Planning commission continues Chatfield Activity Center CDP amendment after resident questions about unit cap and notice

The Jefferson County Planning Commission voted unanimously Sept. 24 to continue the Chatfield Activity Center Comprehensive Development Plan amendment (case 25‑115487CH) to a date uncertain to allow for proper notification of the broader Chatfield Green/Trailmark community.

Staff case manager Sarah Colas said the continuance is necessary to meet county policy and notification requirements for the entire Chatfield Green area (also called Trailmark). "It is necessary, in order to meet county policy and regulations for notification requirements," Colas told the commission.

Residents who spoke said they were confused and concerned about how an amendment to the comprehensive development plan would change the total unit cap for Trailmark. Paul Roybal said the remaining, underdeveloped parcel (Filing 5) is about 7 acres and that Shea Homes proposes 27 single‑family units for that parcel. He said the CDP currently sets a maximum of 805 total dwelling units for the activity center and that a staff/engineer communication suggested Littleton recommended increasing the cap to 875 — a figure Roybal characterized as an unnecessary excess relative to the 27 units needed to build out Filing 5. "I oppose the raising the units to a cap of 875 or 850 dwelling units," Roybal said, and asked the commission to consider a more modest cap in the 826–830 range.

Richard Szewczak and Donna Szewczak, Trailmark residents, called out inconsistent and unclear unit totals in the application materials and voiced similar concerns. Donna Szewczak presented a petition with 392 signatures collected in the previous 10 days and asked the county to make the intergovernmental agreement and CDP amendment reflect the existing development pattern and protections for the neighborhood.

A Shea Homes representative, Ryan McDermed, said the higher unit numbers that appeared in some documents were not a request by Shea Homes and that the applicant sought the continuance to do more outreach and to coordinate with the City of Littleton and Jefferson County to resolve the confusion.

County attorney Kristen Sadowski clarified that an active application does exist and that the continuance with the applicant's consent was procedural to allow proper notice; otherwise, the commission would have had to continue only to a date within the 40‑day statutory window. "This is strictly a procedural motion that you are voting on," Sadowski said.

Commissioner Messner moved to continue the docket to a date uncertain to provide for proper notice; Commissioner Spencer seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Staff and the applicant will return with an updated, properly noticed application and materials; additional public testimony will be accepted when the case is rescheduled.