Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Trailmark topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trailmark residents press council on unit-cap increases; city attorney explains Jefferson County process
Summary
Residents of the Trailmark subdivision raised concerns during public comment about a proposed change to the unit cap in the Chatfield activity area and asked for transparency. The city attorney said the matter is in Jefferson County27s review process and will come to Littleton if a rezoning/PD amendment is filed.
Multiple residents from the Trailmark neighborhood urged the council to oppose an increase in the dwelling-unit cap for Filing 5 and asked for clearer public notice about any amendments to the intergovernmental agreement for the Chatfield activity area.
What residents said - Paul Roybal said Filing 5 of Trailmark is zoned for light retail but the developer proposes 27 single-family homes; he said the comprehensive development plan (CDCP) had a maximum of 805 units and that a new recommended cap of 875 units would create too large a margin. Roybal urged the cap be set around 8262830 units for flexibility rather than 875. - Richard and Donna Suzak and other neighbors said a petition showed broad support among local homeowners for the 27-home plan but opposition to any 76-unit increase; they asked for transparency and advance notice of potential changes to the intergovernmental agreement.
City response and next steps - City Attorney explained the matter is currently in Jefferson County27s process; the county is considering an amendment to the PD/annexation agreement and will hold hearings in Jefferson County. If approved there, the matter would later appear before the City of Littleton for rezoning and public hearings, and the planning commission would make a recommendation before council action. - The city attorney also addressed questions about a separate public comment related to a charter-amendment lawsuit: he said his reading of the statute (cited by public commenters as 29-20-203) and outside counsel27s advice is that the statutory "tolling" provision does not require the city to seek a court order to halt an election and that staff will proceed with the council27s direction to have the charter amendment appear on the November ballot unless directed otherwise.
Why it matters: Residents said any change to unit caps could affect neighborhood character, density, traffic and services; the city attorney reminded speakers that, until a formal application reaches Littleton27s planning process, the city can only provide information about the procedural path and timing.
Ending: Residents were told to expect a Jefferson County process first and later local planning commission and council hearings if a rezoning or PD amendment is formally filed.
