Littleton panel raises Trailmark unit cap but stops short of rezoning after fiscal and safety concerns

The Littleton Planning Commission on March 23 approved an amendment to the Chatfield Activity Center comprehensive development plan that raises the maximum residential unit cap for the Trailmark area from 805 to 850, but it declined to recommend corresponding changes to the future land‑use map or a rezoning request after commissioners said they needed more fiscal and safety information.

Senior planner Terry Whitmore told the commission staff recommends the CDP amendment (PC Resolution 04‑2026) to accommodate potential single‑family small‑lot units on the remaining 7.6‑acre undeveloped parcel in Trailmark. Whitmore said the change reflects “changing conditions” — including slower-than‑expected commercial demand since COVID, coordination with Jefferson County under the intergovernmental agreement process, and environmental constraints related to the Chatfield Reservoir and Army Corps oversight. He said staff mailed 827 notification postcards to property owners and found no outstanding violations for the site.

The commission voted 6–1 to approve the CDP amendment; Chair Patrick Santana cast the lone no vote. The vote authorizes the increase in the CDP’s residential maximum from 805 to 850 units and forwards that amendment as the commission’s action on the CDP question.

The three requests heard together included (1) the CDP amendment; (2) a future land‑use and character map amendment to change the parcel’s designation from suburban commercial to suburban residential (PC Resolution 07‑2026); and (3) a rezoning of the 7.6‑acre parcel from Corridor Mixed Plan Development Overlay (CMPLO) to Small Lot Residential (SLR) (PC Resolution 08‑2026). Staff recommended approval of all three items to give the city flexibility to process future subdivision proposals and to align zoning with the applicant’s concept for roughly 27 single‑family, small‑lot homes.

Shea Homes representatives said commercial interest in the site has been limited for decades, that the developer conducted extensive neighborhood outreach and received Trailmark HOA support, and that residential redevelopment would generate far fewer vehicle trips than many commercial uses. “We have had no interest in this site other than a storage facility and fueling centers,” said Marcus Pockner, the applicant’s land‑use consultant. The applicant also said it was willing to provide a more detailed fiscal or economic analysis on request.

Public comment was mixed but leaned toward support for the residential concept. Ken Colise, president of the Trailmark HOA, said the HOA and many residents back the plan for single‑family homes and urged the commission to remove IGA constraints that have delayed progress. Several residents delivered petitions and letters backing roughly 27 homes on the parcel. At the same time, longtime resident Pam Chadbourne urged the commission to require a city or independent economic and fiscal analysis that compares municipal revenues and service costs for commercial versus residential uses and to assess wildfire‑related risks and emergency costs.

Commissioners’ deliberations highlighted those exact concerns. Several members said they were persuaded that the CDP amendment met the major‑plan‑amendment criteria, including changing conditions, but were not ready to endorse a map change or rezoning without more information on the long‑term fiscal implications, wildfire exposure, traffic and infrastructure maintenance costs, and alternative zoning that might preserve neighborhood‑serving commercial uses.

A motion to recommend the future land‑use map change failed on an up/down vote (3 in favor, 4 opposed). Commissioners who voted against the map amendment said the city’s comprehensive plan calls for property‑by‑property fiscal assessment when nonresidential sites are proposed for residential conversion and that such an analysis had not been provided.

For the rezoning to SLR, the commission entertained and passed an amendment asking the applicant to provide a fiscal comparison of current zoning versus proposed zoning to include with any recommendation to council, but the main motion to recommend rezoning failed on the final vote. Commissioners said the applicant could return with additional analysis or pursue a different rezoning application that preserved some flexibility for mixed or attached housing forms.

Traffic estimates in the staff packet showed approximately 19 vehicle trips per hour in the morning peak and 25 in the evening peak for the proposed residential redevelopment, figures staff said are substantially lower than many commercial options. Staff also said view corridors to Chatfield Reservoir would be identified and managed through the development process and that utilities and fire service access are available to the parcel.

What happens next: the CDP amendment was approved by the Planning Commission. The future land‑use amendment and rezoning were not recommended to city council; the applicant said it will provide additional fiscal and mitigation information and has the option to return with revised proposals. Any rezoning or map change would still require city council action.

Votes at a glance: PC Resolution 04‑2026 (CDP amendment) — approved 6–1 (Chair Santana voted no). PC Resolution 07‑2026 (future land‑use map amendment) — failed (3–4). PC Resolution 08‑2026 (rezoning to SLR) — amendment to include a fiscal comparison was adopted, but the primary recommendation failed on final vote.

Staff and applicant contact: Terry Whitmore, Senior Planner, City of Littleton (staff presentation); Shea Homes (applicant team: Ryan McDermott, Marcus Pockner).