Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broomfield council denies Trails at Westlake development after hours of public opposition
Summary
After a prolonged public hearing with dozens of residents raising traffic, environmental and safety concerns, the Broomfield City Council voted 9–1 to deny the Trails at Westlake and Westlake Farms subdivision proposals, which would have added about 50 homes and required multiple variances.
The Broomfield City Council on Sept. 9 rejected a proposed infill project that would have added roughly 50 homes east of Lowell Boulevard and south of Misty Street, voting 9–1 after more than two hours of public testimony.
City staff described the application as two linked requests — a 43‑lot subdivision called Trails at Westlake and a seven‑lot Westlake Farms plat — that included rezoning and several variances to local development standards. Senior planner Judy Harmer told council the project would create new trail connections, provide a public park and exceed minimum public‑land dedication, but would also require a five‑foot off‑site drainage easement and tree mitigation measures.
TriPoint Homes representative Dan Galasso and planner Jeff Mark described the developer’s approach as “clustering” to preserve open space, cited independent traffic and wildlife studies and said the plan includes six income‑aligned homes governed by the city’s inclusionary rules. Galasso told council the traffic study showed the nearby streets would operate well below design capacity and that the project meets modern fire and building standards.
But the hearing drew a large turnout of neighbors who said the plan is incompatible with existing neighborhoods. Residents repeatedly raised concerns about vehicle access for the long cul‑de‑sac, increased daily traffic on narrow local streets, construction impacts, loss of established mature trees and wildlife — including prairie‑dog colonies and birds of prey — and fire‑safety risks from dense clustering of houses.
“Building on that property will be such a disturbance to so many people’s way of life,” said Westlake resident Lauren Fagan, who said she backs directly onto the farm site and listed hawks, herons, coyotes and prairie dogs as regular observers of the land. Shirley Baker, who lives two houses north of a proposed access point, called for relocating or reconfiguring the entry to address sight‑distance and safety at an existing fire hydrant.
Council members pressed the developer on alternative access options, easement timing and the feasibility of delivering truly affordable units. Several members said that, even if the project met many technical standards, the site — a narrow, landlocked ‘thumb’ surrounded by long‑established houses — was not an appropriate place for the scale and type of density proposed.
“Infills deserve extra scrutiny,” Council Member Cohen said, adding that this parcel lacks the arterial access or transit connections that would make higher density appropriate. Council Member Marsh Holshon said the proposed new homes’ price points and sizes did not match the surrounding market and concluded the proposal failed to mitigate negative impacts on nearby properties.
The motion to approve the resolution failed 9–1. City staff indicated they will return with a formal denial resolution for final adoption at a future council meeting. The council set a procedural follow‑up for Oct. 14 to consider the written denial resolution.
