Littleton council postpones 'neighborhood housing opportunities' land‑use changes after extended debate

The Littleton City Council voted 6‑1 on Tuesday to postpone indefinitely Ordinance 31‑2024, a proposed amendment to the Unified Land Use Code intended to expand neighborhood housing types — including accessory dwelling units (ADUs), duplexes, three‑ and four‑unit multiplexes and certain cottage court standards. The motion—moved and seconded from the dais—directed staff to return with a more incremental package that would ensure compliance with state ADU law and allow separate, focused consideration of duplexes and other missing‑middle housing types.

The ordinance came to the council after more than a year of staff work, a public outreach period, technical stakeholder meetings and a planning commission hearing that approved the draft with two amendments. Senior Planner Zareen Tasneem led staff’s presentation, describing the proposal as intended to implement policy in Littleton’s 2017 housing study and the Envision Littleton comprehensive plan (adopted 2019). Tasneem said the changes would consolidate use definitions, align the code with 2024 state ADU legislation, remove several site‑plan barriers for small multiunit products, and expand where duplexes and multiplexes could be permitted within neighborhood zone districts.

"This ordinance is the latest initiative in the city's ongoing efforts to help address the critical housing shortage we are experiencing in Littleton and across the Denver region," Tasneem told the council, adding staff recommended adoption and stood ready to implement the changes if approved.

Why it mattered: staff and multiple council members framed the changes as a response to a long‑running housing shortfall and to state law requirements on ADUs; opponents and many residents said the package arrived too quickly, risked neighborhood character, and failed to prove it would produce affordability. The council’s vote to postpone followed extended questioning about HOA preemption, subdivision limits on large lots, fire and utility impacts, design controls and public engagement.

Planning and state law provisions highlighted by staff included: alignment of the city’s height definition with the International Residential and International Building Codes; removal of alley‑access requirements for detached ADUs consistent with 2024 state ADU legislation; and proposed limits clarifying where multiplexes could be built on existing large acreage lots. Staff told council that ADUs would be exempt from certain planned‑development restrictions per the state law, but other housing types would not be exempt from recorded planned‑development documents.

Council members probed many details. Council member Reichert asked for differences between ADUs and duplexes; staff answered that duplexes can be sold as separate lots after subdivision while ADUs are required by city code to remain deed‑restricted to the primary lot. On HOA authority, City Attorney (referencing the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act) said HOAs retain many restrictive powers in recorded covenants, but the state has placed limits specifically related to ADUs; the attorney described those limitations as "pretty vague" in some places and said the state had "expressly stated" some preemption in the ADU statute.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns were a recurring theme. During the general public comment period earlier in the meeting, several residents raised worries about recent and forthcoming development impacts — increased traffic, tree removal at the Mineral Place/Costco site, and loss of open space. Greg Sullivan, who said he had circulated flyers and collected signatures opposing recent site clearing, criticized tree removal at a swale tied to a development and characterized the city’s approach as "greenwashing." Susan Schnick, a resident of more than 50 years, urged the council to "slow down" and give long‑time residents time to adapt. Several speakers said they had not received enough advance notice about surveys and land‑use studies.

Council debate reflected a split in emphasis. Council member Driscoll supported postponement: "This is the right decision. This did come up fast," she said, asking the council to separate ADUs from other missing‑middle items and to do more outreach. Council member Peters, while noting staff’s hard work, said more public education and additional refinement were warranted and urged civil discourse. Council member Bridal, who said she has worked on homelessness policy and supported the ordinance’s goals, nonetheless supported postponement and asked colleagues to keep an "open heart" to the ordinance’s larger housing‑supply aims: "We’re really trying to increase the supply of housing because lack of supply is at the heart of homelessness," Bridal said.

Motion and outcome: Councilor Andrea (last name on file) moved to postpone Ordinance 31 indefinitely and directed staff to return with an incremental approach that (a) addresses the state's ADU requirements and (b) separately considers duplexes and multiplexes. The motion passed 6‑1; Mayor Pro Tem Barr cast the lone no vote.

What happens next: City staff told council they will prepare a revised, incremental work plan and public‑engagement approach and expect to schedule a study session within a few weeks (staff suggested a late‑January study session to start the follow‑up process). The council’s direction asked staff to bring back separate or staged ordinances that first ensure compliance with state ADU law and then consider other missing‑middle options with additional outreach and technical detail.

Context and limits: Staff emphasized that any future development would still need to meet building, fire and other life‑safety codes and that planned‑development covenants and recorded HOA restrictions may continue to affect where and how new housing types can be built. Staff also said infrastructure analyses using standard regional manuals indicate that, spread evenly across the city, modest increases in density should not overwhelm existing sanitary or transportation systems. The council did not adopt any of the proposed land‑use text changes at Tuesday’s meeting.

Looking ahead: Residents will have an opportunity to follow the staff‑led outreach and attend public study sessions and hearings; staff said council and public study sessions will be posted on the city's website and included in the Littleton Report online subscriptions.