Planning commission denies Sheridan Park fence appeal; staff cited incompatibility with office‑park standards

The Westminster Planning Commission on Wednesday denied an appeal by Charles "CJ" Margolis to approve an official development plan amendment (ODPA) that would have permitted a wooden, interior‑placed perimeter fence and storage box on a vacant parcel in the Sheridan Business Park.

Planning staff recommended denial, saying perimeter fences in this office park are uncommon and when fencing is approved as part of commercial development it typically uses commercial‑grade metal and is sited on the property perimeter. Trevor Harlow, senior planner, told the commission that the proposed fence failed to meet multiple criteria in section 11‑5‑15 of the Westminster Municipal Code related to compatibility with the preliminary development plan, sound site design and compatibility with surrounding development.

The applicant, Charles Margolis, argued the parcel had been used as an informal dumping site and that repeated trash, human and dog feces created a public‑health concern; he said previous thefts of lawn equipment and vandalism prompted his desire to secure a core portion of the lot. Margolis said he sought a four‑sided, locked wooden fence and a tool storage box to keep the property usable and to protect neighbors who use the site as an informal dog‑walking route. "The property was completely covered in 50 years or more of trash and also in dog excrement, human excrement, toilet paper," Margolis told the commission.

Staff and other property owners countered that the office parkcharacter and existing PDP require a different approach. John McConnell and other staff explained that the city had offered a compromise: staff would consider perimeter fencing for the entire lot if it used a commercial‑grade metal fence that matched the office‑park standards; the city denied the applicant's initial building permit for a fence on January 8, citing the need for an approved ODPA and compliance with development standards.

Planning staff traced the communications timeline: applicant contact with building and planning staff began in fall 2024, a fence permit application was received December 30, 2024 and denied January 8, 2025, and the applicant submitted an ODPA that staff found technically incomplete; staff and the applicant discussed alternatives over several months before staff issued a denial on June 18, 2025. The city allowed the applicant to appeal that administrative denial to the commission.

Commission discussion focused on the code standards and on consistency across the business park: staff showed photos of existing screening and noted that wooden screening in the business park is typically used for small, localized features (pet patios, utility screening) and not for perimeter security fencing. Some commissioners noted the neighborhood and smaller neighboring residential lots to the east and asked whether a fence could create unseen corridors; others suggested a temporary approval could be used while the applicant clean‑ups the property.

Legal counsel reminded the commission it must base any decision on the municipal code and that the commission could not approve an ODPA that violates the code. After discussion, the commission voted 4‑3 to deny the appeal. Commissioners Pegg, Kinnear, Mayo and one other voted to deny; Commissioners Zhang, Carpenter and Tomachek voted no, supporting the applicant's request or asking for additional flexibility. The commission instructed staff to notify the applicant about the right to appeal the decision to city council and to provide the timeline for that appeal.

The decision preserves the cityplanning divisioninterpretation that perimeter or security fencing on undeveloped commercial lots must follow the PDP/ODP standards for the office land use, which generally favors commercial‑grade metal screening and perimeter placement consistent with adjacent properties. Margolis said he would consider his right to appeal to council; staff said the applicant had the standard statutory appeal window to seek council review.