Council remands Uplands filing B‑2 ODP to planning commission after wide public opposition to new access and view impacts

Westminster city council on Aug. 11 remanded for further review the official development plan (ODP) for Uplands Filing B‑2, a proposed 26‑lot single‑family detached neighborhood on the southwest corner of Lowell Boulevard and Bradburn Drive. Staff had recommended denial, citing multiple exceptions to the city’s standards, site grading challenges and traffic concerns; planning commissioners had recommended approval 4–1. Council voted 5–1 to send the application back to the planning commission with specific direction.

Staff told council the ODP does not meet Section 11‑5‑15 of the Westminster Municipal Code and related preliminary development plan (PDP) conditions because it requests reductions to setbacks and landscape areas, proposes a private alley and an alley connection to West 80 Second Avenue, and relies on an atypical configuration to reach the proposed unit count. Principal planner Jacob Kaza said the proposal produces lot sizes and setbacks substantially smaller than the adjacent Gregory Hill neighborhood and creates potential traffic and utility impacts the plan does not adequately mitigate.

The applicant team—represented by Marcus Pockner and design staff from Norris Design—said the site’s steep topography and utility constraints make clustering the only feasible way to deliver the 26 units allowed under the PDP. The applicant presented an alternative showing the alley‑free option would require much deeper cuts and larger retaining walls that they said would be less desirable and could reduce unit count to single digits. The applicant emphasized ODP‑level design standards they said exceed the city’s single‑family design points and pointed to prior council approvals for the PDP and other Uplands neighborhoods as precedent.

More than 25 residents spoke during the public hearing, nearly all objecting to the ODP as drawn. Recurring concerns were the proposed gate and alley connection to the 80 Second Avenue cul‑de‑sac (Laplace Court). Neighbors described Laplace Court as a steep, blind hill that city council had closed to through traffic in 2023; they said reopening or providing a commonly accessible gate would reintroduce a hazardous cut‑through for construction trucks, delivery vehicles and motorists. Multiple speakers urged that any connection remain emergency‑only and electronically accessible to fire and other emergency responders. Fire Chief Eric Burke told council the department generally opposes locked gates for response‑time reasons but said a closed gate with electronic fire‑department activation is acceptable and typical if configured to provide reliable emergency access.

Speakers also pressed the developer and staff to preserve the city’s dedicated view corridor near Lowell Boulevard and to protect burrowing‑owl habitat and other open‑space resources. Several residents presented an alternative plan that shifts circulation and mail kiosk locations; staff said the alternative had merits but that parts of it exceeded acceptable roadway grades.

Council discussion centered on two themes: (1) clarify and lock down the access arrangement so that Laplace Court does not become a public cut‑through (several council members asked for HOA and ODP notes that would prevent the gate from being used as a public connection), and (2) return to planning commission (and engage the applicant and community) to test alternatives for access, parking and lot configuration and to further explore design changes on the uphill lots to better protect the view corridor. Council asked the planning commission specifically to review whether the 80 Second Avenue access can be limited to emergency use only and to evaluate redesign options that could eliminate or reduce reliance on a private alley, plus to propose parking solutions and consider adjustments to the highest lots to lessen view impacts.

After a motion to remand and specific instructions, council voted 5–1 to send the ODP back to planning commission for revisions and re‑consideration. One councilor voted against the remand, citing persistent concerns about the plan’s conformance with the code.

The remand keeps the application alive but requires the applicant to work with staff, planning commission and neighbors on access controls, gate management language and design changes before returning to council for final action.

Ending: Council closed the public hearing and directed staff and the applicant to return the revised submission to planning commission with the requested analyses and recommended conditions.