Council denies Trails at Westlake subdivision after hours of public testimony

Broomfield City Council on second reading rejected a developer proposal to build 50 new single‑family lots across two connected plats known as the Trails at Westlake (43 lots) and Westlake Farms (7 lots), voting 9–1 to deny the rezoning, PUD plan, site development plans and final plats.

The applications, presented by TriPointe Homes and their planning team, proposed smaller (35–50 foot) lots clustered to preserve contiguous open space and add trail connections. Judy Hammer, senior planner, told council staff had found the proposals generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval with conditions, including a required 5‑foot off‑site drainage easement before the 7‑lot final plat would be recorded.

The project drew more than 20 residents to the podium over extended public comment, centered on three recurring concerns: traffic and safety on local neighborhood streets, loss of mature cottonwood trees and wildlife habitat (including a prairie‑dog colony), and the scale and design of the proposed lots relative to surrounding homes.

"I live on Briarwood Drive. I am in the second house north of the proposed entry and exit way to the development," resident Shirley Baker told council, adding visibility and safety concerns at the Misty/Lowell area where the developer proposes new access. Other residents described frequent pedestrian and bike use of adjacent trails and said an influx of construction traffic and 100–200 additional daily vehicle trips would degrade safety and quality of life.

The applicant argued the design responds to modern homebuyer preferences and the site's constraints. Dan Galasso of TriPointe Homes said the narrower, deeper lot footprints allow home sizes similar to nearby neighborhoods while using less land for yards, lowering per‑home infrastructure costs. He said traffic studies and referrals from North Metro Fire and traffic engineering showed the existing road network could accommodate the development and noted the project would add trail links the city’s master trail plan identifies as priority connections.

Jeff Mark of Terracina Design, the project landscape architect, emphasized the proposal’s clustered open space, a pavilion concept using salvaged farm materials and a mitigation plan that would require the developer to plant additional trees in nearby parks to offset cottonwood removal. Engineer Troy Denning described drainage routing options and told the council the developer was negotiating an off‑site easement with an adjacent property owner; staff had recommended that the easement be recorded before the 7‑lot final plat is recorded.

Council members pressed the applicant on several technical points and repeatedly returned to compatibility and access. Council member Cohen framed the decision as one about compatibility for an infill site in the middle of long‑established neighborhoods. "This would be introducing high density into an area that for 40, 50 years has not had any," Cohen said, noting the site lacks direct arterial or transit access and that nearby roads are low‑volume residential streets.

Council member Marsh Holshon likewise cited the homes' projected price points and compatibility concerns: the market price for the developer’s homes, she said, would be well above surrounding resale values and therefore not the kind of missing‑middle or senior housing some council members favor for infill.

After deliberation council voted 9–1 to deny the resolution that would have approved the rezoning, plats, PUD and site development plans. Mayor Castro called for a denial resolution to be prepared for formal adoption at a future meeting — a ministerial step to memorialize the council decision and the reasons for denial. The denial will be returned to the council agenda on Oct. 14 for final adoption of the denial resolution.

What happens next is discretionary for the applicant. The developer told council that without the approved entitlements the proposed project would not proceed as presented; smaller or different proposals may be possible only with a new application or significant redesign. Staff noted the multi‑part application included technical conditions (for example, the drainage easement for the 7‑lot parcel) that would have to be resolved before recordation if the project were approved.

The applicant and staff also noted that, under the recently adopted R‑3 zone rules and other code changes, different redevelopment schemes could be proposed in the future; however, council members repeatedly emphasized their concern about traffic, tree loss and habitat on a site surrounded by long‑standing neighborhoods.

The denial preserves the existing privately held open land for now; residents who spoke urged the city to consider acquisition for open space if the owner were willing to sell.

Votes at a glance: 9 in favor of denial, 1 opposed (Council member Wynne).