Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westminster tables Uplands development hearing after notice, signage concerns
Summary
Westminster City Council voted 7-0 Feb. 24 to table the public hearing on the Uplands Filing 1, Block 3 official development plan after residents and city attorneys said the project had not been properly noticed.
Westminster City Council voted 7-0 on Feb. 24 to table the public hearing and consideration of an official development plan for Uplands Filing 1, Block 3 because staff and speakers agreed the project had not been properly noticed to the community.
The hearing was not opened for debate on the merits; council tabled the item so the developer and city staff can bring the project’s public notice into compliance with city requirements. Deputy City Attorney (transcript identification: Mr. Graham) recommended postponement, and a nearby resident who requested the item be delayed told council the required on-site and neighborhood posting had not been maintained.
Resident John Palmer asked council to delay the hearing until the signage and noticing requirements were corrected, saying, “I’m asking that this public hearing be tabled until such time it can be brought into compliance.” Deputy City Attorney Graham told council his recommendation was that the hearing be postponed so the notice could be corrected before any public hearing was held.
Council then moved and seconded a motion to table the item. The roll-call vote was recorded as unanimous (7-0): Councilor Carmelia — Yes; Councilor DeMott — Yes; Councilor Iozzi — Yes; Councilor Haught — Yes; Mayor McNally — Yes; Mayor Pro Tem Nermela — Yes; Councilor Ireland — Yes.
Because the hearing was tabled for notice and procedure reasons, council did not take a position on the development itself. Staff and the developer were directed to correct noticing and reschedule the hearing; no new date was announced at the Feb. 24 meeting.
Clarifying details: John Palmer cited a City code requirement for construction/development signage and said the contractor had not maintained the sign at the site. The deputy city attorney’s recommendation — to postpone for proper notice — focused on procedure; the council did not open the hearing or vote on project approvals.
Next steps: Staff will work with the applicant to re-post and re-notice the hearing consistent with the city’s notification rules and return the item to council once those steps are complete.
