Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I open this transitional meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:34 p.m. Roll call. Commissioner Almond here, Commissioner Coronado here, Commissioner Goodman, Commissioner. House. Commissioner Neely here, Commissioner Roethlisberger here, Commissioner Santana here. Commissioner. Schwinn. Schwinn. And now we'll take. I'll take nominations for the election of chair. You can also nominate yourself if you're interested. - Wendy. I'm willing and interested in being chair. - I'll throw my hat as well. - Any other nominations? Okay. First, we will vote on Commissioner Santana and then we will vote on Commissioner Almond. Right. So. I have. - Openness. - This is. - Yeah. - Okay. It you will have the wrong name, but I know who you are. So we'll we'll know. We have a new voting system. So bear with me while I find where I'm supposed to be. Start. Anyway, I need a motion and a

second for Patrick Santana. - I motion to nominate Chair Patrick Santana for chair of the Planning Commission. - Is there a second? - Second. - Okay. - And now. - We will vote. - We need a motion for Commissioner Allman. - We vote on one first and then we do the second one. Okay. I'm having trouble with the voting system. So how about we just do a thumbs up or thumbs down? So thumbs up for yes. Thumbs down for no. Five in favor with Commissioner Almond and Commissioner Coronado voting no. The motion carries. Congratulations. Patrick Santana. Okay, so now that that's happened, we don't have to have the motion on the second one. How about nominations for election of Vice chair? - I would like to nominate myself to be vice chair. - Any other nominations? Okay. Nominations are closed, and now I'll need a motion to appoint Commissioner Roethlisberger. - Motion to appoint Commissioner Röthlisberger as co-chair. - Second.

- And again thumbs up for yes. Seven in favor. The motion carries. Congratulations. And now we need a volunteer for the Capital Improvement Sales Tax Board. They only have two meetings a year. One will be April 30th and one will be May 21st. I believe you had volunteered to be on that. So this year it can be. Is anybody willing to volunteer? Congratulations. And I adjourn this meeting at 6:38 p.m. - Thank. Was appointed to the Assistant Director. You can move to chair to the middle. You can switch places with Jerry on.

The. Left. So give me a second. - All right. Welcome, everyone. I opened the planning this Planning Commission regular meeting at 6:40 p.m. Clerk, please call the roll. - Chair. - Sorry, chair. - Santana here. - Vice chair. - Roethlisberger here. - Commissioner almond here. Commissioner Coronado here. Commissioner Goodman. Commissioner. House here. Commissioner. Neelie. Here. Commissioner. - Schwinn here. - We have quorum. We have quorum. - Thank you. Clerk, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. - Allegiance to the flag states of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. - Item three on the agenda is

approval of the agenda. If there's no changes, the agenda is approved. And. I would like to call for a motion. And second of the certification of the March 23rd minutes. - Although some of you weren't here for that, you can still vote to approve my certification of the minutes. - I move to approve based on the clerk certification. The March 23rd, 2026 regular meeting of the Littleton Planning Commission. - Second. Sorry, was that you, almond? Yeah. Thank you. And let's do a thumbs up and thumbs down. - All in favor of certification of the minutes. Thumbs up. - Seven in favor. The motion carries. - All right. The next portion of this meeting is the public comment. If you wish to address the board under comment, under public comment, please sign in on the public speaker form before the call to order for the meeting. Public comment is an opportunity to express opinions regarding issues that are not part of the public hearing on tonight's agenda, not part of tonight's agenda. A separate opportunity will be provided for comment for any for any public hearing, each speaker is limited to three minutes. We expect comments to be civil, disrespectful or disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. The board is not authorized under Colorado Open Meetings law to discuss, comment or take action at this meeting on any issue raised by the public comment. That is not

part of tonight's agenda, and we have one speaker for public comment, Pam Chadbourn. - Hi, planning Commission, and my name is Pam. I live about a block from here. I'm going to ask the Planning Commission to. Ask staff to bring to you an updated housing needs for the City of Littleton. In 2016 and 17, the city hired BBC and or Route Analysis to do housing study. And they did bring that back. And it was updated a couple of times. Then we had a housing task force get involved, and then we had the luck happen. Now, it seems to me that the basic data has been dropped. And Planning Commission, what I'm going to ask you for also is that you base your decisions and conclusions on data, not on personal opinion. It's my observation that the Planning Commission is driven largely by personal thoughts and reactions to questions, not data. But we pay a staff who needs to bring data to all of us so that you can make good decisions, and we, the public, can agree with them because they are based on data. So the BBC housing analysis identified we needed 3350 units of rental below three. For incomes of $23,000 and below.

And then we also needed housing for young starter housing for young families, and housing for seniors without stairs. Since then and under the new code, which was adopted in 2020 and 21, we actually have built almost none, almost none. Not one of those three types of housing in Littleton. We did pass an inclusionary housing ordinance, and of the 11 cities studied, our percentage of required inclusion of affordable housing was 5%, the least, the lowest percentage of any. Now, Littleton is a very attractive and desirable place to build housing and so there was no good excuse, no good reason for 5% having the lowest percentage required for inclusionary housing. So we have failed in two ways. The city at least we ignored. We haven't incorporated the numerical targets for these three classes of housing that we needed badly almost ten years ago. And we're not in our inclusionary housing isn't supplying the housing we need. So again, Planning Commission, what I'd like you to do is ask staff to set up a study session to bring back these numbers and quantities. And let's all of them look at them, understand them, get updates to the housing that we need in Littleton, and talk about what we're going to do about that from there. Thanks. - Thank you, Miss Chadbourn. The next item on our agenda is general business. It says none, but I don't know if that can be modified or not at this point. So we'll just move on to item seven, the public hearing. There will be one presentation and one public comment portion for these three items. We're going to do them as a single

unit. They are. I'm going to read the three items PC resolution 04-2026 recommending approval to at two Planning Commission of an amendment to the Chatfield Activity Center Comprehensive Development Plan CDP. PC resolution 07-222026. Recommending approval to City Council of an amendment to the Future Land Use and Character map for the remaining trail marked subdivision parcel from suburban commercial to suburban residential, and then PC resolution 08-2026 recommending approval to City Council of a rezoning for the remaining trail. Subdivision parcel from corridor mixed c m planned development overlay to small lot residential SLR. So I believe the staff presentation is first on the list. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Terry Whitmore. I'm a senior planner and the Trail Subdivision project is one that I have been working on for the past couple of years. It has had a lot of nuance to it. That's one of the reasons why you have three different items in front of you. And I'll talk a little bit about each one. I'm going to stop in between each one to see if there's any questions. That way you have that opportunity before we move on to the next item. All three of these are coordinated together, recognizing that the first item, which is request number one, the Comprehensive Development Plan amendment, that particular item is in coordination with Jefferson County through our intergovernmental agreement process. When the property for trail mark was annexed into the city. And that's where we're

needing to make some adjustments to that document. And number two, the future land use and character map amendment, that is something that runs in concert with request number three, which is the rezoning from what it is currently under our zoning map here in the city of Littleton. It's right now the CMX, which is the corridor mixed zone planned development overlay. And that plan development overlay is in place from that initial comprehensive development plan amendment. So these all three work very closely together. And you will see that as we go through each of these items. So I'm going to address the first item which is the Comprehensive development plan. And that's part of the Chatfield Activity Center. What we're going to be requesting of the Planning Commission is an amendment to that document. And then the second will be the future land Use and character Map amendment, and that we're going to be requesting the suburban commercial that it's set at currently that aligns with its current zoning. As we take a look at new zoning that's being requested by the applicant, the more appropriate future land use and character map update or amendment is for that suburban commercial character. And then the third item would be the request from the applicant to change that CMPLO zoning that's in place currently to small lot residential redevelopment. So that's our SLR zoning category.

So. Before I get into the first category, I want to talk about a few items that are to give you that basis of what's being asked for in the site itself here in trail Market is that remaining undeveloped site, right as you enter trail marked to the right, right across the street from the the fire station, in terms of the size of the site, it's a 7.6 acre site. And as mentioned, it's currently suburban commercial. It's a commercial use. The proposal that the developer has to do single family residential lots under an a small lot residential type size is not allowed under its current zoning. So that's why we're here before you today. And then we'll talk a bit of how all these requests come in under the 2019 Envision Littleton Comprehensive Plan, and how those items align with the guidance in that document. In terms of the details, we've talked a little bit about this already, but noting that commercial uses in the planned development that were put in place when trail Mark was brought forward would not allow residential uses for single family lots on this site. In terms of the public outreach and noticing, this is probably just a small listing. This is the official two neighborhood meetings for this proposal, one being March of 2023, and then the second 1st October of 2025. The time in between those two meetings was between the city and the county. There was a lot

of coordination and discussion on our agreements that are part of that intergovernmental agreement. So that's why there's a bit of time lapse between those two dates. Public hearing was noticed per the requirements in the Unified Land Use Code, there were 827 notification postcards sent to all trail mark residents. This is in and above what we would normally do for a site where we would notice within 700ft of the boundaries. That's what's outlined in the uniform land use code. But working with our legal team here at the city, we really wanted to make certain that all residents were notified for each and every case and consideration, as all or part of that impacted community development plan. There's the required newspaper notice that was conducted. Signs were posted on site, and then all city postings were conducted as per required in the Unified Land Use code. So I'm going to go ahead and go into request number one, which is resolution zero four, series 2026 for the CDP amendment. The requested action is an amendment to the Chatfield Activity Center Comprehensive Development Plan to increase the maximum allowed units from residential units from 805 to 850. The decision criteria that Planning Commission considers for this case is one. The changing conditions of the site. Is this change necessary because of changed or changing conditions on the property or in the area which is of which

where it's situated? Number two, no special benefit, meaning that the actions before you today and recommendations considered by staff are fairly applied such that there has been no special benefit conferred on this property with similar conditions. Number three density and intensity. Consistent with the nature of the development and the density or intensity of the land uses, originally improved. So based on kind of that comparative for the public health, safety and welfare likely of the results, relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare of the community. And then the fifth being violation is the request for this major plan amendment. Does it create any type of a violation of condition or approval from the original plan or provision of the code? So I'll talk about each one of these individually as it relates to this case. The first bullet being the changing conditions trail. Mark was originally conceived as a large scale mixed use development. It should be noted that currently the residential count for how many units are in trail mark are between 799 and 806. So really butting up against that 805 maximum for the residential allowance and knowing that the desire is for future single family residential on this lot, that is a changing condition, consideration, viability of the market conditions. The applicant will talk a bit in

their presentation about the lack of interest in the lot that exists that is vacant, that we're talking about tonight. For other commercial development which is allowed on the site currently, and how that has been a change in what was considered initially years ago, when the CDP was first put together. Another discussion is that trail Mark itself had some pushback from the US Army Corps of Engineers related to its proximity to the Chatfield reservoir, how that impacts environmental considerations, runoff, stormwater, and ensuring that there is minimal impact by this subdivision development. And then last, the corridor mixed use underlying zoning that this site has and can be sought after with just a major development plan. It's our one of our most intense zoning districts in the city of Littleton, and it can allow some fairly substantial developments at heights that may or may not be compatible with the adjacent residential properties. No special benefit to the developer. With what we're bringing forward for you today. And in terms of the increase in intensity, in terms of market conditions, going to a single family residential use for this site is less intense than doing a commercial development on this property, which could be a retail strip center. It could be a grocery, it could be gas station. A lot

of those are very viable uses for what the zoning is set up for today. And so in terms of those future impacts, looking at single family residential with that commercial potential impact, public health, safety and welfare, transitioning the site from commercial to residential and how it impacts the overarching public health, safety and welfare of the neighboring community. Those single family homes that are already adjacent to this property is something that we took a look at for this plan and our staff report two view corridors was a big part of the discussion, both with staff and Jefferson County, and then also later with the development team that are the applicant to this project. Right now under the CDP, there are two major view corridors that were slated to be preserved through this vacant site that we're going to provide those views to trail Mark. Those have actually, over time been obscured with trees and other growth. But there are some great views still. And so in order to preserve the views for the rest of the community, especially trail Mark, but the greater community as well, we worked with the developer to discuss having two view corridors at the corners of the property that were being discussed today to ensure that is preserved through this process, and any violations. Looking through all of our records, we did not find any violation of the any conditions of approval for this site with the current community Development Plan or other aspects of our unified land use code. So based on all of that, staff recommend approval of the

Comprehensive Development Plan amendment to City Council with resolution zero four series 2026. Are there any questions from Planning Commission on this first item? - Go ahead. Aaron. - Okay, so yeah, I have a question. You said you sent 827 postcards to the trail marked one for every trail Mark residents, but were at 100 or 805 residential units. So is this are we defining residential unit as one building, or are we talking it as as one private dwelling? - So we looked at the different counts for residential units and determining that it's right now for the subdivision between 799 and 806, without going forward and doing a full analysis. But with what the proposal is from the applicant, they would be asking for more units than residential units than what would the CDP allow, whether it's at 799 or whether it's at 806 currently, the number of postcards that we send out, we send them to property owners. So we send them out to all residential owners within trail Mark. But there are some other owners of property within trail Mark, such as South Suburban. There's some adjacency to Chatfield Reservoir. And so some of that Army corps. We also have the Botanic Gardens that received postcards. So that's why the number is higher than the number we were talking about for residential units. - Okay. But again, are we talking when you say residential unit because there

is a section of trail mark. That's a bunch of condos in the back. So does each of those condos count as one residential unit, or does the entire building count as one residential unit? - Each of the condos count as one residential unit. - Okay. - In the in the staff report. And maybe I missed this. I haven't had time to go through. I think there were some questions that came out ahead of time. But why was the original trail mark development plan halted by the United States Army Corps of Engineer? - From the research that we did asking this question, there wasn't necessarily a halt in the development, but the amount of intensity was looked at carefully, and there was more involvement from the US Army Corps in what was being proposed for the development. It's my understanding initially, trail Mark was to be a golf course community. This was before my time at the city, but that there was a need also for some of those supporting retail commercial establishments for this, you know, larger concept that trail Mark had and the applicant may have some more information on that as well. But in terms of how the Army Corps impacted what you see out in trail Mark today, I am not certain of that. - Okay. I guess I'd also like to know why the the idea of a restaurant or a commercial development would be a future adverse impact.

- A retail or commercial establishment. And if that would not necessarily be a adverse impact and would have more intensity in terms of traffic, in terms of its overall. Health and environmental impacts to adjacent single family properties, you need to, when you have a commercial property adjacent to a single family residential property, you're going to have increased buffer requirements. You're going to need to look at how you're flowing traffic because of the increased demand that you would have from, say, a single family residential property adjacent. But in terms of adverse impacts, every community needs those different types of uses. So I wouldn't necessarily use the word adverse as much as I would say it's a higher intensity impact. - Okay. Yeah. I mean, that was just, staff report here where it suggests you're mitigating potential neighborhood loss. I guess I, I'm wondering. Now, I'll say that. Never mind. Thank you. - Chair recognizes Commissioner Coronado. - One question regarding public meetings in the staff report. It indicates that there are two public meetings that were held 1 in 2023, 1 in 2025. I only see a summary of the earlier one in our packet, and there were some concerns expressed there. To summarize, there were some concerns expressed about the height of the buildings,

the proposed buildings there. But do we have the notes or minutes or summary from the second meeting? - We do have those. I do not know what happened with the packet. We can get those for you. They were very similar comments in both meetings and when there was discussion of heights adjacent neighbors, because they are two story homes that have views of Chatfield, we're concerned that their views not be impacted. That's why most of the adjacent single family residential owners that came out to the meetings requested ranch homes near their properties so that they could still preserve those views they have from their decks on the second floor. - Okay. Thank you. - Chair recognizes Commissioner Schwinn. - When this was originally put together, there was conversation in the original. SDP or whatever it was called back then about sales tax being generated by this commercial development plot that would help fund the area. I also noticed in this that there were several requests for economic studies and how things would impact it, and yet the applicant never responded. I'm curious if that's been a is going to be addressed or has been addressed, and it just didn't make the packet. - The applicant will discuss the economic study request in their presentation. Staff has not been provided with that document at this point in time. - So we'll just get it cold

tonight. Is that correct? Thank you. - Yep. - Chair recognizes Commissioner Almond. - Okay. - I in the I can't remember which report it was the staff report. It said that Jeffco approved this with the condition that that economic analysis be completed as well as another item. I think it was a compliance with the community plan. And my question is once that economic analysis is provided because we don't have it, how, who, who would review that to make sure it meets the condition of Jeffco as well as Littleton. - Jeffco in their comments on this project, requested the economic study. It is not a requirement for this application and economic development at the City of Littleton also requested the academic study. Both of those parties recognize that it is not required, but we did pass on to the developer that each of these parties requests and would like to see it. They did submit the economic letter, and that's what's required for the application. - Okay. - It's I have questions. There's three different topics, and it seems like they're all kind of commingled. So if I'm asking something out of order, let me know. But. On, on the, I guess there's a proposed plat. We're not necessarily talking about that today. No, but I did read. Okay. No, but I but it

says in the reports that there's 27 units being proposed, but that the request is to increase the number, total number of units to 850. So it says, I mean 20 there were 27 mentioned. But then we're asking for applicants asking for 55 anyway, more units than that. So what what's the rationale. Yes. Thank you. - The rationale for that is if 27 units ends up being what is submitted, if all three of these items move forward, then a subdivision preliminary plat can be submitted to the city of Littleton. And if it were 27, we would still have plus or minus ten or so lots that we would have flexibility with. If, let's say a resident wants to go to the HOA and request to do an accessory dwelling unit because they have an aging grandparent, something of that nature, that's an additional residential unit. The reason that that took time between the two neighborhood meetings is because it was a negotiation and a lot of meetings between Jefferson County and the city of Littleton, and that was a lot of process for us to go through as jurisdictions. But for a resident to try to go through that process in order to get approval through the City of Littleton, when Trail Park is primarily Littleton. Now, that didn't seem like it would be a ideal situation for a resident to have to go through. So this is providing a little bit of flexibility so that these cases could come forward, go through the entire development process, go through the approvals and, you know, be

done in a manner where somebody can just work with the jurisdiction that's, you know, that they're part of which, for the most part, at this point in time is Littleton. - Question or point of clarification, Terry. Thank you for that. Per recent referendum, ADUs would not be allowed on SLR or MLR properties in trail marks, so that potentiality would not be legal under current code. Just to clarify. - Right. We're just giving that flexibility going forward because there are some properties in trail mark of a few minor ones that are still part of Jefferson County. So that intergovernmental agreement will be in place for some time. We just don't know what the future holds. And we felt it was important to have some flexibility to have things looked at just with the city of Littleton. If something comes forward in the future, okay. - But the the extra number that beyond 27 that are proposed for being built here, the extra unit count to 850 is to absorb potential secondary units on the Jefferson County lots that are currently where it would be legal. Is that correct? - Yeah. Can I provide some clarification there? So the entirety of trail mark is in the city of Littleton. And so ultimately those lots are thinking through the the proactive nature of some of the recent legislation and be able to provide that level of flexibility ultimately. So we also don't have an active application for this from a standpoint, from the standpoint of a preliminary plat. And so understanding that the how that design of that property may evolve, we wanted the flexibility to ensure that we could allow proper design, that by allowing future land use

considerations for accessory dwelling units, should. - Should ADUs become legal, we would and we would. And we were to say there were 27 units built here. There would be room under the 850 maximum residential unit limit for 23 of the trail Mark residents have an Adu. But what happens when 112 of them or 200 want an Adu? Is it just the first 23? And then you have to go through an amendment of the CDP process to get more than 23 ADUs there? - That is correct. At this point. That's how it would have to be managed. Yes. - I see, so it's it sets up a potential lottery for. - Some other adjudicated. - System for, for the 23 acres that might be. - Yeah, something that we would have to consider when we get to that point. - Or we would revisit that CDP limit. - Yeah, correct. And I just also want to make a note on the record that the second neighborhood meeting minutes are are located within the packet. - Was there any discussion of increasing the unit count to 900 or 1000 for this future potentiality? Y 850. - It was enough to at least allow some flexibility, but not increasing an amount so much that we couldn't be thoughtful on, you know, having those for future discussions with Jefferson County under that inter, you know, governmental agreement. So it was really that negotiation between Jefferson County and the city of Littleton and Jefferson County has already passed that 850 number. - Any other questions from my commissioners? - Thank you. I did have one question. Just because the CDP

predates the U. LUC by so much, is there any legal risk for us applying the modern modern. What do I want to say here? Criteria to that legacy entitlement at all. Thank you for that question. So, you know, when we went through and looked at the intent of the CDP as it was when it was established, and I believe it was 1990, 1991, you know, we looked at the U, L, U, C and the intent behind the Mapa, the major plan amendment. And we felt that it was like, as I mentioned, or as we mentioned in the report, it's not apples to apples, but we felt that the intent was there. Otherwise, if we didn't move forward with this process, then this body would have never seen the CDP amendment. It would have reverted to an administrative approval, which is not something that we wanted to do, especially since Jefferson County took it to their planning commission and also to their board of county commissioners. So we felt that it was necessary for transparency purposes to bring it to this board as well. And we felt that the criteria under the major plan amendment best fit, rather than any of the other items, because this was truly intended as a planned development. - Okay. Thank you. - All right. Thank you. If there are no other questions, I'm going to return the microphone to Terry to continue. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission. I will go on to item number two, which is the future land use and Character Map Amendment resolution zero seven, series 2026. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the City of Littleton's Future land use and character map we often refer to as the flock from the suburban commercial designation. It is currently to the Suburban Residential designation. As

mentioned earlier, it's a 7.6 acre site. It's the area on the map that's outlined in that thicker red pen. And currently the site is that suburban commercial which aligned with that CMPL zoning that we talked about earlier, and the future land use designation proposal is for it to go to suburban residential to align with the small lot residential zoning that's being requested in the next item. In terms of application details, the future land use map amendment for that suburban residential character really focuses on balancing buildings with open space, with having paving being a smaller portion of that pie that you see in front of you. And that's a good way to just envision of how that would look in the future, whether it's that suburban commercial with character elements or suburban residential, all are going to have that focus on open space and minimizing paving. In addition, having development standards, open space and buffer yards are all things that we would be looking at for this single family, you know, subdivision that's going to be brought forward as the concept from the applicant. These are initial stages, so we won't talk too much about that, but those will all be building design and character aspects that we take a look at through that development process. Because of this suburban character. In terms of what's surrounding that property that's outlined in that darker red pen to the north. All of that property is part of the,

you know, the Chatfield activity center CDP. So that kind of that planned development. And it's a medium lot residential. So that's at a, a larger lot than what we're talking about for this property, which would be small lot residential, but it also has some floodplain overlay. So we have some of the pond and open space also to the north area and the land use for that area, single family residential and floodplain with open space to the east. We have rights of way and floodplain overlay, and that land use is south of Wadsworth Boulevard, which is 121 and the Chatfield Reservoir. We also have some of that Army Corps of Engineer property that we were talking about, and also some of the Botanic Gardens property as well. To the south, the oops, we have floodplain overlay and open space. That's where your trail mark subdivision pond is, the recreational area with trails that had some of those great views to Chatfield that have been blocked a bit over time. And so that's why we talked about those view corridors being preserved on this subdivision in this vacant lot current. We also have the Metro South Metro Fire Department, station 19 and unincorporated Jefferson County. And then to the west, we have floodplain overlay and open space. And the land use is the trail mark, subdivision pond and recreation area with trails. So as you see from all sides of this property, for the most part, it's single family residential floodplain overlay and also pond. In terms

of the decision criteria that we look at for the flood amendment, we take a look at compatibility in terms of the land use types and characteristics of the proposed land use category, how they're compatible to those adjacent properties in the immediate vicinity that we just talked about for the subject property, the impact mitigation, how this amendment will serve to mitigate adverse impacts. I know that that adverse impacts is part of the decision criteria verbiage, but how it mitigates those in terms of that natural and built environment, including but not limited to, the mobility, air quality, water quality, noise levels, stormwater management and vegetation, and trying to be as neutral as possible to these items. Third, our comprehensive plan for the City of Littleton. How this proposed amendment supports those goals. That's looked at and encouraged through this process, and then changing conditions. How the amendment will serve to address the changing condition. It was it anticipated back at that point in time that the comprehensive plan was put together. And I would also add back at the time that the CDP was put together as well. There's been a lot of time in that frame and those changing conditions. So on each of these items and the compatibility, the suburban commercial being surrounded by suburban residential, currently on land use is what our situation is with this vacant piece of property. The suburban residential character proposed is a single family residential subdivision that that will be brought forward, and it would be adjacent to other single

family residential subdivision, whether it's MLR at our medium lot residential size or our SLR or small lot residential size, those are compatible request to align with the Suburban Focus character, where we talked about having that real focus on open space, less on paving and increased open space and landscaping really being desired. The impact mitigation, residential land use and development will help to mitigate future impacts for neighboring lots. In terms of the current use by right of the property being commercial, automatically having that residential being proposed for this site, that single family residential is a less intensive use than a commercial strip center. Some of the other developments that I have seen proposed over time. In fact, right about the time of Covid, there was a multi-story senior complex that was proposed for this site that didn't move forward due to the timing, but there have been some, you know, significantly more impactful proposals over time. Current use by, right, like I mentioned in the commercial. And then we get into the comprehensive plan where Jefferson County is review. They mentioned specifically that they according to their plan, the residential single family use is consistent with the CDP and their plans as well. And a specific statement that I wanted to bring forward from our comprehensive plan here in the city of Littleton is that near residential properties and areas, the permitted scale and intensity of nonresidential uses should be limited to ensure compatibility with specific. From our comprehensive plan, and there are a number of other items as well, but that was one that really aligned with what this discussion is about here.

Changing conditions per the applicant, that there has been a decreased demand for commercial property since Covid, and they've seen that specifically in parties that they've tried to market the property for. They'll talk more about that. And then also, the proposed amendment fulfills several goals of the comprehensive plan and expands on helps to diversify housing within the city of Littleton with having those smaller lots, with having homes that, you know, are more of a ranch style that can allow somebody to live in place, have that, you know, that low rise entry or no rise entry. If you're in a wheelchair, there's a lot of opportunity with this site, with what's being proposed. So with that discussion, staff recommendation is to recommend approval of the future Land Use and Character map amendment to the City Council. Resolution zero seven series 2026. With that, I'll be available to answer any questions. - All right. I'll start with Commissioner Schwinn. - I'm a little confused. You said there was a proposed senior living center to go there. Multistory. How would that not be? Multifamily housing. How would that have fit into the current zoning. - That's actually designated as commercial? And in addition, the current commercial zoning within the CDP. So basically the CMPLO the old plan development overlay does allow for a multi residential development, just not single

family residential. - Oh. - Next questions Commissioner Coronado. - Along those lines too, you mentioned I think there were several development proposals over a period of time. Can you might not have been here, but can you comment was there a common theme for why they didn't move forward? Was it economic or were there opposition from the community? Do we know? - I would want to defer that to the applicant. I think they will talk a little bit about over the last number of years, five plus years since Covid, the minimal amount of requests that have come forward. I'm just going over what I was able to find in my research on the property. And the the only one I was able to find was that senior project that actually had been submitted to the senior or to the city of Littleton. It could also be that there are proposals brought forward to the applicant that are uses by right or allowed by right that we wouldn't necessarily see until an actual projects brought forward. - Okay. Thank you. - I have a you just mentioned that the senior center would is characterized as a commercial development. And because this was zoned for commercial by. Right, that project could have been moved forward by. Right? - Yes. - Okay. Any other questions from the commissioner? I turn it back over to you, Terry. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Request number three, the final request that all couples together for this project is a

rezoning request from corridor mixed planned development. Overlay the CMPLO to small lot residential, which is resolution zero eight series 2026. The requested action. The applicant is requesting rezoning of the 7.68 acre property from corridor Mixed planned Development Overlay district CMPLO to small lot residential SLR. This is a site more of a blow up of the property that's being considered for the rezoning. I already talked about that. It's current zoning is the CMPLO and then being requested to go to the SLR zoning. And what this in essence does is it would remove that planned development overlay, and it would be just a straight SLR, small lot residential zone under our current zoning code. This is the same chart that was in the last case. And so I'm not going to go over every item of what's to the north, east, south and west of the proposed site. But just go back to that general overview that the surroundings, for the most part, are the trail Mark pond, the US, the the fire station across the street. We have it bordered by Wadsworth Boulevard, Chatfield reservoir, open space, and single family residential for the most part at the medium lot residential zoning district. So to talk in more detail, here are the decision criteria that

are specific to consideration for a rezoning. So the first item to look at is consistency. How this proposed rezoning and zoning map amendment, how they align with the comprehensive Plan or an adopted subarea plan where it's applicable, any other corridor plan, city policies, anything of that nature would need to be considered, and also how changing conditions have occurred that may have changed the character of the site, its surroundings, how its traffic in the area may also be a factor. Are there new developments, such as schools that are adjoining, other environmental issues? All things that may have changed or may impact the comprehensive plan? All that's taken into consideration through the staff analysis and your analysis. Compatibility. The range of uses allowed by the proposed zoning district, and how they're compatible with those surrounding properties and the immediate vicinity traffic, how the traffic generated by the proposed land use that would be incorporated with this rezoning request. How it's going to impact, you know, undue congestion, noise, traffic hazard, and also considering how that traffic would look under its current land use and zoning as well. So that comparative is looked at adequate public facilities. Are they available for this property that's taken a look at. And then the natural environment and how both the rezoning and that future land use map work together for any

natural features in the area and preserving those natural aspects. So to talk about each one of these items, consistency staff, through its analysis, determined that trail mark character has a predominant focus on suburban design, suburban character, suburban land use, and from, you know, for the most part, its single family residential with, you know, some other, you know, maybe, you know, condo type development, but it's almost predominantly single family residential currently compatibility, the future land use character areas focus in on future land uses that are residential. If you were to look at that map that I brought up, it's it's all of that suburban character. Currently, the plan development overlay zoning right now as it stands and different commercial uses that would be uses by right are of a higher intensity. Thinking through that senior complex that I talked about that would be allowed by. Right. There's a number of things that could be allowed by right, including things like, you know, strip centers, gas stations currently for the planned development allowance. And one thing also to mention on the compatibility, the rezoning would be set the stage for a single family subdivision development that would be required to come in under the city of Littleton's inclusionary housing ordinance, whether that be to provide units in the development or to pay that fee in lieu. That helps as well for affordability. And also when you have that smaller lot, it does make the

product that can be built on those lots just by nature. And market conditions can be more affordable than if it's on a larger lot with the price of land traffic, both roadway access points that are proposed for, you know, if you were to develop this site, even though we're not getting into design per se, but those points of access would be full movement and side street stop controlled applicant would be responsible for any recommended transportation improvements that would come through that development process. That would not be on the city of Littleton to do so. Residential traffic estimates, through their traffic analysis, determined that there's 19 vehicle hours increase in the morning. And there's 25 vehicles per hour increase in the p m. So that's how much traffic was added by doing a residential redevelopment of the site, the number would be significantly higher with a commercial development in terms of adequate public facilities. There are we talked about the two lookout vistas that would be preserved with those connections for the community to Chatfield Reservoir. I mentioned that as a public facility because that would be a huge amenity for the community, but also adding that all services are available to the site, along with a very close proximity to fire. So that would help any development and then the natural environment that the site shall not harm natural features or any of the adjacent proposed developments. So those were the criteria that were reviewed by staff. And based on that staff recommendation is recommend approval of the the rezoning to

City Council resolution zero eight, series 2026. With that, I'm available for any questions. - All right. Do we have any questions from the Commission? Miss Whitmore, could you roll back a few slides? I think I might have a question. The slide was. There we go. No, you just hit it. Under traffic. The applicant will be responsible for any recommended traffic improvements. Once they're built, they become the responsibility of the City of Littleton for upgrades or maintenance. Is that true or false? - I think the easy answer is it depends. So we don't have without an active application for that development, we are unsure if they're proposing public streets or private streets and what those that infrastructure would be. And so we just want to be cognizant that that would be considered under that preliminary plat. We would come to the Planning Commission in the future. - But just to clarify, if there was a roadway added to access these residences, that they would pay for the road, but they would normally, under assumed circumstances, we would the city would be then it would be a road like all the others in the trail. - Not necessarily. So. There are other several subdivisions that are recently installed within the city of Littleton that included private infrastructure. So toll parcels H and I have a main access that is a public road, but the majority of the infrastructure within that is actually privately owned and maintained by a metro district. And so without that application and understanding what the context of what they're actually proposing, it's there's it's not clear it could go either way. But theoretically, we do prefer public infrastructure over private infrastructure. - And it is also possible for the council to stipulate that

if a public or a new road was added, it might have to be maintained by the HOA or something like that. That would be a possibility. - Yeah. Traditionally that falls under the purview of the code. So if it is a public road, it does require it has to be built to a certain standard, as is it incorporated with the Littleton Engineering design standards, which is one of the criteria that's under the preliminary plat criteria. So we would ensure that it is designed and constructed to meet that and that transportation master plan standards for roadway classifications. So traditionally probably a local road there. But ultimately our preference would be that it would be constructed to meet those public standards, if that makes sense. - And thus our public responsibility. Correct? That's correct. I think we're ready to go on to the next stage. It looks like there's no questions from the commission. So I turn it over to Mr. Knight and Miss Whitmore to guide us to the next. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have the applicant in the audience, and they are ready to provide you a presentation. They will cover many of the items that I discussed. We're starting off with Mr. Ryan McDermott with Shay, and then we'll have Mr. Marcus Pachner. - Mr. - Good evening. My name is Ryan McDermott. I am with Shay Homes. Thank you for the opportunity to present in front of you this this evening. A little bit about myself and Shay. I've been fortunate enough to work for Shay for a handful of years. Really, my role within the organization is kind of forward planning and development. Shay Homes itself came to Colorado kind of right about this time,

1990s, mostly with the acquisition of the assets of Mission Viejo Company, which everybody kind of knows now is Highlands ranch was kind of the flagship for Shay Homes for many years. More recently, we have master planned communities in the city of Castle Pines, City of Lone Tree, and in unincorporated Douglas County. And so really our base business for for many years has been master planned residential communities. Just real quick, our team, Marcus will take the wheel here shortly. Talk about the project, the outreach, kind of the process we've gone through. Sage design has been our land planner and landscape architect on the project, and then Redland has been our civil engineer on the project. The site itself staff did a great job kind of explaining the history here, but it's about seven and a half acres. Original plat was done early 90s, I think the last plat was done in about 2000 and development, obviously in the area for housing took place during those time periods. So this piece of ground since then, like I said, roughly seven and a half acres has been largely fallow for a couple decades. And starting roughly in 2019, we started having internal conversations about how to activate this fallow ground and really had our first meeting with City Littleton in 2019. Obviously, it's 2026 right now, so I'll turn it over to Marcus and kind of explain the journey we've been on since that time. - Great. Thank you, Ryan, and I'll just note. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Marcus Parker. I'm a land use and community outreach consultant. I'll also note that we have a number of our team members here for any questions you may have, and we're happy to go through those. I'll just also note on this slide that Mission Viejo also that land across Chatfield Reservoir there that is now solstice. We also own that site. So we're very familiar with

Chatfield and some of the iterations and the Army Corps and all the work that has gone through this for many decades on these two adjacent sites. I'm actually going to show you quickly a presentation that mostly I have done with the neighbors over the last four years of this process, and I want to show you how we tried to explain the process to the neighbors, because it's a very unique site that although they live in Littleton, they needed to understand what ultimately was decided how to go through this process. So the two blue boxes here are obviously concurrent approvals. First, the Jefferson County on the CDP amendment, which staff did a great job of showing now the concurrent approval, if that's approved, that allows us to discuss the plan and the Littleton rezoning. So we really went through that. Again, unanimous approval from the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners with no conditions on those requests. The project timeline. I know this is a crazy document, but I just want to show you Orange is all Littleton process. The mixed colors is kind of a combined process between the two entities and ourself. And then green is just Jefferson County. We did our first neighborhood meeting in 2022 with the board and with the city. As Ryan mentioned, we actually met with Littleton back in 2019. It took 2 or 3 years to basically determine how to process this application. We are a very experienced developer who works in all these markets, and there was no path forward until it was really determined. How do you go through this? So I just say that we're not individual homeowners who would have no idea how to get through this process, but it shows what really did. Staff did a wonderful job of working together and ultimately saying, we'll go the most transparent way. We will take full hearings through Jefferson County. Notice the entire community, not abutting areas, the entire community, and then we'll do full hearings in Littleton if that's successful. And notice

all of that. So you see the approvals here and now before you today, again, for these three specific requests, we do all of our community outreach as our company with a concentric outreach philosophy, meeting with the most adjacent neighbors and really working with them. We were fortunate enough to work on the Costco and the Embry site here in Littleton, and we did all the outreach with that and with the same philosophy of engaging the neighbors, understanding economic impact, and the housing plans to bring into the site. This is the list of the nine community meetings. I want to be sure a note here that president of the HOA is here as well. The trademark HOA sent their first letter of support for this project in 2023, because we didn't know the process where it would end up. They've also sent one here. Each one of those HOA board meetings has at least 40 or 50 people there, and sometimes up to 100. They are remarkable. They send an email to every community member, and they have remarkable responsiveness in the community. So we have had one of the most discussed processes and transparent processes over the last four years with this adjacent community. Again, this shows that CDP, which thank you again to staff for walking through. This is the slide we showed to the neighborhoods because there was some consternation about those additional units, which I'll be happy to address. This is actually the Chatfield activity center that goes through the verbiage of the 805. Some people think there's 806 units. The HOA will tell you there's less than 800. That's about licensing the way people make applications. I'm sure there's a number of reasons for that, but we all acknowledge that that number needed to be increased, right? That was the process. So we had this discussion between the three entities the city, the county and ourselves about what was that appropriate number. We went through this summary

that basically we have to amend that max unit count to allow this discussion to take place. We couldn't even come to Littleton. It wasn't appropriate until additional units would be allowed. So that's why we went to Jefferson County first and why we're asking then for the concurrent approval approval of that CDP, which amends the IGA between the governments. So that's the process that we went through with the support. Again, this shows the way we showed the math. Right, folks? I think you are right on, Mr. Chair. When you went through it, the 27 units approximately. We don't have a site plan specific. It'll be ins about 17 units I j this has taken 3 or 4 years to get through the process. In that time frame, you've adopted a new code which changed the zoning and the housing typologies that were allowed. You also had a ballot initiative that was proposed that maybe changed some things that changed in state laws to allow for Adu. None of those things are part of our discussion, our movement, our policy, any of that. We are carrying a larger request. Those extra units really allow the City of Littleton to do what you do and to govern and rule on each one of those lots. These are the last remaining lots in Littleton. We are not seeking additional lots. We won't build other lots. These lots here. This last site, right, is the last one. So if it's 27, 28 units, whatever that is. Yes, it will allow 17 or 18 units. And that is really for the city of Littleton to process with the HOA and the HOA rules, the state Adu not our process, but it makes perfect sense to bring it forward now. And frankly, we were happy to do that in a way to allow the discussion to take place. Acknowledging that an individual resident probably wouldn't get through that

process. So that's the background. So there was a request to maybe be at 9 or 950. As you all know, there was a discussion about affordable housing going on then that led to a remarkable turnout in the neighborhood meeting that said, we don't want additional units that how that got adjusted down to 850. So all of this discussion, I'll be honest, has been about everything but our. 27 lots for the last couple of years. So I just want to be clear, we have tried to be as compliant as possible in every step over the last four years. We believe we are in full compliance with the approval criteria. Again, we built this community in 1991. We love it. We think it has been a great addition to Littleton and we want it to continue. I'm happy to go in much more detail if you would like me to, on the approval criteria past that, if we're able to move forward, then the fluke and the rezoning. The second request, again, looking at that, we are listing the approval criteria. Her first, because when we show our next slides, we show the way that we believe we are compliant with your comprehensive plan and the requirements for the criteria here to approve the Comp Plan amendment. This shows you we are fully surrounded by suburban residential. Yes, this is suburban commercial. And for 34 years we have had only gas stations and a storage facility. Be interested in this site. We also had a substation want to be built there by a public utility, and they asked us not to bring that up. We don't think it's a great use. The neighborhood would go crazy on any of those uses and they are not benefiting. I'll also talk about we have tried, we have marketed. We are very well known developer. This has not been a commercial corridor for that to happen. And we really valued the process with the community. So we met with them four years ago and said, let's talk about maybe what could be or what should be on this site. Just to reiterate, suburban commercial, this gives you that it was mentioned kind of the

impact, the, the traffic, the traffic from a commercial use here could be 10 to 15 times what we are proposing in 27 units. We think commercial is wonderful. We've done a ton of commercial. But in this setting it is a very different. And based on our discussions with the community, they believe those are some political or some potential adverse impacts. I understand that they can be good impacts, but really in this setting, it's a very isolated site for commercial use. This does look at your comprehensive plan and why we believe we are bringing a variety of housing product forward. This is a small lot. We do think it's more diverse than the existing housing there. Yes, there are some condos, but this is almost all medium sized single family homes. And again, really adding to the type, size and price points for this community. The community also wants to buy all these homes as they've aged in place. They don't want their large yacht large yards anymore. They all want to buy a smaller lot format here to really live at this site. I just want to acknowledge the comment about the economic analysis. We are not trying to push back in any way. We have had zero interest in this site except for a storage facility which will not fit. And I'll talk about what that means and fueling centers. Once we were approved in January of this year, you all had a moratorium on fueling centers. There is no economic impact. As you know, in the last month, there has been a spacing ordinance adopted and a conditional use requirement. Now for fueling centers. It's no longer a use by right. You'd have to go through a Q P, and I'm sure you will hear from the neighborhood. If this were to be a gas station, it would be a very different discussion and a very different turnout. Lastly, I will say fully acknowledge that a lot of times residential is always kind of viewed as a net negative on revenue. But this site is built, this is serviced by the city. Every 800 homes that are there are deeper into the site. We will build the roadways. So we don't think it has that negative impact. Rather, we're bringing in more

contributing people that will spend sales tax revenue. Again, we're happy to talk about it. We're not avoiding that. There just hasn't really been a basis from which to study. Just want to talk about then meeting that approval criteria again, completely compatible. It is the existing surrounding zoned district. This is a great lesser impact than what is proposed on the site today. We are completely compliant with the comprehensive plan, and we believe the changing conditions has changed dramatically post Covid. Pre Covid, what has happened to retail? We really believe that this is not no longer a commercial site and makes much more sense. Finally, to take you into the current rezoning. All of this in a concurrent narrative and story. This shows the site you see the medium size or mid-size residential. There's a daycare to the north of this site just so you can see that other pink color there. That's what that is. That was built as part of the original vision and really in full support of the neighborhood. I would note the homes are immediately north of this site and how closely we have worked with those neighbors and how much they do not want to see commercial uses on the site. I realize it's bigger than that, but to understand the depth of the discussion, this is the use and why perhaps a senior living facility was discussed. These are some of the things that are allowed in court or mixed use. Very intense, different types, some residential but single family detached homes. It's not allowed. Hence our request to rezone this site to small lot residential. This is what we've heard. We don't have a site plan here, but all the neighbors would agree. These are the five things that we've said. So I won't say this is a site plan, but I will show you how we have shown it with the neighbors. 27 single family homes off of an existing roadway, 30% open space, expanded trails, expanded networks, and actually completely rebuilding the view corridors. Once we've had

coordination with the city and with the neighbors. So it has been a very thoughtful discussion about all of that. I just will give you a preview. The homes on the north will be limited to single story homes. That was in direct consultation with all the neighbors just to the north of us. We are also adding new sidewalks, and you can see the two yellow or kind of orangish color view corridors. Those are protected in the IGA. We have worked to basically rebuild those view corridors. It's to look to Chatfield. So we are creating them. I just want to show one point here. That old view corridor to be removed south to the entry point. That is the only footprint that could be developed for commercial today. So that is why we say it's really limited to a fuel center today. There is a very small center that can be allowed because you still have to honor the view corridor, and that's why that has been so much more restrictive on that and why we believe small lot residential is much more compliant, compatible and really benefiting to the surrounding neighborhood. I'll just show you this is that traffic study that shows our trips at 255, where commercial could be 1300 up to 4500. Again, much more dramatic. This is a corridor that now goes down to Lockheed and to Roxboro, which certainly capture a lot of that economic and some of the retail and a lot of those traffic trips today, folks, we believe we are completely consistent with your approval criteria. We are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. We are much less traffic. This is an adequate public facilities. All utilities and referral comments said that we could be served on this site and are served on this site already, and we again believe this is much more benefiting to the natural environment. Again, commercial can happen in the right ways. We work on it, but we think the way we're doing this, with wrapping it with open space and really making it be the same context. We believe this is

beneficial to the natural environment. So with changing conditions, 20 years plus of experience on this site, this is community based planning. We worked with the city and the neighborhood to really hear what they wanted, what to see there, how to incorporate noise, dark sky compliant, all of these things. And really the preservation of the compatibility, the community compatible assets that view corridor, really reforming all of that. We would respectfully ask for your support for this plan. We have worked and endeavored for 27 lots for 3 or 4 years here to really try to do what's right for the neighborhood and right for the city. So we I guess I ask you to join Jefferson County Planning Commission and their Board of Commissioners moving forward, the CDP amendment and then moving forward with the rezoning requests. With all of that, we have a whole team here to answer any questions you have, and we look forward to hearing them. Thank you. - Thank you, Mr. Faulkner and Mr. McDermott. All right. I'd like to turn this over to questions for the applicant from commissioners. Do we have any questions for the applicant team? Commissioner Roethlisberger. - Okay. So regarding some of this you know the changes here. Looking at, you know what it is and what it could be. It feels like we've done this jump from, you know, suburban commercial, which can be some of the heavier hitters, but, you know, they, they do exist in Littleton and they do back to residential areas as it is. But we've jumped all the way to suburban residential, completely bypassing any kind of corridor, mixed use option that could still allow some kind of combination of housing and housing units and some small, small scale business. Is

there a reason that that hasn't been considered? - I think it was, and I appreciate the question very much. I don't think that that doesn't mean we didn't consider it. We've again, owned this since 91. We have looked at every development scenario on this site and again started meeting with the city in 2018, 2019. This is really been the product that has come forward that has really fit that and reflects not only the interest, just the market in this site. I will also say this reflects holistically the discussions with the community. This reflects hundreds of people that have attended our meetings and really does that. So I understand, I agree with you that there are probably some other uses where you could have more intensity on the site, but they haven't come forward and this is really balanced that and found that. So I think we're compliant with code. I think some other uses could be you could go through that change, but there has been no market for all of those items that you just described. - Yet. You said that many of the residents have voiced an interest in smaller non yard possessing residential. And CMU is our zoning district type, which allows for a range. It's probably the most diverse, flexible zoning character. It doesn't allow single family lots, but it allows almost everything else. We have multifamily type product in those. CMU is really a catch all for a great deal of flexibility. So on the one hand. You're saying that there's been no other interest, but you're choosing to go with rezone to the least set of options that the community has said they wanted. And the most restrictive in terms of Littleton's code form. For instance, in this case, you couldn't build a a fire shelter

structure. I mean, a lot of wildfire impacted communities have a building which can hold hundreds of residents in case of a fast moving fire where the evacuation is not possible. Should this entire seven acres be converted to single family or patio homes, you would not be able to, if I understand it, even include. We don't have that currently as available use in single lot residential. We're blocked by charter from any other new uses being added to SLR, so could be a potential challenge. But I'm just curious what your thoughts are. Why? Why you went to the lowest density when you heard from the community that they were interested in purchasing smaller type units? - Yeah. - I'll be honest. And the community said they'd be very interested in single family homes only. There was no support for multifamily or other uses. I work on multifamily all the time. I work on those uses. I completely agree diversity of products. So if I misspoke, I apologize. This was embraced by the community. We actually had a site plan that we worked that had a cluster product that was right, kind of served off. But when you did your new code amendment, that was no longer allowed, right? So I just want you to know, we've explored a lot of products on this site, and this has been something that we have looked at. The only kind of way to bring this forward with this. So is there in no way. I just want to be clear, we haven't said there was no other thing. There wasn't a market for that. And this really did work. After four years of discussions with the neighbors, there was a great deal of concern about that total unit count that we would generate traffic trips and some of those things. So I understand that, but this was something that really fit the neighborhood dialog and the guidance in our discussions back and forth with the city. - Thank you. - Sure. - Commissioner Coronado. Yes. I think. - You answered a lot of the questions that I had regarding

feasibility of commercial uses on the property fueling station, a storage facility, things that if I lived near near there, I'd be concerned about. However, you know, it seems to me that the the original plan had anticipated a neighborhood supporting supporting commercial, maybe smaller, maybe an ice cream shop or a restaurant or movie theater type of thing. The neighborhood could walk or bike to. I guess my question is, given its proximity to Wadsworth Boulevard, which I believe is a major arterial, which gets a growing amount of traffic to the developing communities to the south. Are there concerns about placing residential, single family residential that close, and are we looking at sound walls in the future to mitigate that noise? - It's a very fair question, sir, and I will tell you first to your first question about kind of ice cream and neighborhood benefiting it. Just honestly, if we had something like that come forward, we worked with the broker. She's pretty well known. As far as the development company, we did not have interest other than that. And I'm just saying that a storage facility and multiple fueling centers, I think because Wadsworth is such a commuter street there, right? It is going to Lockheed and down to Roxboro and vice versa. Right. The one thing I will note is just showing even this, and I know it's just a conceptual site plan is we actually, the way the site lays out, we're actually not quite as close as a couple of those homes. There are the same distance, right, just on that angle. So I understand that. But we think this actually has pretty good buffer. That is HOA land to the east of us there that's in that yellow corridor. And so that has a a more substantial buffer. We also think by fronting them, that's the back of those homes that look that way. We think with that kind of more of an

east west layout, it kind of buffers that. So yes, it's a consideration. We actually thought residential worked there. You could do a number of different forms. So all of those are right. I guess our challenge today is that commercial didn't happen. It didn't happen in any way. So we're seeking a rezoning and we believe our rezoning meets the approval criteria. Right. So that's how we approached it is that this fits. There's enough buffer there. And for what we've seen, there's been a remarkable interest from even the existing community of moving to a unit like this at that site. - Thank you. Sure. - Commissioner Schwinn. - That leads right into what I was going to ask. - Sure. - You said that you're adding housing stock variety and affordability, and obviously you've got something planned because you have people that want to buy it. How come we didn't see anything about that here is that I don't question. - I don't think so. I I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'll just say we think it's a I didn't say if a more attainable product as a smaller lot than there rather than the large lot that are there. So we think it's a diversity of product. There's no SLR in that neighborhood. So we hope we're bringing some variety and diversity of housing. I'm not we don't know our price point. If that's where that's going, we. - Will know not not necessarily what what I'm thinking is you say a different house. Yeah. So far all I've heard is a smaller lot. But I have heard some kicking around like patio homes, which are traditionally one story houses. - We show here. Again, just conceptually on the north hand side, that we would have a single story or a lower product there. That view corridor is actually looking back towards the mountain. So we worked with those neighbors to discuss that, otherwise kind of a 1 or 2 story house that we're looking at. Again, we haven't designed

them yet because this has been kind of the process. So sir, I would agree with you more in line with that. What we think is different is small lot. These are much smaller lots than the existing context and a much different care of the yard. This would be taking care of shared yards. Etc managed by the HOA. So that's I'm sorry, that's what I meant by kind of a different variety of home. - Any other questions for the applicant? Go ahead miss. - May be for staff too, but what's the maximum number of units present available for SLR on that size of a lot in Littleton? - Yeah. - Sorry, I apologize, I walked away, we looked at the max you could get on there is 47, I think, based on all the code provisions. But with the open space and kind of the agreements that we were at a. 27. - Okay. Thank you. - Mr. Puchner. In terms of the commercial viability of options that may or may not have come your way, was she willing to subdivide? In other words, this is a 7.6 acres. You would not get a ice cream store. Interested in buying seven acres to open up a community serving anything. It's too much land to manage. So it in your history of this parcel, how much flexibility was there in terms of smaller subdividing into smaller acreages for development? One of our concerns as a community and zoning questions are really about what does Littleton expect from its zoning map and our zoning to achieve. And we talk a lot about small town character. And small towns and small towns are more than just

housing. Sure. So one of the since I have this parcel being zoned commercial, it's zoning intention was to have some town for these homes. And when it's a seven acre parcel. And if that's all we've ever seen available for purchase or use as a leaseholder, I mean, so where were you on that over the. - Yeah. - And I'm going to just be honest, we have seen this marketed by generations of people at Shea, and it has been for inline centers, small centers, small sites, a combination of those things to the entire broker community who we work with all the time for any combination of those things. So I couldn't agree more with you. We offered a number of different parcels, if you will, or configurations of that. There's been no interest in this site for 25 years. There has been no interest in this site besides a storage facility and fueling stations. We are very good at development. We'd love to see commercial on the site. We'd love to see community serving, community scale commercial on this site. We have done it in so many of our neighborhoods canyons. Think of coffee shops and those ice cream shops that we have built there. It has not materialized at this site. So we completely agree with you. This is a little bit of some a market analysis, full respect for the Littleton process. We have tried to do that to ensure we bring forward anything if there were something else, but there has not been for this site. - So my question for you to follow that up is, sure, if you were going to want to include new residential product on a parcel of this size, it's fairly substantial. It's not a small parcel. And we have a very limited number of CMU zone types, zoned districts remaining in the city. To me, this would be an opportunity to use that flexible zoning option

to its current zoning to to have some residential, but other uses available on the site. But but we're going to SLR for the whole parcel. Was there any consideration about ways to use the existing zoning? - Yeah. I mean, I think we've looked at that and I won't be accurate throughout it. I know the existing zoning has kind of changed on this site through the process as well over that. There's certainly been some adaptations of that, maybe not as much on the commercial side, but as we looked at it, we have looked at kind of a horizontal mixed use, the inclusion of some kind of a coffee shop, all of those things, any of that combination I this is a small site. Yes, seven acres. But from what you could yield, I understand it. I completely agree with you in our discussions. One of the other great challenges is in the community dialog. That would have been a very different discussion. So to bring this forward, we, I guess, kind of honored our discussions with the community to really see what was there and what could move forward. I fight for, you know, more more multifamily, really intense uses all the time and leverage. And I understand that, sir, we just didn't see. - It here. I'm not we're not arguing for really intense usage. It's zoned for suburban commercial. So whatever uses were there would have to conform to our future land use maps, constraints on suburban design and size, intensities, etc. they would not be allowed to be more intense than are compatible with the neighborhood. That's the nature of our. - Yeah, I fully honor it. I fully respect it. - So we have those guardrails. The, I guess the, the challenge for us is that you mentioned this is this presentation weighs heavily on what the neighborhood wants. And this is a zoning question. And zoning is a determination made at a global level for by the

community about what. And the CDP itself, as we're talking about, had a set of expectations, and we're being asked to change that. And so it's good to have a full and frank conversation about what you've considered on the site. And I do wish that there was more consideration for what the original intent of the commercial designation was, what the intent of our current zoning districts and its potentialities are, and what that you know, that it's not entirely zoning isn't entirely meant to be strictly determined by the neighbors. Yeah. The other thing, could we roll back a couple slides? Here it is. It's a bullet point list. You bet. Keep going. But there. - Was it. - Maybe you go one before that. - Okay. - Okay. Stop there. No. Go forward. - AM I going. - That way? Keep going. Yeah. One more. Okay. Hold there. - Okay, sure. - There are a lot of things in our comprehensive plan in terms of goals, of course. So I, I guess we have to consider a lot of different things in this criteria for this. And. Including economic and fiscal factors. And I am concerned that we haven't had any kind of discussion about that fiscal impact. There hasn't been a Jefferson County requested that of you. We just have the letter. It's very vague. This is going to be a trade off. I mean, we're going to receive essentially very little revenue other than property tax from these new homes. When that wasn't, in my understanding, the original intent of this particular parcel within the CDP, it was, as Commissioner Schwinn mentioned, and other people can acknowledge that that was intended to be a sales

tax generating site. And I understand there are challenges to that, but it doesn't it feels like you've we've gone very heavily towards all single residential without a sort of mixture within the CMU. - I just I went to this slide are not changing at all. I went to the one you asked and I fully respect that. I'll just say to your first point about the zoning, we have honored the current context and the zoning for 25 years. We have carried the cost of it for 25 years, and we have worked with the HOA for 2 or 3 times every year to maintain the property and remove prairie dogs, because there's so many prairie dogs in that area and have spent a lot of caring costs on it, so we couldn't honor the code more and wanting to see that we have tried every iteration of that, but then going through that process. So sorry, I completely get it. I will just say, the issue on the economic study has simply been on that fueling center. We've now talked to three different economic analysis firms, financial firms, and they're happy to put that together, if that I'm not suggesting. But if if you want that to be a condition, we are not saying we aren't going to do that. We simply were explaining that between January, when it was approved to Jefferson County, there was a moratorium, moratorium on fuel centers. Right. And understanding that and where that policy. So we're happy to do that. We're not fighting that. We're not pushing it. It's that. So I just want to acknowledge that we really have worked for two and a half years with staff and with the team to understand maybe what could happen on this site, maybe the intensity of that, yes, we're the applicant, but this has been a very public process, not just giving in to neighbors. We very much understand that. And I'm trying to do. - I fully acknowledge that that is a serious consideration in any project like that. You're considering. The slide here mentions 3.75 sales tax. It's numbers like that. When you put them in a thing without giving us the underlying reports, it

let's just say intuitively, most of the residents probably go to the nearest grocery store, which is 8.2 miles away and is not in Littleton. The next nearest one is not in Littleton. The nearest drugstore is not in Littleton. Many of these residents don't. I don't know where this number comes from. We're going to expect these households to provide this level, and we haven't seen that economic analysis in this board. Our commission is in the role of recommending to our city council these changes to the CDP and the zoning, which will ultimately be fiscally invested, changes. So it it's helpful when we see something like a number in your charts to know where you're getting that and why that's there. - We're happy. If that's something the will of you all will defer to you. I mean, we again, will provide that information. We are not saying we're not going to do that. We, as the application required it, provided this information. I'll be honest, we had had so much support for moving this forward and the right thing. I think this would end absolutely no interest in 25 years. So we're not bucking that. We had had nobody come forward to develop this in commercial. And no way. So I get it. We'd be happy to provide that information, sir, and we'll certainly if we're able to move forward. - But you're developing the housing. - That's correct, sir. - Yes. - So the question is really why Shea didn't also choose to develop a more complex or character, you know, fulfilling the brief, so to speak, of the land use map and its current zoning. But you're the developer, you you're making a choice here to develop the land. So the question is really like, how come you made this choice? - Yeah. - I don't know if there's any perspective, if that's okay, sir. I'll have Shea and Director of planning kind of talk about the analysis they've gone through on that as well.

- Complicated question. And I don't have a good answer for you other than there's very few products in the history of the world that have created their own marketplace, that being the iPhone and those type of things. We've had this marketed as, and we would have happily subdivided into smaller parcels should there have been somebody to use it. But at some point, as Marcus alluded to, we're just carrying real estate that nobody is wanting to utilize. And so I understand and I completely respect you guys as a board have or excuse me, a commission have to make a recommendation to city council and I'll respect whatever decision you made. I'm just from our standpoint, it's kind of this rock and a hard spot. And so this is where we're at. I would love to say we could go subdivide it into little thousand foot lots. And we'd have a coffee shop, ice cream store and a cafe built within two weeks. But it's just not what happens. So I don't have a better answer other than this is where the market is at and has been. And as Marcus alluded to, happy to do an economic study. It's just, you know, something at some point you're saying you've been doing this for 25 years and we've gotten little to no interest. I'm not sure what an economic analysis is going to tell us other than what we already know. But should the board want to see that as as it's been outlined, it is a request. It's not a requirement, but we're happy to move forward with that. - Thank you, Mr. McDermott. I think our question is more why the choice is to be as a developer yourself were so limited. - Well, you know, as was kind of stated earlier, we looked at multiple layouts for the site, specifically different types of housing products. Ideally, if I were to say it was a clean slate and I could do what I want, it would be a patio home site because I think it serves the community low, low maintenance, smaller footprint.

But candidly, a lot of the code within Littleton doesn't allow that. So we couldn't build that. So then we go to the next level of code, which is SLR gave us the smallest lot we could get that could fit within the zoning requirements. And that's kind of how we ended up. There was an original plan that had about 38 patio homes on it, all off alleys and courtyards. But guess what's not allowed? - Thank you. That's it's good to know this kind of question, because we are constantly and frequently thinking about how we can adapt our zoning districts to better fit products that people want to build and to meet community needs. And so that's thank you very much for that. Any other questions for the applicant? And then I think we might want to have a five minute break and then come back in session for that for further discussion. Just because it's 820, I want to give people. Okay, Commissioner. Go ahead. House. - Yeah. So with what you just stated, there was a plan for 38 patio homes doesn't work in Littleton, but we can do up to 47 cells. Why are we only seeing 27 proposed? - Yeah. I'm not you know, I think that the the 47 is just a math equation. So the 850 units allowed minus the units that are within trail Mark, there's 47 left. It's not that 47 actually fit on the site. If you look at the site plan and you have minimum lot requirements in the SLR district, as far as square footage that I can't, I could do the math real quick. I could take 7.5 acres times 43 and 43,000ft and divide it, but it's not going to be 47. Like, yeah. Guarantee that. - Any other questions? With the board and our staff's consent, I will call a five minute

recess at 820. We'll call it a ten minute recess, and we'll come back at 830 on the nose for continuation. Thank you, thank you.

- This is a continuation of our discussion about amending the Chatfield Activity Center Comprehensive Development Plan and two other resolutions, including a land use map amendment and a rezoning request. I'm going to open the public comment portion of the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. At this time, it's an opportunity for the public to come and speak. I will call the names of those signed in and registered to speak, and after they have spoken, anyone else who would like to come up will have an opportunity as well. Thank you. Clerk. First on the list is Ken Colaizzi. - Before you start my three minutes, I just wanted to let you know my name is Ken Colaizzi. I'm the HOA president for trail Mark. And to correct your numbers and for what's been said tonight, we do currently have 659 single family homes, 68 patio homes, and 72 condos. And I wanted to answer Mr. Roethlisberger's question, because all those numbers add up to 7.99. So I'm here to reaffirm our full support for the rezoning to residential trail. Mark. We have supported this project in the past and continue to offer our full support as it moves forward. We have worked through the process from the very beginning with Shea Homes and fully understand the implications of the project, and we remain confident it is what is best for our community. We are particularly pleased with the city of Littleton finally has a process moving forward to see this through. Furthermore, we are encouraged that the recent intergovernmental agreement issues between Jefferson County and the City of Littleton have finally been resolved to provide space for this development to happen. We respectfully request the

continued termination or removal of the relevant portions of the IGA to ensure that this project proceeds. Throughout this process, Shea Homes has been extremely transparent and open as they have adapted this site plan to align with the city of Littleton's changing codes, and offered to align the construction to match the esthetics of trail Mark. We have held numerous meetings with the trail Mark HOA board, including several trail Mark residents, all of whom support the removal of the view Corridor and the rezoning to residential. This plan for single family detached residential lot supports our vision of this site and parallels our current trail Mark community. As board president, I want to emphasize our position on the following points with respect to the View corridor. The view corridor identified in the Chatfield Green View Preservation Plan is no longer a functional view, as it's filled with foliage from 24 years ago. Residential versus commercial. Our residents reiterate that we do not want a commercial entity on this site. Only a commercial building and parking would fit on this current corridor restrictions, which is exactly what we wish to avoid as an established community community character rezoning to residential to accommodate the single family homes best preserves the character of our neighborhood. This is what our residents support. Shea homes has worked tirelessly and closely with our board and neighbors to ensure the site plan complements our community. The communication, participation and involvement has been extraordinary and much appreciated. This is a site that we always knew would be developed, and we are grateful. It is finally being done thoroughly and thoughtfully by the original community developer. We look forward to continuing our partnership with Shea Homes through the development process with the City of Littleton and Jefferson County. On behalf of Trail Marks Community. I am personally available for any additional comments or questions as we truly value the

completion of this project. Thank you. - Thank you, Mr. Kelsey. Next on our list is Miss Donna. Come on up. - Donna Susak, 9478 West Gibraltar Place, Littleton, Colorado. First of all, I would like to submit a petition that's been going around since we did the IGA and this is 425 signatures. These are the originals. These are in support of 27 homes. All those signatures were accomplished in less than ten days. The community is in support of this 27 homes. Not one person who signed that said, I'm in support of commercial. A lot of people are in support of open space, which is what they've had for a long time. It's hard to give that up. We don't own it. So I guess for me, what we would like to say is right now we are medium lot, medium lots have, when we were built, were ten feet by ten feet for side yard to side yard. The new development is the single lot that is five feet and ten feet from house to house. From what I feel as a member of the community, that to keep in character the community, I would like to not see the narrow lot supported, which would be the three and the five feet. So in closing, worked a lot with, you know, listening to everything that's going on. And I really think that

everything I heard from everybody, everything I've seen, and I know you would like us to all shop in Littleton, but unfortunately, we're kind of an outlier, as the commissioners had pointed out to us when we went to speak to them. I don't think you're going to balance your books on a coffee shop and an ice cream shop. It's not going to happen. I think that, you know, the tax revenue for homes and happy homeowners going to shopping will make all of Colorado better. And, you know, hopefully the, the there could be a way that I guess I individual taxes are shared in a different fashion. I'm a transplant from Connecticut and we do it different there. But I would like to see that this zoning go from commercial, which has been something that has been held over the head of this community for a long time to go to be residential, which would be something that we have seen acceptance by the community. Thank you. - Thank you, Miss Susak. Excellent. This is Miss Pam Chadbourn. - So I'm Pam Chadbourn. I live a block or so from here. I'd like to ask you to do what was suggested. You can table this to a date certain or deny it, and do a market analysis for commercial uses by the city. What's bizarre about this is there's kind of an airless small group working for four years. And why isn't our economic development department working on this? I am not sure, but we pay them a lot to do exactly this kind of work. It's not Shay's job. And you know what? They make a profit off of

something different, so they have a different motivation. The city should be doing some of this economic analysis and we should. I hope you you ask them to do that. The economic study, I was going to ask about that and I'm glad Jeffco asked for it. I our city has failed to do that over and over for proposal after proposal for years, and we must have that as an economic study. From the point of view of governments and other taxing entities. So when use is changed and the income and revenue to the city versus the expenditures, it sounds here like the expenditures would only increase with residential to the city and to other taxing entities. Don't forget, you know, the fire department, schools, South suburban parks and Rec, their stormwater and and. Wastewater treatment are a couple of utilities we own. All of these expenses would go up. And we need, from the city's point of view, this is something I never see in these presentations. And we've got to demand it. It's at some point, Planning Commission demand it. Until we get this, we need it from the from the government's point of view, the taxing entities point of view. And that's the city's job. It is not Shay's job. So again, that's something that I would like you to ask the city to do. And I'd also like you to ask for what are the zoning changes we could make to our zoning to create housing diversity and also create commercial appeal? It could be that there's an interesting design here that could be done, that I don't see us having done anyway. I don't have time to do all the decision criteria, but I want to mention the fire danger. I'm glad that that was brought up by the chair. I went up there because there was a fire just over the ridge from this location a year ago. So the fire, the condition is

different and there's fire danger. I want to make sure that people can get out of there. And the idea of a shelter or something like that is really, really interesting. There's a bizarre staff claim that the housing use is less intense. And of course, we're talking about vibrant Littleton and having communities and neighborhoods that have some walking around attractions. I'm sure we can do something like that. There's some kind of idea. And so I don't have time enough for the rest of the criteria, but I think several of the criteria are not met. Thanks very much. - Thank you, miss Chadbourn there anyone else? Is there anyone else in the audience who has who has not signed up but would like to offer comment? You can come up right now. Seeing no one. I will close the public comment portion of the public hearing, unless the time at the time of 8:40 p.m. All right. Now is an opportunity to have discussion by the Commission on what we've heard today. And I would welcome any comments or discussion. But before we do that, we should proceed with at least the motion to approve, approve with conditions or deny the. Miss Whitmore, do you wish us to do all three together or one in sequence? We're going to do the CDP amendment first. - Yeah. They need to be separate motions and they need to be separate, separate separate conversations. Yes. - Very well. All right. Do we

have a motion motion. - I move to approve p c resolution 4-04-2026 recommending approval to Planning Commission of an amendment to the Chatfield Activity Center Comprehensive Development Plan, or CDP. - Thank you. - Second. - We have a motion and a second. And so I will turn this over to discussion on the amendment to the Chatfield Activity Center Comprehensive Development Plan. Do I have any. Do we have any discussion or comment? All right. Chair recognizes Sherri Almond. - Okay. I don't have questions at this point. I think that they have been answered pretty thoroughly, as far as I know. I in listening to the presentation, of course, I have concerns about once again, losing a commercially zoned property. We've had a few of those come up and. Coincidentally, I worked in Jeffco back in the day when this was looked at. I did not work on this case, but I did work on a lot of analysis of annexation and property tax revenue and cost to county government versus, you know, having a city incorporate and all of those things. So it's been a lot of my philosophy over the years, I guess, is hard to get through is that you don't give up commercially zoned land. I realize in certain cases that it is necessary and that things do change. I I'm not studying at this point. Whether I agree or disagree with the zoning change,

I'm just saying I. It concerns me, of course. And then the lack of that economic impact analysis is just like, why once again, do we come in here? We don't have those numbers. I'm glad that the chair pointed out the really that there's very little opportunity to generate any retail revenue because that's it's just not there's nothing to generate it from. So I like that point, point of clarification that, you know, we're talking residential property tax. I do understand and believe that that housing perhaps is a better use in terms of the character of the area. And I do feel that the presenter, the applicant, has met the criteria that is laid out. - Pardon me, Commissioner Almond, but we are specifically discussing the amendment of the Chatfield Activity Center comprehensive development. Right. - I think I'm I think I'm addressing that okay, aren't I? Yes, yes. Okay. So anyway, I feel like the criteria we have criteria for each of those resolutions. And I do believe that that has been met. So that's my comment. Thank you. - Thank you. Anyone else like to go next offering comments. Okay. Go ahead. Chair recognizes Commissioner Coronado. - Okay. - Sure. With respect to the the CDP amendment, I, I'm in general agreement that it does

meet the criteria, especially changing conditions over. I think the applicant has demonstrated that over 25 plus years of trying to honor the intent of the original plan, that it's still a vacant site. The community has grown to embrace that. And even though as a planner, I don't it doesn't feel like the highest and best use of that site. I, I'm compelled to support the criteria here, the changing conditions that there's no special benefit that's associated with this that wouldn't be applied in a similar situation. And the density and intensity is although is maybe not what was originally intended there is consistent with the density and intensity of the existing development. - Thank you, Commissioner Coronado. Commissioner Röthlisberger. - Yeah, sure. So I want to make a point here that I think that I'm I'm in support and I think that you've met the criteria for the CDP amendment. I think that that would make sense, frankly, regardless of the follow on conditions. We we we did briefly kind of touch on if there was an Adu impact, but it's important to remember that trail. Mark. Residents under Littleton City Code could apply for attached ADUs. So I think that as far as increasing

dwelling numbers, just based on this on the CDP, I think this makes perfect sense. And I don't think that there's a significant impact based on this 45 unit increase. - Thank you, Commissioner Roethlisberger. I'm going to make my comments regarding two of the criteria, particularly the first is changing conditions. I think that one of the things that is different between 1991 and today is that we've had Colorado has undergone a lot of significant negative events for communities located close to ridgelines, most notably the Lewisville and Superior Fire. I think staff, for providing the fire risk data on trail mark, and this parcel in particular falls within that 50%. More than half of trail Mark is in a moderate or low risk wildfire zone. In 1991, we weren't really considering that. And in fact, our our changing conditions, perhaps the biggest one for our insurance rates has been the impact of wildfires on on our local insurance. California, it's been much worse. But today, this is a community that abuts a wildfire risk, and it's higher than the normal wildfire risk in our the rest of the city. When you look at the percentage of properties, there's very few moderate risk properties in Littleton proper. So modifying the CDP to put more homes in a in a fairly in

a moderate risk or higher area is not a great move. And it has larger impacts than simply. The the insurance rates when when a wildfire happens and the. And I've seen different statistics. Some banks say that there is a 99% chance of a wildfire coming down off the Hogbacks over the next 30 years, 99%. When that happens, the amount of destruction is significant. When you have a residential neighborhood. Lahaina and Maui burned, and the county and city had just $1.6 million of expenses. Just to clear the wreckage out of the roadways, they had to buy landfill space. These become very significant future fiscal impacts on cities and towns. We don't have a fiscal analysis on whether trail marks property tax even meets its ongoing road maintenance, not to mention snow removal and everything else. I have been in these chambers. Where? Where? Police Chief Stephens has said has said that he doesn't do traffic enforcement in Littleton because they have to divert officers long distances to trail Mark. They get calls from residents out there and there's been a there's been calls for more patrols and support in that community. And he more or less pushed back that there's he'd need more officers, and they don't have time to do traffic enforcement because they have to do so many things like that. And there has been staffing up staffing since he made those comments. But these these remain ongoing fiscal challenges for community like ours. So the changing conditions part of this to me suggests that we perhaps should not be recommending our council

support this move in terms of violation. Number four, you know, we have remarkably little information about the conditions of the original planned development. There. Commissioner Schwinn mentioned some of the conversations that were held when Chatfield Granes was annexed, and there was an intent in its original CDP for these limits. And there's a reason that the CDP has its limits. And I think that very idea of requesting a major plan amendment is, to some degree, to abrogate the original CVT. So it's inherently a sort of on one level, it's a violation. Just inherently, you know, it's we're changing it. But I just do think the conditions of approval are not clear originally to us. And that data has that information was not really in our packet. So I'm not comfortable weighing in on that. Is that that we've cleared the hurdle on that. So to me, I am not inclined to recommend our council. Embrace this change. I also say that we have two other questions before us, and they are all intertwined. So it's unfortunate that this the easiest one perhaps to pass is the first, because saying yes to this makes it more complicated to say no if we say no on the other ones. But I'm just not super. I'm not convinced that we've met all the criteria enough that I want to recommend it to our city council. There are a lot of questions that should have been

answered that remain outstanding. Are there any other comments? - Yeah. - Commissioner Neely. - Sure. I think I'm going to struggle to parse out each of these. Agenda items. But I generally see. This being a consistent with the density and intensity of its of its neighboring context. And and given that. I see alignment with all the other conditions as well. But I guess I'll save some of my comments for, for the other motions. - Thank you, Commissioner Neely. If there are no other questions, I will call the motion to a vote clerk. If you would set that vote up, we will do the vote on screen. - We'll be doing a thumbs up and thumbs down. I thought I had it fixed, but all right. - Hand votes. All in favor of PC resolution 042026 recommending approval of an amendment to the Chatfield Activity Center Comprehensive

Development Plan. CDP raise your hands. Okay. - Six in favor with Chair Santana. I'll get used to it. Eventually. Opposed the motion carries. - I do have a point of clarification in terms of the resolution it should read as approval. - Of the amendment to the CDP, not recommendation of an approval to City Council. This resolution number four is for this body to decide. - Okay, do we need to re. - Yes, sir, I would. - Okay, let me find it on the list here. Oh my gosh, there's so many pages. Going right back to the top. One. Restate it. Yes. Go ahead. Do you have it? - Okay. See if I can get this right. I move approval of resolution zero four 2026. Just approval. - It's approval. Yes, ma'am. - Approval that the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Chatfield Activity Comprehensive Development Plan. CVP Granes. - All right, counselor Titlow, does that satisfy you? - Are you going to second again? - Second. - Thanks. - If that satisfies Councilor Titlow. - All in favor? - All in favor. - The vote is still six in favor with Chair Santana voting no. Thank you. - All right. On to PC resolution 072026, recommending

approval to City Council of an amendment to the future Land Use and Character map for trail Mark for the remaining trail Mark subdivision parcel from suburban commercial to suburban residential. I call for a motion and a second on PC resolution. Zero seven 2026. Recognizes Commissioner Almond. - Thank you. Let's see, in regard to PC resolution 07-2026, I move approval of or wait. I move approval to City Council of an amendment to the Future Land Use Character map for the remaining trademark subdivision parcel from suburban commercial to suburban residential. - Do I hear a second? - Second. - Commissioner Coronado. Thank you. All right. We will open this board commission to discussion on this resolution. Do I have any comments or discussion from the commission? - I think for me on this one, missing the fiscal analysis and an actual study of the economic impacts makes it hard for me to approve hearing from the developer. That they've only received a few inquiries over 25 years is one thing, but then seeing an actual study and even our economic development team said that it would be a net negative with just the property taxes coming in. So I personally would like to see more information on it before

moving it ahead. - Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Schwinn. - As much as I would like to see a commercial area there, I think 25 years of. But you had against the wall sort of proves there isn't a market. And I think we need to be sensitive to what the neighborhood wants. The neighborhood's clearly told us what they want, so I think that's the way we should be going. - Thank you, Commissioner Coronado, did I see you? - Yes. I was looking for the specific criteria on this one, because I think it's mixed in with the rezoning on the applicant's response. But my my looking at the range of options in the land use character mapping, which was part of the Envision Littleton process, where the the entire community came together and agreed with the types of land use at a high level that should be occurring in specific areas. It seems to me that the commercial suburban commercial was kind of arbitrarily attached to this particular location because of its prior zoning as a commercial lot. And in fact, it could actually have been the land use character could be identified as open space, because that's what it's always been. And looking at the range of options you have suburban residential, you have suburban mixed use. I mean, there's different character uses. I, I

actually think that the proposed land use character here is an appropriate character for the future land use of this area. And I think there's a number of different zones that could fit within that, including or not, including what is being proposed in the next resolution. So I think I would support the change in land use, future land use character here. - Commissioner Neely. Sure. - So yeah, to me, the chart outlining outlining the adjacent open space and medium lot residential provides the contextual argument, satisfying a multitude of the design criteria. So I'm not really I'm not seeing this as part of a, a larger commercial corridor, mixed use environment or a potential, you know, walking, mixed use neighborhood given its surrounding context. So I think I'm in support of the, the use change as well. - Thank you, Commissioner Roethlisberger. - Okay, so I have a little bit of a different take on this. And I think that I don't think that the jump from. Suburban commercial to suburban residential is necessarily appropriate. And the reason I say this is I do drive this every day. I drive past this every day. And there's been more than a few comments about, you know, having a dearth of happy hour options nearby. But, you know, I think that there's, you know, if you're, if you're

looking for, you know, smaller single story, you know, options, commercial mixed use does allow, you know, duplexes or twin homes, right by right. And that gets you to your, you know, you put a garage in the middle and houses on either end. And for all intents and purposes, there. Homes attached by a garage, right? Or they've just got a common garage structure in the middle that gets you these little smaller houses that you want without giving up all the flexibility that comes with something like a quarter mixed use or commercial mixed use kind of in-between spot for your. For your. For, for your land. I think that. There's a few, you know, there's, there's a few things when we talk about, you know, the, the standards for housing use, you know, a diversity of housing options. Well, these are rancher single family homes, but they're still single family homes. We have single family homes all over Littleton. You know, we. We do the other the other problem is, is that, you know, when we look at some of these accessibility. I'm sorry, I think it's land use and community, one of our land use and community standards, right? If we switch this over to single family residential, we completely cut off the future potential for anyone to offer the residents

of trail mark anything within walking distance. And if that's not the market now, again, we can work with options. You know, there there are zoning options that give you more flexibility or land use characteristics that give you give you that flexibility to build these smaller single story homes. You build, you know, 14 structures instead of 27 because they have a garage in the middle. And then you still give yourself that flexibility in some of that other open space or some of that space, or some of those lots for people to use something like a live work use and basically use their own. So but again, I think that the biggest thing for me is that, that we're, we're not just not meeting this land use and community standard of allowing people to or, you know, having, having accessible options for people, it's that we're cutting out the future potential for it. So I don't know if I don't know if, if there's, if there's an option or if the, you know, if the developer is amenable to, you know, to looking into something more like that corridor, mixed use and looking at something like a corridor, you know, corridor mixed and doing attached homes rather than single family homes to give that to, to, to keep that land use flexibility for Littleton residents. But I would be very interested to see that. And I think that it probably I'm sorry if I'm blurring the lines, but I think that the the zoning and the the land use character obviously are very intertwined on these

two. Sorry, let me just I can find this real quick where we're talking about. Yeah, again, our land use and development decisions that are going to offer more pedestrian cyclists and expanded or sorry, that's not the one I wanted, was it? Anyway. Yes. So we do, we do have options or we we have goals as part of our. As part of our comprehensive plan to. That, that expressly state that we want to allow people, these kind of multi-use options. And I think there's ways to get what you need in terms of the housing and in terms of this, you know, single story housing without cutting off the future or the possibility for, for some of these small, small business commercial developments, even on these existing lots. So thank you. - Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Schwinn. - I just I thought about this. Now we're talking about this site under our current zoning criteria. And I was completely involved in this envision process. And as I understood it, existing, whatever they were, PDAs, Sdps CDPs would remain in place and that the new zoning would not take over for 20 years. So my question is, one

of the things that came up tonight that surprised me was they said that they could build apartments there, build multifamily, which of course they can under the CMU right now. But under the original PUD, they did whatever it was called back then, what the original development. They set rules for what it is. And I haven't heard anybody talk about what those rules were when they were set in place in 1991. - Miss Whittemore, did you want to address that? - Certainly the plan development that was in place is still that guiding document. And if there is a proposal for commercial, that is a allowance by right in that community or that, you know, planned development, it can be done just by bringing in an application to the city and going through that process. But with the new CCM slash PLO, you can do a master development plan and meet the criteria of the CCM and have that corridor mixed zoning allowance to do the development under that as well. So that's why it's kind of a general comment, because you can do what's in the PD. And it's simple current just by right. But you're also able to go through the Bachelor development plan process to use the CCM. - Thank you. - Commissioner almond, did you want to offer any thoughts on the map question. No. All right. I think that's most of us. I I'm going to weigh in on a few things. It's it's a change.

What's interesting and what I've learned tonight in this hearing is that the suburban commercial designation could accommodate housing. And we talked about a senior home component. Could it? You could if I understand staff's presentation correctly, duplexes or triplexes could have been built as commercial properties. That there's a lot of flexibility in the commercial designation and what the future land use map indicates is. That the character of what gets built be maintained so that it's esthetically or compatibility with the its adjacent zones that it'd be compatible to suburban commercial is going to have to be suburban in form, just as suburban residential will have to be suburban in form, and that all of these will have to conform. So the in a lot of ways, the decision about what this zone is going to be, what this zone district is going to be, should be determining what the Land Use map designation is. So we're sort of putting the cart before the horse horse here. If we were to say, no, we don't recommend changing this out of CMU, then it would be wrong to designate it on the map as suburban residential, because CMU is is a, you know, a commercial has a lot of commercial uses. So it's kind of a they're tied a little bit confused as to why these two questions before us aren't better linked since the land use Future land use map relates to the zone districts that are underlying. So I'm just I'm just troubled by that weird positioning of our. We're going to change the map in this vote, the map designation, and then

have another vote to determine whether we agree with the zoning change or not. And if we were to change the zoning, then that would make suburban residential possibly a wrong map designation. So that's troubling on the design criteria. The question about consistency is our first question. And there's a in my mind, is it consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district or change conditions? Yes, it is consistent with the statement of purpose of the proposal. If we were to zone it single lot residential, but it would be inconsistent to change it to suburban residential if we do not change to single lot residential. So the question of consistency is dependent on the zone district. So we haven't really we have not evaluated that question yet. Compatibility. I think there are larger questions around compatibility in our comprehensive plan here, one of which is fiscal impacts. And this zone district change to residential will severely limit those potential fiscal questions. It's no question is a viable financial move for the developer in this case. But it is going to involve necessarily other fiscal impacts on the on this community. And I am not comfortable with how that relationship meets compatibility with our larger

questions about the comprehensive or larger comprehensive plan goals on traffic. I think, Mr. Knight, for answering my questions in writing that traffic to a commercial suburban commercial zone here would not greatly impact the neighborhood by the estimation from staff is that most of the trips to commercial property here would be off of the 1-20-1: It would not largely proceed into the neighborhood. So traffic impacts are not. Worsened or. Create additional hazards for that. Surrounding neighborhoods. And I'm not convinced that this is that the question of traffic generation completely answers the traffic hazards and traffic created by having to make many long trips. When we have a community that is as far out as this, there are larger economic and environmental impacts from all the additional trips required. One convenience store here could save dozens of trips a day by residents, which are now multi mile journeys, which are generally done by cars that emit pollution. They have tire damage. These are like traffic impacts that go beyond just this change and their their negative ones. In other words, if we zone this SLR, there's going to be for sure 27 more homes making long journeys to get milk. I mean, there are traffic impacts from that that are negative. And I'm not convinced that this is on balance, the right approach. There are other questions around traffic in our in our

comprehensive plan, I was our comprehensive plan says things like. Build an comprehensive plan on transportation goal five, build and operate a financially and environmentally sustainable transportation system. Every time we put more homes, suburban residential homes at great distances from other transit and other access, we make it more difficult and more expensive to build those kind of systems. Under environment. Our comprehensive plans Environmental Goal five is city facilities, vehicle fleet and public infrastructure that promote Littleton's environmental resilience and minimize adverse impacts. In my opinion. Adding additional homes here without the option to have a fire shelter or any other local safety structures, is making the risk of wildfires even worse and an even greater fiscal burden for future city revenues. I mean, we you get some federal and state support, but ultimately, municipalities have to pay for wildfire damage. And there are other negative impacts on our vehicle fleets for the distances our police officers work with vehicles that cost $500,000 per per vehicle, and they have to be replaced about every five years. The reason we have five half $1 million police vehicles that are replaced on a five year schedule is because of mileage. Every the fleet replacement determination is made because the vehicles reached 100,000 miles and. And by additional residences at further distances, more calls, more mileage. And

these are costs that continue to add up to the city. I don't think this is a. Is compatible with our comprehensive plan goals around environment. There are other ways that our comprehensive plan talks about economy and tax base on page 66. That's our policy. Number three assess the fiscal implications. Property by property. When existing nonresidential sites are proposed for residential use, especially in cases where commercial use and or zoning is considered no longer viable. Well, we've been grappling with that question tonight here, and we've seen Jefferson County, and I myself asked Jared Chipman months ago for that specific cost benefit analysis of converting this to residential. We have not seen it. I agree with Commissioner Howe that that would be a very important document for making these assessments more on the zoning, but certainly on the on the the future land use map changes. So I am just in terms of recommending to council, I feel like this is not the right move, and it's certainly not one I'm comfortable making in advance of the zoning determination because they are deeply tied. And I don't know if Councilor Titlow would would allow us to have the zoning conversation in conjunction with this, or we have to make this motion resolved before. - Our code is written in a way that the criteria are separated out. All right. - Well. - Then we will have to make our zoning map call in advance of, I mean, our future land use map decision in advance of the zoning conversation. That's those are my comments. Again, I'm not I'm not inclined to recommend this at this stage,

given where we are with the lack of fiscal impacts and lack of zoning determination yet. Commissioner Schwinn. - Should we put this off until we have some more information? I mean, there seems to be a lot of stuff that's coming in the future. But we're deciding tonight. - Counselor Titlow, do you have any comments on that? - The board or the commissioners have the ability to move to a date. Certain. - That would require a motion to move to a date. Certain further consideration of this future land use map question. I don't know if that includes conditions for that date or just we just set a date. - You would just set a date. - And hope that the information we're looking for comes in. - Commissioner. Right. In terms of you would still have to vote on the motion that's already on the table. In terms of your comment regarding whether or not you can consider the flock at the same time as the rezoning, the criteria have to remain separate. However, if this board would like to move forward with discussing and making a motion. And second, on the rezoning prior to the future Land Use and character map amendment that is allowed. However, we would still need to address the motion that is on the floor. - We can address that motion after establishing that, we're going to continue to the zoning question. - I'm sorry, repeat that question. - We can resolve the future question after we've had a zoning conversation. - If that is, if that's what the board would feel or if the commission would feel much more

comfortable with that, really, the the criteria have to be separated out in terms of discussion. And so. - I see so we would set aside further discussion of the land use map and its criteria for a second conversation, beginning with emotion. Yes. For the third zoning question, then we would have that discussion and then go back and vote, resolving each of the two questions. - Yes. - You'd have to rescind the you would have to rescind the motion for the future land use and character map. - Right now. - Yes. - And it has to be accepted by the if I understand the rules, this person who seconds that someone. You can withdraw the motion or rescind it, but the person who seconded it must also agree. - Right? - Yes. So both the. So we can have a motion to rescind. Which you're welcome to make. - I move we rescind the motion, right? - Yes, it has. - To be. It has to. - Be originally. - The original motion or. - That would be Commissioner Almond. - Yes. - I moved to rescind the recommendation for approval to City Council of an amendment to the future Land Use and Character map for the remaining trail marked subdivision parcel from suburban commercial to suburban residential. - Thank you Commissioner. Is that acceptable to our second? That would be Commissioner Coronado. - Yes, it's second that. - All right. We have a motion to rescind the original motion on the table. We will need to have a vote on that before we can proceed any further. Yes. - Okay. All in favor of rescinding, raise your hand.

Seven in favor of the motion carries. - Thank you. I will then move, comment and and discussion to this third item on the agenda, which is PC resolution 0826, recommending approval to City Council of a rezoning for the remaining trail marked subdivision parcel from corridor mixed. Use PLO to small lot residential, so we will need a motion or if we do not have a motion, I believe the thing just fails. Does anyone wish to make a motion? - I guess I'm confused about where the motion to move to a date certain comes in. - Counselor. - That was only if you chose to move the discussion for the rezoning or the flock to another date. Outside of this public hearing date. - Excuse me, do we wish to to pick a date certain for the flock map or have a conversation about the zoning question? We have those options right now, correct. - You can make a motion to discuss the rezoning resolution. You can make a motion to discuss the future land use character map resolution, and you can also make a motion to continue to a date certain. - All right. Commissioners. Just a field poll. Do we want to discuss the zoning question now or if we're intending to have a hearing at a later date, certain. Should we just do both of those questions at the date? Certain when we have that information? My my sense is the zoning question will be deeply influenced by that additional fiscal information. So it may be premature to have a full on conversation about the zoning

today while we await additional information. Some agreement. All right. So on PC resolution 0826, I have no one recommended, no one no motion has come forward. So we will now proceed with a motion to move to a date. Certain further action on both PC resolution 072, 2026 and 0708 2022. - Separate motions if you would like to continue. - Okay, so we will do a separate motion for each chair would entertain initially the first one a move to a date, a motion to move to a date certain, a public hearing on resolution zero seven, 2026. - I'll go ahead and move that. We postpone to a date certain PC resolution oh seven 2026 recommending approval to City Council of the FLUC. I don't have it in front of me. So the rest of that. - Do I hear a second? - Second? - Second from Commissioner House? - Now what date certain are we moving it to? - I rely on staff to make a a somewhat reasonable assessment of when they can handle the follow up on this. - I think the question would also be what type of additional information you would want from the developer and how much time that will take, and then it has to be incorporated into a staff report that will impact what date going forward. That could be set at. - I believe, at minimum, we're

looking for a fiscal impact report on the change of the zoning and the land use map, and it could be conducted by the city or a consultant hired by the city. It could be conducted by the applicant. Whatever is appropriate or seems like the best course. That would be the minimum I think I would like to see because we have environmental questions here. Some of the some kind of analysis of the wildfire risk and the fiscal impacts of that, you know. Some kind of accounting for what those costs could be, given that this has a moderate risk. Over 46% of the community. - Yeah, I think I don't think UIUC currently contemplates this specific criteria and need for this. And so I think we would need maybe some more clear direction as to what the Commission is looking for here. Ultimately, we need to make sure this aligns with that criteria outlined in the UIUC as well. - The. This. These questions. Zoning changes involve both the EAC and the comprehensive Plan and any other relevant area plans. The. The Comprehensive Plan is very clear that a sustainable community, fiscally sustainable community is an important goal. We have a number of. Goals and policy action statements around that and and questions about wildfire risk and in this community will affect fiscal sort of the on balance costs that we face long term. I mean, the window is typically 30 years. And I think that weather that we've asked the applicant to do a fiscal analysis of the specific commercial to, to

residential cost benefit analysis. But this is a question of what are the what are the financial costs beyond that to the city's fiscal structures, policing, fire. Clearance, emergency services, that additional housing in this particular parcel would incur if we do the zone change. Commissioner Coronado. - Yes, thank you for that. Commissioner Santana, I think in my mind it's demonstrating we have a number of tools in the ULC, UIUC for zoning to accomplish the goals that this developer has for residential and the community. And I'm not sure that SLR is ideal for that. We I actually don't think CM, which it's currently zoned is either. So maybe there's a another one that staff could look at with the developer in terms of is NCA appropriate rezone here to get a, a mix of maybe maybe attached or missing middle type of housing in there that may even allow them to get some more homes in there, but also preserve the ability to get some neighborhood serving commercial. - All right. Do you have enough information to proceed with this conversation about date? - I'd like to invite the applicant up to talk about potentially timing and how much time they would need to procure that, so that we can make sure that we're giving them adequate time to do so. - So I, I think what I'm hearing is we need to do fiscal

study is now required, not recommended. You're saying you want additional fire risk mitigation study done well as it relates to economic impact. - I've asked the staff to assess the larger fiscal impacts of housing additions in that area and the loss of commercial as a as it would relate to cost to the city. And that wouldn't necessarily be part of your fiscal analysis. You would be asked to do fiscal analysis of the residential versus commercial use of the parcel. - Yeah. And to be clear, the responsibility for providing both of those analysis is on the applicant, not on the staff, just to be clear. - No, I believe the the the total cost accounting for adding housing, there would be a staff request. - We'll get back to you on working with our economic development on that. Traditionally, the that analysis has been done through the consultant procured by by the applicant. But we'll follow up on that. Yeah. - Okay. I'll leave that to you guys then to we unless any objection. That's fine. All right. - And then the third request was to look at a zone district that is a hybrid between other zone districts. - That I believe is what Mr. Coronado explained that. - The NC is it's in the U. LUC it's a current existing zoned district that allows single family attached units and and commercial uses. - Typically of smaller scale. Smaller scale. - I do have to advise, I do have to advise the commissioners, though, in terms of a completely different

zoning. If that's how you choose, then the motion before you should simply just be voted down. In terms of rezoning to an SLR, that would be the correct course of action. Now, if to continue to a date certain simply to have the applicant review other options, that's that would not be the correct process at this time, because we do have a resolution in front of us either approving or recommending that denial to city council, to SLR. So a different zoning would be in completely different motion, completely different application. And I don't think that that's appropriate at this time. - Thank you, counselor. Fellow commissioners, from what our counselor has just said, we would be advised here to simply vote on the original resolution, yes or no. And in this case, it sounds like no. And the applicant would be welcome to come back with another rezone request at a using a different. That could be a potential outcome, but we would just be saying yes or no to the original motion as a recommendation to Council tonight. - That is correct. - That would leave it up to the the applicant, whether they wish to pursue Commissioner Coronado's kind of movement. - Correct. And that being said, that if this commission does make a recommendation of denial to City Council, it is under city staff's purview to still take that same rezoning application to SLR, to City Council, even though this commission has denied it. - It's a just a recommendation to correct. Okay. I open the

floor to to discussion. - The one thing we we really haven't talked about is a condition placed on approval. And it would be difficult to do that if we're adding the broader environmental impact buyer impact issues. We could do that to say we want to see that economic impact analysis, that that could be the condition. So I guess it's really up to this commission as to, you know, do you do we want the broad based information that being discussed? Can we make a decision with an economic analysis without some of the other pieces? I just want to throw out that that is also an option is to do an amendment, a condition amendment or a condition placed upon rezoned in approval of the plaque. - In terms of a condition of approval on either the future land use and character map or the rezoning, it would still be the same outcome. The the applicant could submit that economic analysis to you, but at that point in time the decision would have already been made by this this commission. So it would still be staff's prerogative to take forward that approval with conditions to City Council. And at that point in time, you know, we would hopefully have whatever that documentation is to provide to City Council for their consideration. - Well, we're back to do we want to continue this to a date? Certain and wait. And with the requested information to staff and applicant, and then rehear these questions with these

criteria, with that additional information at some date certain or do we wish to have a vote and just not recommend or deny, recommend, recommend to council to deny. And then that would leave staff to move this forward under different zoning districts or other criteria, other map map adjustments. I'm open to. I'm all ears. - It seems to me. We're pretty far down this road and we don't have we don't have all the information that would make most people comfortable. So it strikes me that a continuation would probably make the most sense. - Any other comments? - I am? I. In in my estimation, the criteria, some of the criteria that we're looking at probably would not change or it would not be met with with even with a fiscal, you know, with the fiscal analysis, again, because I think we're looking at. We're looking at a bigger a more global change to the city when we talk about some of these land use changes and zoning changes. So I would lean actually towards go ahead. And, you know, I don't know if everybody I don't know how

everybody else feels. I guess I feel that I would vote, vote not to recommend this as it is, as a as a complete wholesale change to residential only. And I don't know that that would change with a with that fiscal analysis, because the impacts are as much about livability and options as they are about just the straight fiscal analysis. So. Again, this is, I guess this comes back to this as a recommendation to city Council. I think there's other options for the developer, but obviously there's there's something to be said too, that we can vote to not recommend it. And city staff can just go ahead with it anyway, I don't know. But I think I'd kind of rather see if the developer would be willing to consider, you know, something like a, a single family, a single family, detached homes that allow some commercial use still or potential for commercial use, rather than just completely blocking that out for a future use. - Mr. Buckner Yeah. - So I appreciate the discussion, and I'll be certain to answer your question. We're happy, as we said, to provide this fiscal information. I think that as far as an attached product, that's the difference, right? Is the attached product is what that would be. Instead of a detached product. We have had the detached product discussion with the neighborhood for the last two and a half years per that, we had a cluster product. So I understand it. I respect that we would have to go back to the neighborhood. In fairness, that would be that discussion. Right? So that's that's the difference of that.

Are we happy to look at it and talk with staff? Sure. I will say that providing you the fiscal analysis allows that. I heard the chair say that he was concerned about more numbers would actually make fire mitigation more problematic. Right. So that goes the other way. We can address some of those issues directly. I think a fuel center causes fire mitigation, enters centers, right? So we're able to provide some of that data and provide that and allow you to do so. I will also say the zoning response to your land use code to the comp plan. So our zoning stand alone, unless we amend the comp plan isn't consistent. Our zoning request wouldn't be unless we first amend the comp plan. So for those reasons, we think it's appropriate. If you need that additional information, we're happy to provide that information that you asked for an economic study. So if that answers it, would we look at it? I'm happy to look at that. We have looked at it for 25 years. We'll discuss it again. I'm just being very honest. You're seeing reactions from the neighbors. We had 445 people say they supported this plan. That's remarkable. - Or open space. Many of those people, the comment was many of them would support housing, or many of them. - Know they're used. - To open space. It specifically says in the in the petition language, as I've read it many times, to support the 27 homes that are there. So that's what it was. - It was more of an off comment that many of them would have liked. - We're happy to address it. We're happy to provide. - Another question. There are other other possibilities here as well. I mean, in the question of fire risk, whatever, I don't know if you were intending to build these homes to high fire protection. - We're aware of. - Level one and level two. We understand those very well are right across this area in the context, we understand some of the provisions. So absolutely, we actually think there's ways that you could mitigate it much more than a commercial use would on this site. - That would be something to put in the fiscal analysis. - Absolutely. It wasn't a

requirement. I'm so sorry. In a zoning document, again, we're not site plan specific, right. So from a residential context, that's how we approached it more holistically is residential. So my apologies. We did not look at that as that was not part of the checklist for that submittal. - And commissioners, I. - Do do have to reiterate that design is not a part of the criteria here. - No, but the damage from buildings and the loss of those buildings do ultimately affect the fiscal they have fiscal implications for the city. And so the the quality of. So what conditions we may put on an approval to a land use map change or zoning change. Maybe the condition would be. We will do the single residential. But this particular parcel will have to be built to level one fire standards because of its location and the future implications cost to the city. Our. Our comprehensive plan does talk a great deal about our role in making decisions, about assessing fiscal impacts and how those affect services like what we can provide other what they have as an effect on other services. So I think it's relevant enough as a zoning question. - If I might, chair, I think to be clear, you will see a preliminary plat on this that you will be able to talk about specific design requirements for this that will come forward before the Planning Commission. So if there are specific fire related mitigation things that would be more appropriate place to put those, I think, than on the zoning or rezoning or the land use. Yes. - Thank you, Mr. Knight. Commissioner Coronado. - I would just suggest that we go ahead and take a vote on both of these and perhaps add a condition if we're concerned about the fiscal analysis. I tend to agree with Commissioner Roethlisberger that we. Fiscal analysis is probably not going to change a lot. I think we've

got a lot of information in front of us. So if we take an up and down vote on either on both of these resolutions, it's a recommendation to council and that council can consider it. - Commissioner Allman. - I was going to say that I think we should just proceed with. - Your microphone. - I agree with Commissioner Coronado that we should just proceed with making a motion. At this point, I feel like if it goes to the it will go to the city council. They can make a decision. I would go straight for making the motion as it is written. If anybody else wants to do an amended one, have at it. Otherwise, I would just make the motion that's written right here. - Well, one of the. Thank you for that comment. One of the most important roles of the Planning Commission is to bring as much information to the decision making process as we can. And so our council is not going to be able to invest in the hours of of thinking on this, even if many of them even watch the video. But we're trying to get all the relevant information so that we can make the right decisions or might make the right recommendations here. So yes, we can, we could just vote, but we are acknowledging that we are. Many of us feel that there isn't a lot of there's missing information here. And I hate to make recommendations to council acknowledging that we're making a decision with less information than we would like. So we are back to motions on these two questions. The future land use map and the zoning change. Do we wish to have that vote tonight? We have 14 minutes before we must vote to

extend the meeting. - I I'll go ahead and reintroduce the this second resolution. I move to approve. - Wait, sorry. First, we need to rescind the moving to a date. Certain because that's hanging out there. - Okay. - That was that was Commissioner Coronado. Did you make that motion okay? - Yes. - Okay. I motion that we rescind the motion on the table. - Can you. - Move to a date? Certain. - Give me a second. - All right. All in favor. - Seven in favor of the motion carries. - Okay, then I'll go ahead and move to approve resolution oh seven 2026 recommending approval to City Council. Amendment to the future land use and character map for the remaining trail marked subdivision parcel bounded by South Wadsworth to the east and West Trail. Mark Parkway to the south from suburban commercial to suburban residential. - Do we have a second? - Second. - Thank you, Commissioner Almond. Is there any further discussion? All right. Let's call the question. - In favor. Thumbs up. Opposed? Thumbs down. - Bob, you have to vote. - I can't see him. Do you have a thumbs up vote yet? - This is the future Land use amendment recommending council change it from suburban

residential. - Three in favor and five, three three in favor. Four opposed with Commissioner House Roethlisberger. Santana and Schwinn voting no. - All right, we have a second question on the table. Do we have a motion? - I guess I would. - Add the motion fails. - Sorry can actually approve this. The following motion. If the first one was not approved we can. - Just the recommendation. - Correct. - Okay. So I move to approve or. Approve resolution. Oh eight 2026 recommending approval to City Council of rezoning the remaining trail marked subdivision parcel from Carter Mix plan development overlay to small lot residential SLR. - Do we have a second? - Second. - Thank you, Commissioner almond. I'm opening the floor for discussion. I'd just like to say that I think we're wishing we had more information at this hearing for this question. And. I guess we'll call the vote. Yes. - Thumbs up for yes. Thumbs down for no. - Sorry. One item. Can we amend that to add a condition? At a condition that a fiscal analysis be included with the recommendation to council?

- You can add. - That it would be you would have the first initial motion. You would have to make an amendment to the motion. Right. And then vote on the amendment and then vote on the original. - We have the original motion. And second, so we're now we can entertain a motion for that amendment. - Okay. So I move that we amend my motion to include the requirement for a fiscal. The comparison of the current zoning versus the proposed zoning with the information that's presented to council. - Do I have a second? - Second. - Any discussion on this motion? - Sorry. I'll just I'll say this real quick. I think that. If we haven't met the if we don't feel the criteria is there to recommend a change to the land, use the future land use character map. I don't know how I can recommend a rezoning of this. So while I like your amendment and I would I would love to see that fiscal analysis. I don't know if it's relevant. If I don't want to recommend the. I guess I'm not sure how I how to vote on that. If, if I don't think the, the, the, the overarching motion should be recommended to or the overall recommendation to the to the. City Council should go through. - Yeah, that's that's fair. I mean, if we're not inclined to approve the motion, then that part of the motion doesn't

carry through either, but that maybe the message gets out there. - I'm going to say that that is a good amendment, and we do not know that. We do not know the outcome of the vote on on the on the primary motion. So the reasons I am not in favor of the primary motion at this stage have to do with the lack of that information and the the way that we are enjoined as a Commission to secure the long term sustainability of city finances, to provide good public services. Our policy. ET3 to assess the fiscal implications. Property by property. When existing nonresidential sites are proposed for residential use, especially in cases where commercial use and or zoning is considered no longer viable. That in Joinder in our comprehensive plan, really does require us to get that kind of information before we make a decision. It is fundamentally one of the key reasons I do not feel the applicant is the application at this point would receive my vote to recommend it. I would want to have that information before I tell Council. So just so that's on the record, Councilor Titlow and that that is substantively a reason for my support of this motion and an intention not to support the actual rezoning vote. There are other things in our land use and character goals that, for instance, goal number L and C two, a sustained focus on the long term fiscal sustainability of Littleton city government while recognizing the direct connection to the community's land use mix, especially for sales tax revenue needs. That's another one of my an important comp plan statement that hasn't been addressed very well at this point. I mean, I think we don't have a good picture and that both makes me support

Commissioner Coronado's motion. And it also makes me hesitant to just blanketly recommend the the original motion. So that's just where I'm thinking. So I will actually be voting yes on the more, the more analysis provided question, but remain a no on the larger question before us. Thank you. Any other comments or questions or discussion? Commissioner? - Seriously confused. How can you vote yes on the amendment and no. Yes on his. - I'm just saying my intention, am I? My feeling is that we have criteria that counter an immediate recommendation to council. There are things in our comp plan that require us to do certain things. We haven't met those. So I wouldn't support. But I don't know yet what our vote on the original motion is yet. If it passes and I don't know it very well, may I want to make sure that Council at least gets that report that Commissioner Coronado has requested. So I'm just saying it's to answer Commissioner Roethlisberger's. She wasn't sure how to vote. I was like, well, I don't know how the final outcome is going to be, but if it goes, if we end up recommending council do something, I really hope that they get the fuller picture than we got tonight. So I supported that motion that that still unclear. - Wouldn't it be? Condition though, the condition on which. - It's a condition on a motion that has yet to be passed. So it may we may pass this amendment, but then take the original motion to a no. And then it doesn't apply. - And we will probably need a motion on going past ten. If you want to jam that in here. - Do we have a motion to

continue this meeting past 10:00? We just got a vote. We have two more votes. - Please just vote. - All right. We're seems the. Commission we we have a motion to amend. And a second we're not going to do the 10:00. We're going to vote in. We're going to do both of these votes in four minutes. - Okay. - All right. Calling the amendment question. Motion to amend. - Motion to amend is what you're voting on now. - Yes or no? - Raise your hand if you're in favor. Seven in favor. The amendment carries. All right. Now motion the original motion to recommend approval to City Council for the rezoning in favor, raise your hand. Three in favor with commissioners House, Roethlisberger, Santana and. - Oh, yes, you're going through the nose. Yes. - And Schwinn voting no. The motion fails. - I will. We have very short amount of time. So committee reports. Highly. Shortened. All right. We'll just pass that. I adjourn this meeting at 9:57 p.m. Thank you very much to everyone who came out and spoke. And the applicant. Thank you.