Westminster planning staff outline Unified Development Code changes to speed review, preserve negotiation tools

City of Westminster planning staff and consultants presented a proposed framework for a new Unified Development Code (UDC) and related procedural changes at the June 8, 2025, Westminster Planning Commission meeting, emphasizing preserved negotiation tools, added administrative adjustments and clearer pathways for redevelopment and infill projects.

The presentation, led by Andrew Spurgeon with consultant Elizabeth Garvin (Clarion) and City planners John McConnell (Planning Manager) and Jacob Casa (Principal Planner), described a multi-layered approach: keep negotiated outcomes available while creating clearer “bumpers” for administrative adjustments (about 20% of measurable standards), a project-specific sliding-scale adjustment for redevelopment tied to building permit valuation, and an alternative-compliance route for site-unique proposals. “You always have to start with the comp plan,” Spurgeon said, noting Westminster’s comprehensive plan is mandatory and only changeable by city council.

Why it matters: Westminster is largely built out and increasingly handling infill, redevelopment and adaptive reuse rather than greenfield development. Staff told commissioners that clearer, predictable processes could reduce delay for small and mid-sized projects while preserving staff and commission discretion for more consequential proposals. The changes are intended both to give applicants a clearer baseline and to keep the negotiated tools that staff and consultants say have delivered context-sensitive outcomes.

Most of the presentation focused on how the city proposes to balance certainty and flexibility. The draft elements described include: expanded use of administrative adjustments (limited, typically up to about 20% of measurable standards); a project-specific adjustment process measured in part by building permit valuation change (a sliding scale where, for example, a 50% valuation increase would be reviewed against an equivalent level of standards change); alternative compliance that allows applicants to demonstrate they meet the code’s intent with an atypical design; a Substantial Conformance Improvement Plan (SCIP) for incremental improvements to nonconforming sites; and retention of Planned Unit Development (PUD) as a tool but linked more explicitly to base zoning districts in the new UDC.

Staff illustrated those approaches with recent local examples. John McConnell described a small infill pad building in the Shops at Walnut Creek, saying negotiation with the applicant resulted in moving a building closer to sidewalks and connecting it to the Big Dry Creek trail to reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflicts around the drive-through. He also described a larger multifamily senior-affordable project near Church Ranch and Wadsworth where staff worked to pull 4-story buildings away from a historic peg barn and silo, add pedestrian connections and reduce surface parking through structured parking — changes the city said improved preservation and connectivity while meeting housing goals. “We feel like we add value to the process,” McConnell said.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about how the draft standards and procedures would be applied. Vice Chair Carpenter and Commissioner Pegg pressed for clarity on alternative compliance, noting the city had added a similar mechanism to its sign code and that interpretation can be narrow in practice. Pegg asked whether the sign-code example was “being interpreted in a very limited fashion,” and urged precise wording so applicants and staff share expectations.

Several commissioners raised timeline concerns. Commissioner Tomaczek and others said multi-stage reviews and negotiations can extend project timelines; one commissioner noted projects that take years before public hearings. Staff acknowledged the timelines can be longer for city council-level reviews and for applicants juggling financing deadlines such as Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) timelines. Spurgeon and staff said the draft code aims to reduce unnecessary escalations by providing clearer administrative pathways but that some projects — especially complex infill — will still require more time.

Other operational topics discussed included the city’s move to electronic plan review (already implemented), a push to eliminate paper mylars for plat recording (staff said electronic plats are already in use and the city expects to be fully digital by year-end), and enforcement concerns such as unapproved painting of masonry facades. McConnell reiterated masonry requirements and said unauthorized alterations have been treated as code-enforcement matters in some cases.

On appeals and escalation: staff said applicants can appeal administrative denials to the planning commission or city council under current provisions; staff also noted existing but imperfect code language that the UDC rewrite will clarify — who can appeal, where, and how appeals are processed. Commissioners discussed the trade-offs of giving staff more administrative authority while reserving escalation where a project has broader public interest; staff said the city manager and planning commission currently have mechanisms to refer administrative approvals upward when appropriate.

Next steps: presenters said they plan to provide commissioners a draft UDC/ code text in late August (presenters noted an internal timeline to “unroll a draft code” around Aug. 26 and commissioners discussed an August 12 meeting date), followed by additional briefings and an eventual public review period. No formal actions or votes on code language occurred at the meeting.

The presentation and discussion centered on preserving the city’s negotiated-review strengths while providing clearer administrative routes and more predictable baselines. Commissioners asked staff to clarify thresholds (for example, the maximum number of separate administrative adjustments allowed on a single project), tighten alternative-compliance language to avoid narrow interpretation, and ensure timeline expectations are realistic for applicants and the public.

The Planning Commission set its next meeting for Aug. 12; presenters said they expect to roll out code draft materials for initial review later in August and to return for further consideration after commissioners and staff have had time to examine the draft.