Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Deannexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves de‑annexation of 23.7 acres near 120th and Chambers; neighbors voice traffic and view concerns
Summary
Brighton City Council voted 7‑1 to disconnect roughly 23.7 acres at the northwest corner of 120th Avenue and Chambers Road from the city’s corporate limits, a move the property owner says is intended to allow annexation into Commerce City because Brighton cannot easily extend utilities to the site.
Brighton City Council voted 7‑1 Tuesday to approve an ordinance disconnecting approximately 23.7 acres at the northwest corner of 120th Avenue and Chambers Road from the city’s corporate boundaries, a step the applicant said is intended to allow future annexation into Commerce City.
At the public hearing, an Outlook neighborhood resident, Shantai Simone Solano, said neighbors worry about traffic, safety for children who currently use the open space, and loss of mountain views if three‑story buildings are developed adjacent to existing homes. She asked for greater neighborhood involvement in future development discussions.
Jason Wedlick, representing Woodbury Corporation (property owner), told council the de‑annexation reflects utility and service realities: Brighton would have to bore under I‑76, ditches and a railroad to extend municipal water and sewer to the parcel, creating high cost and operational complications. Wedlick said Commerce City has closer, adjacent utilities that make future service and development more feasible; he also said neighborhood meetings are planned and encouraged public comment during Commerce City’s annexation process.
Why it matters: De‑annexation removes the parcel from Brighton’s municipal jurisdiction; if Commerce City annexes and develops the land, Brighton will not control land use, utilities or permitting for that site. Neighbors expressed concern about traffic impacts and the scale of potential development; councilors noted the city’s limited ability to serve the parcel with Brighton utilities.
Key facts and council discussion - Action: Council approved an ordinance to disconnect (de‑annex) approximately 23.7 acres from Brighton’s corporate boundaries. The motion passed 7‑1. - Applicant rationale: Woodbury Corporation presented de‑annexation as a response to infrastructure constraints — extending Brighton water/sewer would require multiple bores under ditches, a highway and a railroad and would force the city to take over utilities the developer would construct. - Neighborhood concerns: A resident from the adjacent Outlook neighborhood asked for more outreach and expressed worries about traffic, safety for children, and loss of views; council and staff clarified that further public engagement will occur during any Commerce City annexation and site‑planning steps. - Zoning/context: Staff said the parcel is currently within an older Sable Planned Unit Development (PUD) mixed‑use industrial designation that predates current standards; under current Brighton zoning the site could allow a mix of commercial and light industrial development, but staff noted the Sable PUD does not match current city standards and would likely be revisited.
Discussion vs. decision: Public comment and staff explanation about utility constraints were recorded as discussion. The formal decision was approval of the de‑annexation ordinance; council approved 7‑1.
Speakers quoted in this article are limited to those who spoke on the record: Shantai Simone Solano (resident), Jason Wedlick (Woodbury Corporation representative), Nick Demario (Senior Planner), City Manager Martinez, Mayor Pro Tem Padilla, Council member Green.
Ending: The parcel is now disconnected from Brighton; any future development or annexation will proceed through Commerce City processes and separate public hearings. Staff and the applicant committed to neighborhood outreach during the next steps.
