Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Littleton council on tree protections, 'missing middle' and development impacts
Summary
During public comment, residents urged stronger tree-planting and landscaping enforcement at Mineral Place, recommended buffers for new gas stations and car washes, and raised concerns about the neighborhood housing opportunities ("missing middle") ordinance and transparency.
Multiple residents used the public comment period to raise environmental concerns about recent and proposed development, question the neighborhood housing opportunities ordinance, and urge greater transparency in the stakeholder process.
John Marchetti (District 4) asked whether the Environmental Stewardship Board will require replacement for trees planted at Mineral Place and whether the species selected will be drought tolerant as the city forester recommends. He also urged Littleton to consider limits on new gas stations and car washes, noting Lakewood and other cities have created buffer zones to reduce air-quality impacts.
Pat Cronenberger (District 2) congratulated Joel Zink on his appointment and said the recent public debate over the neighborhood housing opportunities ordinance had been marred by interruptions and misinformation. As a member of South Metro Housing Options (Littleton’s public housing authority), Cronenberger said pausing the ordinance — which the council did — allowed more time for public understanding of complex housing issues.
Greg Sullivan (District 4) said he mailed 1,800 flyers and gathered about 200 signatures raising environmental concerns about the Mineral Place/Costco development; he recommended restoring a 300-foot buffer, reinstating 20% green space, creating a Littleton Tree Trust and directing $70,000 he said was received from the developer to tree planting at Mineral Place.
Pam Chaborn (resident) criticized the neighborhood housing opportunities ordinance’s terminology, saying the phrase “missing middle” is misleading to residents because, in her view, it emphasizes density (two- to four-unit buildings) rather than affordability; she asked the council to publish stakeholder working-group membership and meeting steps for transparency and to add affordability requirements.
Eileen Kitko (District 4) also raised the definition of “missing middle,” saying it is about density (two-to-four units) and asked the council to reevaluate terminology used in outreach and the ordinance.
City Manager Jim Becklinburg responded during the staff response period that the Mineral Place property owners had not complied with all of the city’s landscaping requirements for that development and that tree planting plans are governed by the city code and reviewed in consultation with the city forester. He also said the planning commission and council hearings on the neighborhood housing opportunities ordinance were duly noticed under the city’s rules.
The city attorney did not add comments during the public-comment response. The council noted the upcoming study session on Jan. 28 where members will deliberate on the missing middle housing item; the mayor clarified that the Jan. 28 study session is not a public-comment hearing but an opportunity for council deliberations and direction to staff, with later public-comment opportunities when the item returns for action.
No formal votes resulted directly from public comment; some speakers asked for additional requirements or process changes to be considered when staff and council return to the ordinance work.
