? Okay. We need to know can we modify a motion? Yes. It hasn't been seconded yet. So,

okay. Very good. Glad we had a delay there. So, Mr. Peg, if you'd like to redo your motion, that would be appreciated. I move that the planning commission recommend city council approve the official development plan for Upland's filing number two block two with option two as proposed by the applicant and subject to the condition that prior to recordation of the ODP and issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit for staff review and approval the ODP with the changes shown in option two. This recommendation is based on a finding that the official development plan is supported by the criteria set forth in section 11-5-15 of the Westminster Municipal Code. Thank you. Do we have a second?

I'll second that. Thank you, Vice Chair Carpenter. All right, this is a roll call vote, I believe. Commissioner Peg, yes. Commissioner Conir, yes. Commissioner Mayo, yes. Commissioner Carpenter, yes. Chair Bosch, yes. Commissioner Calling, yes.

The motion passes unanimously. So, we are sending this to the city council. They will hear this again if anyone is interested in attending that meeting. Uh just look on the website if you need to know when it will be before the council. Thank you staff for your presentation and thank you to the applicant. Do we have any old business? Do we have any new business? Okay. When is our next meeting? There is some miscellaneous business. Oh, okay. I should have said, what have we got?

Uh, Commissioner Mayo requested a discussion about uh upcoming reappoints and term limits. So, Commissioner Mayo.

Yeah. Um when they instituted the term limits eight years ago, many of us had been on the commission for a long time and we were concerned that if we all term limited out at the same time that could cause a disruption. And recently they, you know, have changed that. You know, maybe they re rethought that or maybe they didn't have enough people stepping up that wanted a role, but they've changed that to where we can go for four more two-year terms. So my question is just you know trying to get a feel for you know what each of us are thinking because I don't want to you know see all of the expertise leave at once but on the other hand I know we have two very capable alternates that are ready to step up. So, you know, if one or two people are leaving, then I would volunteer to be one of them. So, these so one of these two or both of the two could step up. But if five people are planning on leaving, then I would probably throw my hat in the ring and stay just so we don't lose, you know, all of that expertise and training all at once. I mean, I've been doing this now for 17 years, so I've got a lot of experience,

but on the other hand, I'm taking a spot that someone else, you know, may want to have their chance, too. So, I'm just trying to get a feel for which way we're going. I don't want to see everybody bail. If everybody's if a lot of people are going to bail, then I would put my hat in the ring to stay. But if not, a lot of people aren't going to bail, then I may volunteer to step aside and let our alternate step up. Um, I have given this a lot of thought and I'm still on the fence, but I'm thinking seriously about reapplying. So, I would like to stay if I can, but again, I haven't made a final decision. So

h how many people are how many people are term limiting? Do we know? Is that something staff or somebody can share with us? [snorts]

You don't you don't know. I can't help you. Is that Jennifer? Is that what you're doing? You and I are [laughter] Larry probably is the list that I have from That looks like October 8th. Oh, opened up a new window. I'm sorry. It looks like just Commissioner Calling. Oh, excuse me. There are three. They're just out of um order. Commissioner Calling, Commissioner Mayo, and Chair Bosert. So, it's only three. So, it's not going to be mass accident. Oh, okay. I thought there but three very important numbers. [laughter] I thought there was more than that. I thought Commissioner Dunn had been around a long time. I think he's in my class. So,

okay. All right. Thanks. Now I can sit back and They didn't ask you to fall on your sword, huh? Not yet. Okay. All right. Okay. Thanks for the opportunity to throw that out there. Yeah. You're welcome. Any other comments on that subject? I have one question. Are people are people knocking on the door begging for these jobs? Are there a lot of people that are lining up and want to do this? I honestly don't know. That is all managed by the city clerk's office. So I I don't have that information. Great. I've heard the planning commission is the one board that people do want to get on and a lot of the other boards are ones that are not getting as much interest. So were the cool kids. Exactly.

Well, that's just what I've heard, but I don't know that's true. It might be worth asking the city clerk's office about question specifically. My wife is on the environmental board and they cannot get enough members so they go wanting. So yeah, it looks like ping planning is the one. Commission, would you like me to get some information from the city clerk's office about are you looking for specific information for applications for the planning commission or boards and commissions in general? Sure. If you can get that kind of information, a little bit of both. Yeah. Okay, that would be great. Thank you.

Um, did anyone else will Oh, yes, Commissioner Caner. I guess again being the attorney I'm curious what what can one do about if you're term limited um I'm not sure what the process is can you reup yeah they they changed the rules that if you're term limited you can reup for basically eight more years but you have to get the council to approve that so

yes the the city council changed the rules such that If once you reach your term limit, you can reapply to be on the same board or commission. Um, but you reapply as any other applicant would, right? That said, if you have a lot of experience, you might have a leg up on some people who don't have any experience. Great. Okay. Any further discussion on this or any other matter? Okay, seeing none, I will adjourn this meeting at 8:03.

I would just ask you all to be mindful of the deadline that was in the email that was sent. If you're up for your appointment, there is a deadline in those emails for re to reapply. Was it last Friday?

I was just