Westminster planning panel set to consider senior-housing land-use shift at vacant Park Centre site

Westminster’s Planning Commission was scheduled to consider June 9 whether to recommend a land-use change for a long-vacant Park Centre parcel that would allow a 122-unit independent-living community for residents 55 and older.

In a June 9 planning packet, city staff asked the commission to recommend City Council approval of a comprehensive plan amendment and a preliminary development plan amendment for 6.84 acres at the southwest corner of West 122nd Avenue and Park Centre Drive. The request would change the site’s designation from Employment-Flex to Suburban Multi-Family.

The proposal puts two city policy goals in tension: preserving land for jobs and adding housing that staff says Westminster needs. Staff wrote in the packet that the Employment-Flex designation is meant to preserve land for office, research and development, and similar uses, but said weaker office demand has made that vision harder to realize at this site.

The parcel, identified in the packet as Lot 13B-1 in Northridge at Park Centre, has remained vacant while surrounding properties developed with office, institutional, open-space and residential uses. Staff wrote that the site was designated for office and research uses in 2000 and that Westminster’s 2023 comprehensive plan continued to support employment uses there.

Staff also cited the city’s 2024 economic profile, which they said showed an 11.5% vacancy rate across Class A, B and C office space. At the same time, staff pointed to Westminster’s 2023 housing needs assessment, which they said identified an urgent need for more senior-housing options, and said older adults are projected to make up one in four Westminster residents by 2040.

Under the concept plan, the project would be built in one phase on the 6.84-acre site at a maximum density of about 18 units per acre. The preliminary development plan sets a 45-foot maximum building height and calls for buildings to step down toward the western open-space edge, preserve some mountain view corridors, and provide a public pedestrian connection to adjacent open space and trails.

The packet says at least 80% of units would have a private patio or balcony, and the project would include covered bicycle parking and drought-tolerant landscaping. Applicant materials describe the proposal as an independent-living community with amenities for active residents 55 and older. The city packet does not list a total development cost.

According to staff, the housing use would likely generate less traffic than office development already allowed on the parcel. The memo says a traffic study submitted with the application found the senior-living project would significantly reduce estimated trips compared with an office complex on the site.

The packet also flags a competing infrastructure issue: water demand. Staff wrote that the city’s water supply model indicates changing the site from Employment-Flex to Suburban Multi-Family would increase water demand and that the issue would need to be addressed at the next review stage.

That next step could draw less public scrutiny than the current one. Staff wrote that if City Council approves the comprehensive plan and preliminary development plan amendments, the developer’s next filing would be an official development plan amendment that could potentially qualify for administrative approval rather than another public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council.

The packet shows limited public feedback so far. Staff said two residents attended a February neighborhood meeting and were generally supportive. As of June 4, the packet included one written public comment from a nearby resident who said traffic and pedestrian safety around West 122nd Avenue, Zuni Street and Park Centre Drive were already concerns and argued a 122-unit facility could worsen them.

An applicant notice for a Feb. 11 neighborhood meeting shows the proposal has been in city review for months.

The June 9 hearing was a recommendation only. The city’s Planning Commission page showed the agenda packet for that meeting had been posted, but as of reporting no June 9, 2026, commission minutes were available there, and no official City Council action record on this application was located on Westminster’s public meeting pages.

That means the available record supports reporting on what staff proposed and what the commission was scheduled to consider, but not a past-tense account of any commission or council action. We will update this story when a retrospective meeting record or council action becomes available.