Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members press for more deed‑restricted units as Montview Flats opens early
Summary
NextGen members reviewed local affordable‑housing tools and recent projects, urging higher inclusionary targets than the city’s current 5% requirement and highlighting Montview Flats — a 50‑unit infill development that opened early and under budget.
NextGen advisory board members on Tuesday revisited Littleton’s tools for creating affordable rental housing and highlighted a recent infill project completed ahead of schedule.
Board member speaker 5 summarized a housing authority report and said Littleton’s current inclusionary policy requires roughly 5% of new apartment units be deed‑restricted; she called for raising that target over coming years and noted the city uses fees‑in‑lieu when developers don’t provide units. "I called for additional affordable rental units," speaker 5 said, citing two local examples where inclusionary units are being delivered as part of market projects.
The board also heard that Montview Flats, a 50‑unit urban infill project on 0.67 acres, finished about four months early and under budget. Speaker 5 said the project includes 37 one‑bedroom and 13 two‑bedroom units and that some units target a range of AMI levels; the presentation cited a family‑of‑two AMI example of roughly $78,000 and noted 30% AMI corresponds to about $30,000 per year in the materials shown to the board.
Members discussed limits in zoning that have constrained alternative housing types (speaker 5 noted a prior cottage‑court proposal on Ridge and Prince was defeated on appeal) and the board flagged the gap between existing inclusionary percentages and the number of units the city would need to meet lower‑income demand. Several members said increasing the inclusionary percentage, or targeting more family‑sized deed‑restricted units, should be part of future recommendations to council.
The board asked staff and returning members to help track state bills and local opportunities that could help finance or preserve affordable housing; a fuller legislative readout was scheduled for the June meeting. The advisory board agreed to keep housing on the June agenda and to consider whether the board should prepare letters or provide study‑session input to council as projects and policies advance.
