Littleton Council sets Jan. 7 hearing on ‘missing middle’ zoning after hours of public comment

Littleton City Council on Tuesday set a Jan. 7 public hearing on proposed changes to the city’s Unified Land Use Code that would re‑legalize so‑called "missing middle" housing — duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and small cottage‑court developments — and moved several related consent items forward.

The hearing was set after roughly three hours of public comment by dozens of residents on both sides of the issue. Supporters urged council to increase housing supply and “gentle density” so younger families and essential workers can remain in Littleton. Opponents said the proposal was rushed, would allow demolitions and teardown redevelopment that would change neighborhood character, and questioned whether the changes would produce affordable housing.

More than 60 residents who signed up to speak filled the council chamber; speakers addressed the same ordinance from widely different perspectives. "Increasing affordability is about increasing supply and the way to do that is through density," said Josh Sarkar, a Littleton resident. "I want to encourage Littleton City Council to approve the recommendations from the Planning Commission." By contrast, longtime resident Tammy Whitney told council, "Blanket, one‑size‑fits‑all rezoning would change the uniqueness of each one of these special neighborhoods."

Why this matters: City staff and council say Littleton lacks a range of small, multiunit housing types that historically existed in the city and that new options could slow price inflation by adding supply. Opponents counter that unregulated redevelopment can lead to replacement of older, lower‑priced units with higher‑end housing and that the city should prioritize targeted redevelopment sites and additional study before broad code changes.

What happened at the meeting: Council removed the ULUC ordinance from the consent agenda for further discussion, then voted to set a public hearing for Jan. 7 on Ordinance 31 (first reading). The motion to set the hearing passed unanimously. Council also approved several consent agenda items that were unrelated to the ULUC item, and later adopted Ordinance 30 (land‑development impact fees) on second reading.

Public concerns raised during comments included: - Notice and outreach: multiple speakers said they first learned about the proposal only days before the meeting and questioned survey methods and the small number of responses cited by staff. "There are 44,000 people in the city of Littleton, and yet the neighborhoods that I am aware of were not aware of this zoning," said Tammy Whitney. - Neighborhood character and teardowns: several speakers warned that developers would replace single‑family homes with higher‑priced multiunit dwellings, a process they characterized as gentrification. "Tearing down existing single family houses and increasing density is not going to increase affordability," testified Steve Natale, a local real‑estate broker, who pointed to recent infill examples that sold above $1 million per unit. - Infrastructure, traffic and emergency access: speakers asked whether streets, sewer and fire service capacity were adequate for increased density, and whether one‑entry/one‑exit neighborhoods could handle additional units. - Housing outcomes and affordability: supporters and municipal housing stakeholders (including South Metro Housing Options) said the new housing likely will not be deeply subsidized affordable units but could act as a "relief valve" by increasing overall supply and helping stabilize prices.

Council and staff response: City Manager said the changes reflect work over more than a year, including public meetings, technical advisory input and a planning commission recommendation. Council members signaled willingness to consider amendments before final action, and several councilors asked staff to prepare visuals showing maximum building mass under the proposed standards and to clarify subdivision rules, setbacks and lot‑coverage differences between single‑family and multiplex products.

Outcome and next steps: Council voted to set a public hearing for Jan. 7; that session will include a fuller staff presentation and provide an opportunity for council amendments and public testimony. No final adoption of the ULUC changes was made Tuesday — the Jan. 7 hearing is the next formal opportunity for a decision.

Votes at a glance (from meeting record): - Consent agenda items B–F (design services, Tri‑Cities homelessness IGA, 2024 budget amendment, Axon contract amendment, minutes): approved (motion carried, recorded as 6 in favor). - Ordinance 31 (ULUC changes): council voted to set the public hearing for Jan. 7 (motion carried, recorded as 6 in favor). - Ordinance 30 (land development impact fees): adopted on second reading (motion carried, recorded as 6 in favor).

What council asked staff to provide before Jan. 7: visual massing examples (sample lots showing single‑family vs. multiplex at proposed coverages/heights), clarification of subdivision rules for different lot types, and more detail on development fees and how fees are assessed by use type.

Speakers quoted in this article are taken from the council transcript and are attributed to the speakers who appeared in public comment. The ordinance will return for public hearing on Jan. 7, 2025.