Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews citizen petition language seeking charter changes; staff to explore revised notification options
Summary
City attorney briefed council on a citizen-led petition that would amend Littleton's charter to limit new land uses and require first-class-mail notification for certain rezoning actions; city staff will reach out to petitioners and study alternative notification code amendments and public-education options before July council meetings.
City Attorney briefed Littleton City Council on a citizen petition to amend the city charter that would, if approved by voters, limit land uses in residential zoning categories to those permitted as of Jan. 1, 2025, and require first-class-mail notification to affected property owners when council initiates comprehensive rezoning or official map amendments.
The briefing mattered because the petition language raises questions about ambiguity, retroactive effect, and potential conflicts with state law; council directed staff to engage petition organizers and to prepare options to improve notification practices through code or communications changes.
The City Attorney (name not provided) said petition-driven charter amendments are governed by the city charter and by state rules for initiatives and charter amendments, and noted that a petition for a charter amendment requires signatures from 5% of registered electors. "In this particular case ... the current initiative ... requires 1,827 signatures," the City Attorney said, describing the circulation deadline (90 days from filing, with a cited example date placing signature submission by Aug. 5, 2025).
The attorney reviewed the petition text with council. The first sentence of the petition freezes permitted land uses in several residential zoning districts to those listed on Jan. 1, 2025, while a subsequent sentence would require that when council initiates a comprehensive rezoning or official zoning map amendment (including text changes associated with a rezoning), the city send first-class-mail notices to affected property owners. The attorney cautioned that the plain language contains ambiguities that could be interpreted in multiple ways and could create legal conflicts: for example, whether a later state law or council action to comply with state legislation would be inconsistent with a charter change that "limits" permitted uses as of a past date.
Council members asked whether the petition would create a two-year pause, require a vote for future changes, or retroactively negate recent code changes. The City Attorney said it would not itself create a temporary moratorium or require a citizen vote to change code; rather, it would be a charter change if voters approve it. He also said that questions about retroactive application and conflicts with state law could lead to litigation if the petition passed and the city later adopted conflicting actions.
Council discussed practical options: several members suggested staff explore clearer notification methods in the municipal code and better use of existing communications channels (for example the Littleton Report print mailing and opt-in digital notifications) before the petition proceeds; others said they wanted staff to speak directly with organizers to determine whether alternative language or a targeted code change could meet petitioners' objectives.
Council directed staff to contact petition organizers, to review current notification practices and costs (including first-class mailing costs and potential alternatives), and to prepare recommendations for modifying code and communications practices as an alternative to a charter amendment. Council did not take a formal vote on the charter language itself; the petitioners may continue to gather signatures and, if they submit the required number of valid signatures, the council would then place the measure before voters in accordance with state and local rules.
