Westminster planning commission recommends denial of Quick Trip fuel station land-use changes

The Westminster Planning Commission voted 4–3 on April 28, 2026, to recommend denial of a proposed comprehensive plan amendment and a preliminary development plan (PDP) amendment that would allow a Quick Trip fuel station and convenience store on a 1.25-acre pad at the southeast corner of West 108th Avenue and Wadsworth Parkway (Manderlay Gardens Track 10, Lot 2).

Planner Carson Bayerhoff told the commission that staff had properly noticed the hearing (180 mailed notices, bilingual signs on site) and that, after evaluating the proposal against criteria in Westminster Municipal Code Section 11-5-21 (land-use plan amendments) and Section 11-5-14 (PDP amendments), staff found the application “generally does not meet the criteria considerations” for approval and therefore recommended that the commission recommend denial to city council.

Applicant counsel David Foster and Quick Trip representative Braxton Key argued the corner has long been considered part of a larger commercial development and that a fuel/convenience use could fit the site. Key, a Quick Trip employee, described the company’s local hiring and benefits model and said the chain wants “to be a part of your community forever.” Counsel traced a chain of approvals and plan updates beginning in 2019 and asserted that, because the broader nine‑acre property was planned for mixed commercial and employment uses, the one‑acre pad should be considered part of that larger development context.

During the hearing, Vice Chair Carpenter read a text message from a community member into the record and emphasized he would base his decision on evidence presented at the meeting. Staff noted prior approvals and plan language from 2019–2024 and flagged that earlier staff materials contained recommendations (for example, to prohibit freestanding pad sites) but that the city’s staff recommendation tonight was that the requested land‑use changes would conflict with the comp plan’s intent for the area.

One resident who spoke during public testimony, Stephanie Horus Tor Turner, said she lives in Countryside and described the neighborhood as a family area where pedestrian safety is important. Turner questioned whether the stated job numbers justified the change and raised broader questions about fuel‑station demand given rising electric vehicle adoption, saying, “First of all, there was about 2% of brand new vehicles sold in Colorado were EVs. That number now is 35% EVs.”

Commissioners debated technical and chronological questions about prior comp plan and PDP/ODP actions, whether staff notes on earlier plans were binding conditions, and whether the proposed service‑commercial designation would be substantially inconsistent with surrounding uses. Several commissioners said past decisions and the municipal code criteria counsel caution; others said the site’s small size and the lack of other feasible uses argues for flexibility.

After discussion, Commissioner Colling moved and Commissioner Dunn seconded a motion to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment on the grounds it did not meet Section 11-5-21 criteria. The roll-call vote on that motion was: Calling — yes; Tomichek — no; Dunn — yes; Boscher (chair) — no; Vice Chair Carpenter — no; Morris — yes; Peg — yes. The motion passed 4–3.

The commission then moved on to the preliminary development plan amendment and, by the same 4–3 roll-call margin (Colling, Dunn, Morris, Peg — yes; Tomichek, Boscher, Carpenter — no), recommended denial to city council on the basis that the PDP amendment did not meet the applicable criteria in Section 11-5-14.

Next steps: the planning commission’s action is a recommendation; the city council will review the commission’s recommendation and the application in a future hearing. The commission’s votes do not approve or deny entitlements — council action is required for final approval of comp plan or PDP changes.

Actions at a glance: the commission recommended denial of (1) the comprehensive plan amendment and (2) the preliminary development plan amendment for Manderlay Gardens Track 10 Lot 2, both by 4–3 roll-call votes. The items and vote tallies are recorded in the public record and will go to city council for final action.

The planning commission adjourned the item and later discussed unrelated proposed amendments to its bylaws (public testimony time limits and minute‑voting procedures).