Click this link to optimize OpenLittleton for screen readers Skip to Content

Subscribe to Registered Statements From Forum Participants

Info Hide

Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.

A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:

  1. It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
  2. It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Open Town Hall.
  3. It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.

If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.

You can subscribe to unregistered statements here.

Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).


Manage your subscription in your RSS feed reader

Check out some recent Registered Statements from forum participants

Name not shown inside Patrol 1 April 25, 2018, 8:42 PM

What are your thoughts on the Introduction, Subarea, and Standards?
There are too many subareas to fully grasp. It strikes me that MUCH of the area that is still standing should be part of a historic district. This is where Littleton basically started. 60 years ago the library was still a library and the Town Hall was still a town hall. I find, at least about the library, some dismissive language. Too few of the Carnegie libraries remain standing and this one should be cherished and protected. I support a stronger and more carefully enforced historic district. What used to be the Heckethorn building on the east end of main street just before what used to be railroad tracks is a good example of how to protect the historic facade and revive the inner life of a building. No matter how tempting, there must be a limit on restaurants and bars in the area without any other entertainment venues, other than drinking.

It would be helpful if the various zoning and codes referred to as links in the draft were actually links. Even though this is a draft those links are fixed and could be provided at this stage.

What are your thoughts on Section 1: Urban Design and Site Plan?
I have a problem with orienting to Santa Fe and general rules about orientation of entrances. That undoes the Carnegie entrance and ignores the fact that Santa Fe is a busy highway with limited access. One of the more idiotic things along limited access busy roads is business/restaurants doors facing the street forcing ALL customers to walk sometimes long distances in all kinds of weather. Orientation should depend on location.

YES, this is important 1.1.6 Subarea 3: permeable. Why is this a problem - 1.2.7 For any buildings with residential units, primary residential entrances from a parking lot are prohibited. This could mean long walks with groceries and other goods. 1.2.10 Each block face shall have multiple building entries - this is most unclear.

Have you been to Longmont? That is a more relevant example than many of the others put forth especially in use of alleys and providing parking.

What are your thoughts on Section 2: Architecture?
The charts before the narrative are pretty useless. That said, this is very important: 2.1.3N New buildings and additions to buildings shall possess an architectural character that respects the traditional design principles of older buildings along Alamo Avenue and/or Main Street. These principles can be applied to both commercial and residential buildings. I am pleased in general with the historic preservation/compatibility elements.

The discussion of parking garages is almost laughable. This is the CRITICAL problem and not one solved by standards.

The rest of this section is very dry but needed for the necessities of modern structures. At leas you don't have to design for outhouses. At least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on Section 3: Landscape Architecture?
3.1.1 Public and private open space shall be landscaped with a variety of plant materials and hard surfaces.
3.1.2 All areas of the site not covered by buildings, structures, parking areas, service areas, walks, bike ways, plazas and other impervious-surfaced functional areas, shall be landscaped. IMPERVIOUS surfaces should be, where ever possible be permeable. The increased cost is minimal compared to long term savings in stormwater requirements. This should apply to new construction and any reconstruction.

Not sure where there are private detention systems and drainage areas in the Downtown. The only ones I know of are city property and are nicely landscaped but not especially drought resistant.

All new landscape should be low water use drought resistant and designed to reduce heat islands [which mean NOT rocks and NOT pavement.

Lighting should be energy efficient but NOT the harsh white LEDs xcel energy favors. Some attempt to minimize light in the night sky should be attempted.

What are your thoughts on Section 4: Signs?
This is great specificity and it would be a shame to stifle all creativity in the name of consistency. Not sure where that amendment might occur but it would be nice to allow a bit a creative signage within general guidelines.

What are your thoughts on the Downtown Design Standards as a whole?
This is a fine example why I never wanted to be a planner. The detail is overwhelming and I think the plan needs to be very very careful not to destroy the variety inherent in an area that has grown and changed over more than a century. It would be too easy to impose a bland homogeniety on an interestingly diverse area

Name not shown inside Patrol 3 April 24, 2018, 9:45 PM

What are your thoughts on Section 2: Architecture?
Whoever allowed the 3 floor monstrosity at the west of main, obviously didn’t read this. It is too tall and does not fit with rest of Main Street. It is too big and modern and does not feel like “Old Littleton”. The same with the huge apartment complex on the east of downtown.

What are your thoughts on the Downtown Design Standards as a whole?
I could not understand the pages with xs on the charts. I had no idea what you were trying to convey

Name not shown inside Patrol 3 April 20, 2018, 11:45 AM

What are your thoughts on the Introduction, Subarea, and Standards?
I think these standards are very important. It needs to be done before the area is ruined. I love modern architecture, and would love to see more incorporated. However, it would be a shame for downtown Littleton to be overrun with monstrosities with no design sense. We don't need the fad-based stuff that is everywhere these days (e.g. reflected in the Grove, which is unattractive and way too big, dwarfing the courthouse—it's all you see coming east on Alamo from Santa Fe—what a shame).

I like the standards for Subarea 2. I already see this area losing its character with the new construction, and would like to see the city maintain neighborhood integrity. The neighborhoods north of Main St should be preserved before it's too late. It would be a mistake to allow all the smaller houses to be torn down and replaced. The replacements I see so far tend to be too big and cover too much of the lots. It's important to preserve the neighborhood before it's too late.

Landscaping! More and more studies show that people need trees and plants around to be healthy (and they make an area much more attractive). Littleton should pay attention to this. I don't see much room for landscaping at the Grove—on the north end, it's pretty much coming right up to the sidewalk. I like the idea of homes and businesses facing Little's Creek. I sometimes find it a bit scary to walk on the path there as it feels so isolated (it's also often trashy). The creek could be a very attractive, natural landscape for Littleton.

What are your thoughts on Section 1: Urban Design and Site Plan?
I agree with the "High level of design" statement on P 29. Of course, this is very subjective; much of the current design around Denver is faddish and not interesting at all (for instance, many of the new apartment buildings—see Broadway, and, unfortunately, the Grove). These buildings will be outdated in ten years. We need high level of design with intelligence and actual architectural knowledge.

What are your thoughts on Section 2: Architecture?
Please see my previous comments on architecture and "high level of design." Yes to high level; no to fads. We should be careful not to overrun Littleton with buildings that will be dated in ten years, and careful not to pander to developers who want the highest-density possible to increase their profits. The developer's quick buck doesn't benefit Littleton.

What are your thoughts on Section 3: Landscape Architecture?
So important! More trees and green-spaces please. People need these to be healthy. I would like to see generous setbacks enforced (not like the Grove). I like that this plan incorporates landscaping in the setback areas, but the setbacks need to be big enough to be meaningful.

What are your thoughts on Section 4: Signs?
Good to have standards, as long as everything doesn't look cookie-cutter. And while we're on the topic of signs, the city's signs on the corner of Alamo and Santa Fe (wavy yellow and red) don't add anything attractive to draw people to Littleton. They look a little cheesy, a little desperate and uncool. Like the city is trying too hard.

What are your thoughts on the Downtown Design Standards as a whole?
I don't have time to read everything as thoroughly as I'd like, however, it's important to have high-quality standards and preserve neighborhoods. This should happen before it's too late. We do not need Littleton overrun by developers with money and no concern for the city and its integrity. The Grove will stand as a warning—too big, too big, too big and no design sense. I'd like to see more modern architecture, mixtures of glass, concrete, steel, but no faddish architecture that will be outdated soon.

Name not shown inside Patrol 4 April 20, 2018, 10:13 AM

What are your thoughts on the Introduction, Subarea, and Standards?
So my uncle was mayor of South Pasadena California in 1990. He brought my fiance and I out for dinner and a walking tour. He was telling is how he planned on changing the ally function from unorganized trash systems, dimly lit, and shotty pavement. 5 years later downtown Pasadena was booming and continues to this day. I believe dt Littleton alleys are a golden opportunity right under our noses. With lighting, a better trash removal system some murals, etc it would bring a super feel. Thoughts anyone?
Kevin Centola

Name not shown inside Patrol 3 April 20, 2018, 7:20 AM

What are your thoughts on the Introduction, Subarea, and Standards?
The provides a good description and checklists of the area. It is specific an yet vague enough to be open enough to new ideas that follow the character of the area. One question was will there be hight restrictions anywhere? I would hate to see a 5+ story building in main Street be allowed just because the top three stories are set back.

What are your thoughts on Section 1: Urban Design and Site Plan?
I like the idea of hiding the parking lots to make the area look more appealing and promote pedestrian friendly aspects. It will be good to promote pedestrian and bike friendly environment as the city develops and parking areas get filled in with new buildings. Also, we should enforce parking spot requirements for residential buildings to help keep the streets from being flooded with over flow residential parking thus reducing the numbers of spots for commercial parking.

What are your thoughts on Section 2: Architecture?
I like the 25% rule. My biggest worry is being able to build a tall building in the mixed residential/commercial areas that block the skyline of existing houses and older residential buildings.

What are your thoughts on Section 3: Landscape Architecture?
I like the focus on minimizing light pollution while maintaining safe environment. This can easily be achieved by using down facing lights only and requesting use of products endorsed by night sky/anti light pollution organizations. Also having landscaping is very important. I would hate to see our downtown area become a concrete jungle.

What are your thoughts on Section 4: Signs?
No concerns as long as the sign doesn't impede pedestrian traffic and matches the style of the area

What are your thoughts on the Downtown Design Standards as a whole?
I think there are a lot of good details here and the path forward sounds good. My 3 major areas of concern, some of which are well addressed are: light pollution, look of the skyline and visibility beyond the buildings to mountains, and parking ( both commercial and residential). One item not discussed is potential use and incorporation of the light rail station and parking into the design of the area. I would like to know how that area should be treated and enhanced.

Max Absher inside Patrol 1 April 11, 2018, 7:18 PM

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 3?
Easier and more efficient access to the Mary Carter Greenway would be much appreciated.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 4?
I love the idea of a mixed use development similar to what is on the former Elitch gardens site (labeled here as Highlands Garden Village) for the Columbine Square redevelopment. Working with O'Toole's and US Bank if possible to create a grander vision and goal would be really cool.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 5?
I like the concept of improving east west bike and pedestrian travel access.
Sidewalk improvement for the north side of Belleview, east of Federal, would be really great.
I wouldn't consider signage to be a priority, but I can understand it's value.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 6?
I think that it would be very important to also consider improved traffic flow from Santa Fe to any new Columbine Square shopping center redevelopment. If the build becomes a coveted destination, traffic backflow along Belleview could become a problem for local residents.

Name not shown inside Patrol 1 April 11, 2018, 7:13 PM

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 1?
While this is simply a basic outline I do think it is overly optimistic in scope, particularly since half the corridor is in Englewood.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 2?
I find the timeline incomplete. It ignores the roll of the horse track in the development of both the corridor being studied and the sustenance it brought to downtown Littleton. Further, the subdivision, Centennial Acres, was directly tied to the movement of Martin-Marietta to the Littleton area as it was the closest new housing available in 1956 when the first homes were occupied. There was a bridge across the river on Berry St that led directly to existing services in downtown--grocer, drugstore, library, movie theater, etc. Finally, how can you have a timeline of this area without including more about the flood of 1965 that should forever alter what is possible. Is is that hard to review the local papers on microfilm for a few hours?

I find it arguable that the development of Southwest Plaza and Grant Ranch significantly affected development on the Littleton portion of the Belleview corridor. The growth to the west of Wadsworth, basically without much in the way of zoning restrictions was a more likely contributing factor. Retail development within Littleton does not have a wonderful success rate once Woodlawn shopping center was abandoned for other markets [like Cinderella City, which was a bigger draw].

It is also disturbing that Englewood and Littleton are allowing continuous development of multi family homes, and other types of housing, right on the riverbanks. Not only is this a flood plain, the increasing amounts of impervious surfaces contribute to heat islands, stormwater pollution, and more potential flooding from increasingly heavy downpours.

I do appreciate the reduction of the study boundary. The previous boundary was too far from Belleview to be a reasonable area for study or development.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 3?
1. The very idea of an identity for this area is almost absurd. Two jurisdictions with clearly different goals and ideas for the half mile leading to a totally residential area seems like a waste of time and resources. When Next Door started very few knew even the original neighborhood name, especially since one area changed names from cutesy to another identity with no history I know of, and I was here from the start. The area has always been disconnected from the City of Littleton, exacerbated when South Suburban was allowed to significantly reduce access to the town. You would do better to work to make the area PART of the City. Wayfinding seems redundant under the current mix of business as signs galore exist and there is nothing unique nor is there significant foot traffic.

a. Likewise investing in public art for what is a heavy auto traffic area seems useless until such time amenities that make walking feasible and a bit pleasant are in place--if ever. I am not hopeful about that after 60 years of extremely sporadic transportation options.

b. Streetscape could provide significant environmental benefits if done correctly--absorbing a significant amount of water and air pollution. The same applies to new building and site design. IF Low Impact Development principles are required; if impervious surfaces are limited; if there a significant increase in pollution absorbing green trees and plants, there is a chance the corridor could become an amenity and a proper use of floodplain lands.

c. I do not know what monument signage means. But clearly it would require amendments to code.

2. Belleview is already heavily trafficked. Now Lowell is being used to avoid congestion on Santa Fe and Bowles and possibly even Wadsworth. Therefore there is an especially great need to sidewalk creation and improvements and more well-marked crosswalks with SIGNAGE at various points--like crossing to Willows and Harlow Park. Only 4 or 5 homes actually face Belleview and certainly suffer from the traffic. The extension of Federal from Belleview to Bowles was created with artificial curves, thus making foot crossing even more dangerous as people try to get to the ONLY full park and the elementary school on Berry. Well signed crossing AND caution lights are the minimum required.

a. I rarely see bicycles on the main streets probably because traffic is increasingly heavy and not neighborhood related.

b. I rarely see pedestrians except waling to the school or the tiny Berry Park. Harlow Park is almost entirely utilized by organized sports and does not serve as an ordinary park. It has no playground equipment or shade trees.

c. I all instances sidewalks would be helpful, at least for safety if nothing else.

3. It is hard to envision what compatibility means. The existing apartments bordering Federal, Berry and Irving have never been compatible and with the sharply curved road on Berry and very deep stormwater barrows are existing safety hazards for school children and automobiles. Altho the apartments seem to have adequate parking, there is significant overflow on Berry that, especially in heavy snow, can be a safety issue.

a. Arapaho Hills is one of the few areas in the metro area of basically unspoiled mid-century modern structure. It should be at least a preserved architectural district. It is old enough to be historic and I do not understand why it is taking so long.

b. I am not sure what neighborhood improvements and resources means. Most of the area was designed with the failed idea of expanded curb and gutter in lieu of sidewalks and that will be hard to change. Littleton code enforcement does a good job of taking care of problems. We all know a few neighbors but time is limited for the kind of partnerships envisioned. This may be a basically misconception about what is possible in the 21t century.

c. I am unaware of any significant crime problem in the single family areas of the neighborhood. If there is a problem in the existing apartments that presents an argument against further rental multi-family housing.

4. The conundrum in supporting existing retail and underutilized properties lies in the split jurisdiction of the corridor with seemingly very different visions. Englewood's record on improving access is terrible as most of those areas have suffered reduced access whenever redevelopment happens. Most of the vacant spaces are in Englewood. And who defines underperforming for the purposes of this effort?

a. Isn't infrastructure part of the obligation of the two cities involved? It should not need a special program to occur.

b. I am very concerned about the attracting retailer section in that the supporting documents seem to rely on very old-fashioned ESRI information. I have no answers but perhaps an actual close neighborhood surveys could uncover what businesses the neighborhood would support. I do not recommend market analysis for this small area in the rapid-changing retail market. I've seen too many failed business and do wonder how some stay in business.

c. Integrating multifamily housing does require a zoning change. The school is already overstressed, as are the local roads. Littleton has NO grocery store near the area and the closest liquor store is also in Englewood. The closest fast food is also Englewood although there is more about half mile down the unwalkable Belleview on the south side. This will be a hard sell in everyway since the City need tax revenue, not tax givewaway.

5. It is hard for me to consider the Mary Carter Greenway as part of this corridor. ALL access to the river from the corridor is hardscaped with either business or homes. I love the statement about not wanting to impact the floodway--all the homes and businesses east of Berry are in the floodplain and everything there and all the runoff generated impacts the floodway. Really, the only thing would be to STOP new development for both cities and require whenever possible retrofits for impervious surfaces and other drainage issue. And all those renters and owners ought to be informed about flood insurance.

When speaking with my neighbors the universal wish was for a park. Not going to happen because the City apparently buys into the owners inflated property value for the Columbine site. But green open space is the one thing that will be broadly and happily accepted. Giving O'Tooles an economic incentive to provide some of that may be possible. They should also receive funding for the very good landscaping they provide along Federal.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 4?
Let's start broadly with the examples of infill/redevelopment. They are all inner big city examples probably not suitable for this tiny slice of a small town in suburbia. Looking at Map D one must be struck by the very limited green area in the "opportunity area." Much of it is golf course and limited narrow greenway. In fact the river "amenity" is clearly limited by so much "mixed use" that is impermeable surface businesses on both sides of the corridor. Note, this is not a "cutesy" area where pretty signs and paint jobs make the difference.

#1 Columbine Square MUST integrate with O'Tooles in a positive way as that is about the only thing that draws visitors from all over the area with the exception of the Christmas Shop and Angler's All in the tiny hard to reach area facing Santa Fe between Belleview and Prince. East-west connectivity is needed for more than bikes and peds--we desperately need more east-west roads as traffic is immovable at certain times of day. Existing successful uses could be worked into a plan without destroying those uses. That is called cooperation. The vision is lovely but unlikely given the current state of Littleton codes and the makeup of various governmental organizations and the examples given are just not appropriate for what is essentially a former shopping center in a low to moderate income neighborhood. Gentrification is not needed. And remember, this is a flood plain.

#2 is Englewood. Once again you have the dates wrong. This was first built BEFORE the 1965 flood and was basically wiped out by the flood. Personally I am tired of businesses being oriented to the NORTH. That guarantees icy entrances many days and nights of the year. I do not understand how planners fail to notice this. Further, the newly rebuilt King Soopers exemplies every single access problem possible--very limited access and folks turning illegally across lanes of traffic and an almost impossible to negotiate too small parking lot. Add the pad infill on the corner with multiple businesses and you have a parking and traffic nightmare that cosmetics will not fix.

#3 appears to be fully occupied and usually chock a block with cars unable to follow the confusing lane configuration, exacerbated by the lines for drive-through coffee at Starbucks that blocks ingress and egress from and to Belleview. It is extremely dangerous. I am not sure what is not being utilized. I am there every day at very times during the day and all the lots seem quite full. Again, this is a floodplain full of impervious surfaces running pollution right in to the river. The one thing would be so somehow emphasize the access to the greenway with it's view across the river to the businesses fronting the highway. A real amenity requires bigger and better buffers. The center is already well-used and access is HORRIBLE. I am not sure where community events will actually fit.

#4 This is right up the street and I've used this center since it was built--first with a Safeway and full service drugstore supplemented most of the years with a dry cleaner, hair salon and barber. Once there was an excellent florist. I still utilize the hair salon and the part of the drugstore that is Walter's pizza. I use the convenience store that sell gas. I used to use the other gas station. The area could use some primping, but NOT at the cost of long-term tenants. These are the kind of small businesses Littleton should hope to retain. There are large stretches along Lowell on the east side with no sidewalks. Also, with the increased heavy traffic on Lowell avoiding Bowles, it is increasingly dangerous to try and cross Lowell to reach the child care or Harlow park. The entire traffic pattern needs to be addressed far beyond the narrow Belleview Corridor issue.

#5-7 This is all Englewood, the city that allows everything to be built right on the river banks. I don't hold out much hope although it would be nice to see the vast area around the bowling area better utilized. I was perhaps utilized when there was 24 hour bowling 50 years ago. But I have little faith in anything being done.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 5?
I personally think "gateway signage" is nuts, little more that jargon. Neighborhood names, like Arapaho Hills and Centennial Acres make more sense. Oddly, with all the increased traffic on Lowell, Belleview has too long green lights for what amounts to one lane of traffic in each direction. This slows down traffic on Lowell far too much. A better approach, since the cutoff to Federal is discouraged, would be a longer right turn lane from Lowell to Belleview.

Your plan is confusing in describing the area going east from Lowell. Lowell is still a transition with basically non-elevation residential bordering Belleview until Irving. Streetscaping would be a lovely amenity IF homeowners are not asked to pay. These homeowners have to cope with the traffic from Lowell primarily created by the build up of other east west corridors with stop and go traffic. You incorrectly list Linden as a feeder street from Lowell. There is strong signage and various traffic slowing devices to prevent that from happening and Linden is NOT useful at all going west. See above for improved right turn lane.

Irving is a real problem for the Centennial Acres neighborhood. The apartments on the south send of Irving, despite the deep barrows between the units and Irving and Berry, line Irving with cars that sometimes make Irving a narrow street rather than a major egress from the neighborhood. That makes proposals for redevelopment of Columbine Square so critical. There is no more available street parking. There are sidewalk gaps. And there is a very real fear that whatever goes in will change the neighborhood for the worse. And it presents very serious issue for the already over crowded school on many levels. High density housing will increase that problem while, if urban renewal funds are used, depriving the school of needed revenue. There is no good solution on less awful solutions. And remember, this is a flood plain.

Federal needs safer pedestrian crossings. Apartments on the east side need to reach the school on the west side and that is a walk to be feared. It would be nice to have a safe vehicle crossing from Centennial Dr to south bound Federal. That would alleviate some traffic on Belleview and perhaps a bit on Bowles.

Habitat improvements for the Greenway require better and WIDER vegetated buffers. I have no idea how that can happen in this area where the river banks have essentially been sold for private profit, especially when Littleton chooses to NOT use eminent domain. The best the plan can do is help institute permeable pavement in redevelopment and perhaps some buffer requirement for full redevelopment. That does require changes in land use, planning and zoning regulations. I am pessimistic since it took almost 40 years for at least some cities to recognize better riverfront uses after the 1965 flood created a clean slate.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 6?
Principle 1 - any signage should recognize existing neighborhoods, not create some new thing. Work on South Platte Corridor should continue but there should be a recognition that development up to the river is NOT a river vision. Codifying land use and design requirements is an absolute necessity.

Principle 2 - updating existing plans is critical however I remain pessimistic about alternative transportation methods. As long as demand is the total driving factor in transportation availability it will not happen. We unfortunately better served by seeking more east-west and north south corridors to alleviate overloaded roads in the corridor.

Principle 3 - the outreach is inexpressibly important and it pretty much has to start door to door. It is hard to know just exactly what services and programs are available. It can also be hard to know what is acceptable and what is not in Centennial Acres, anyway, which isn't covenant controlled. Thus the City rules this and it is not always clear which department to contact.

Michael Hecker inside Patrol 2 March 28, 2018, 4:18 PM

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 1?

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 2?
Interesting history.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 3?
Policy ID 1.2 Wayfinding - Why? Google, map-it, and numerous other navigation aids are available. Why do we need provide more at a cost to the citizens?

Policy MS 1.1 Sidewalk improvement. The only way to achieve this is to reduce traffic lanes for vehicles. If reduced traffic is the goal, why improve the corridor?

Policy MS 1.4 Transit connection. If the goal is to reduce traffic why add a bus line. How in the world would an East-West bus line improve access to the light rail or downtown area?

Policy R 1.3 Revitalization of adjacent areas. Hilarious!!! Englewood,clean yourself up, we don't like how you look!

Policy R 1.4 Vacant/underperforming spaces. This one is funny too! Nobody wants to shop there, maybe we can build more dwellings for people to live there.

Policy R 3.2 Housing. Multifamily mixed use does not work, It never has and it is short sighted. Don't believe me? Pick a stretch of Colfax Ave to drive down. Most of what is there started as multifamily mixed use. Drive down Brighton Blvd in Denver too. Multifamily, mixed use, mingled with microbreweries and doggie daycare places. Nothing attractive. Nothing for young families. Young families is what is needed to revitalize a city, not more of the same. Young families need space. Parks, yards, schools, churches, not high density mixed use properties.

Policy PFP 2.3 Temporary/seasonal uses. Food trucks compete with brick and mortar shops. Food trucks use roads and require parking. Food trucks don't pay much in taxes or revenues to the City of Littleton if they aren't required to be licenced or carry permits issued by the City. Why make improvements on Belleview for businesses if you wish to encourage food trucks?

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 4?
Why is everything pushed towards high density mixed occupancy use? Most of the models shown for what developments could look like all exclude vehicles or limit vehicle traffic and parking. How can the City of Littleton encourage growth and make plans for more growth that does not include or limits the use of personal vehicles?

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 5?
Street enhancement and 5 foot wide sidewalks would require the elimination of traffic lanes. Contrary to enticing more people and businesses is limited access. Who is the genius that comes up with these plans?

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 6?
I noticed that costs were carefully avoided. Give the estimated costs!

Charles Hardy inside Patrol 1 March 28, 2018, 12:23 PM

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 1?
I'm glad that this issue is being reviewed methodically. As a long-time resident of the area in question, I would like to see the retail redevelopment of the Columbine Square shopping area, as well as an ongoing focus on the entire Belleview Corridor.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 2?
This is a good historical over-view of the Belleview Avenue Corridor, which high-lights the changing nature of the community.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 3?
These are 5 important principles for the vision for our community. We need to balance our need for economic development, with a vision for the best quality of life for our residents.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 4?
I applauded the desire to identify the areas for development and redevelopment, along the Belleview Avenue Corridor. I believe that our main focus, in the short term, should be focused on the retail redevelopment of the former Columbine Square Shopping Center. It has been vacant for far too long. I do not believe that it should be used for additional housing!

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 5?
I support these recommended Corridor Enhancements, as they will improve the quality of life, and foster a better feeling of community, for our residents.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 6?
These are important principles, which identify the Departments that will need to play a part in the redevelopment process.

David Pulsipher inside Patrol 1 March 28, 2018, 7:58 AM

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 1?
The most important aspect to me of this plan is that it establishes a vision of mobility that de-emphasizes car use and prepares the community for more walking, biking, and transit trips.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 2?
Establishing infrastructure for our aging population is paramount. Wide sidewalks, safe crosswalks with minimized crossing distances between controlled intersections will be a great asset to the community.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 3?
improving mobility should automatically mean that roads ARE NOT widened for vehicle use, but that the existing right of way is reallocated for enhanced multimodal function. Wide, buffered sidewalks. Buffered or protected bike lanes, and frequent transit stops with shelters and benches should be abundant.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 5?
priorities should be to fill sidewalk gaps, upgrade sidewalks that are bare minimum ADA compliant, and upgrading bike facilities to support and enable use for everyone between the ages of 8-80. The only bicyclists I see in this area are athletic road riders, or people riding by necessity to work. The infrastructure should support and encourage more multimodal trips.

What thoughts or feedback do you have relating to Chapter 6?
thank you for this study.