Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Littleton staff propose ADU size increase, ask council to weigh easing buffer‑yard rules
Summary
Staff proposed raising the maximum size for detached accessory dwelling units to 1,000 sq ft and asked Council whether to ease buffer‑yard landscaping requirements that can block ADU construction on small lots. Planning commissioners and councilors discussed neighborhood character, equity and potential middle‑ground exemptions.
City planning staff presented proposed changes to the Unified Land Use Code that would implement recent state legislation and adjust local rules to encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Jared Chipman, senior planner, and other staff asked council and Planning Commission members whether the city should increase the current detached ADU size cap from 800 square feet to 1,000 square feet and consider reducing or modifying buffer‑yard landscaping requirements that can prevent homeowners from adding ADUs to small lots.
Staff noted that state law requires some code changes (the presentation cited HB 24‑1007 and other 2024 session bills) and that existing occupancy limits are set by the building code. Chipman said Littleton not only must comply with the state’s requirement to treat ADUs (the transcript used the term “80 years/ADU”) similar to single‑family dwellings but also can adopt measures that make ADUs more feasible locally. “We do have a size limit for detached ADUs of 800 square feet,” Chipman said, and staff recommended exploring an increase to 1,000 square feet.
The more contested topic was buffer yards. Staff explained the city’s contextual standards can require additional landscaping or screening when an accessory structure’s height exceeds a percentage of neighboring roof heights; that requirement raises cost and can make a conversion of an existing garage infeasible. Planning commissioners and several council members supported exploring a middle ground — for example, a reduced buffer for ADUs or a higher threshold for when buffer yards apply instead of eliminating screening entirely. Opponents argued any easing should not unduly change neighborhood character on small lots.
Staff also clarified that setbacks and lot‑coverage limits remain in force: ADUs would still be accessory to the principal dwelling and subject to existing setback and coverage rules. The proposal is at the guidance stage; staff asked council to indicate interest in pursuing the 1,000‑square‑foot cap and in drafting buffer‑yard options for public review.
What’s next: staff will draft code language and present concrete options (including middle‑ground variants) at the public redline posting and at Planning Commission; final changes would return to council for adoption.
