Littleton City Council reviewed a proposed citizen-initiated charter amendment during its May 27 study session. The proposed amendment would freeze the land code, significantly restricting changes to residential land use in the city, and require new notification procedures for zoning changes.
On May 5, Littleton’s city clerk approved a petition for circulation that seeks to add a new section to the city charter, aiming to preserve the current land uses in single-family residential districts. The petition is by Rooted in Littleton, a group of residents against increased home density. The group claims the State of Colorado is overreaching the home rule municipality of Littleton with the recent passing of H.B. 24-1152, which would allow accessory dwelling units, also known as ADUs, in the city’s residential zones.
“Our deep roots inform the perspective that good things grow slowly and knee-jerk responses to large social issues don’t produce lasting results,” Rooted in Littleton’s website reads. “Let’s not let increased density usher in a new era of increased traffic, crime and big-city problems in our little town.”
The petition, if successful, would limit permitted uses without a charter amendment or a new vote in Small Lot Residential, Medium Lot Residential, Large Lot Residential and Acreage Residential zones to those allowed as of Jan. 1, 2025.
The proposed amendment would require the city to mail first-class notices to all affected property owners before any city-initiated comprehensive rezoning or zoning map changes. With about 20,300 households in Littleton, the city said it could cost approximately $15,000 per mailing, in addition to existing notification procedures.
City Attorney Reid Betzing expressed concerns about the petition’s language and its interpretation, questioning its intent.
“There is some ambiguity about what it means about text changes,” Betzing said. “It requires some level of interpretation, it’s subjective.”
Betzing elaborated on specific questions he had about the petition.
“If ADUs are passed as the state wants the city to do, technically, that is a change to the land use, which is different than what existed on Jan. 1, 2025.”
City council acknowledged the residents’ concerns about the adequacy of current notification processes, but some questioned whether the proposed charter amendment was the best approach to address it. Councilmembers questioned if the petition may present constitutional issues, especially if interpreted to void changes made after Jan. 1, 2025.
“No matter what, if this (petition) passes, we’re going to have to spend money defending this — our charter — versus state law when it comes to ADUs,” Councilmember Robert Reichardt said. “I think this guarantees we are litigating with the state.”
Mayor Kyle Schlachter inquired about sending notifications of zoning changes via services the city already has, such as including notices in the Littleton Report, which is mailed six times a year to residents.
“I hear (the petitioners), we want to have people aware of things that are going on,” Schlachter said. “It’s not like we’re trying to slide something in.”
Betzing said the city’s process for comprehensive rezoning is similar to how the city adopts an ordinance.
“It’s (a) first and second hearing and then we’re voting on something. That’s how the ULUC (Unified Land Use Code) was adopted (but) one of the differences … was the notification process. Just as we went through the various iterations, was basically nonstop,” Betzing said. “I think everyone in town knew that we were working on something related to our land use code at that time.”
Members of the public interrupted, saying: “No, we didn’t.” Betzing replied: “I don’t know what to tell you if you didn’t know that.”
Councilmember Pam Grove said the petition was aggressive in its aim to change the charter, and that notifying property owners is not enough to satisfy the petitioners.
“We need to go a step further, what that step looks like, I’m not sure,” Grove said. “I advocate for talking to this group … but I think we need to come up with something else that gets at what (the residents’) primary objective is.”
Schlachter asked the audience to be quiet after they laughed when he responded to Grove with: “I think that’s what we’ve heard is the primary objective — notification. It’s what we’ve been hearing for the last five months.”
In a May 28 Facebook post, Rooted in Littleton said Schlachter has made allegations about the petition and responded to quotes from his Facebook post on May 18:
Rooted in Littleton said the petition would not make “sweeping changes,” and “merely asks voters if they want to see a proposed amendment to the city’s charter get placed on the ballot at the next general election.”
The group said: “It’s a problem that 76% of Littleton voters told us through a third-party survey that they feel any change of 10% or more to Littleton’s land use policies should be put to vote and the mayor wants to ignore that directive.”
In March, Rooted in Littleton hired polling and survey company, Magellan Strategies, to conduct a housing survey. According to the results, 1,197 people participated and voiced opposition to increased housing density in single-family neighborhoods and emphasized the desire for considerable resident input for zoning changes, among other findings.
Ultimately, the council agreed to continue evaluating the petition’s implications and to consider additional engagement with residents before the November 2025 ballot deadline.
To qualify for the November 2025 ballot, the petition needs 1,827 verified signatures or 5% of registered Littleton voters. The deadline for submitting signatures is Aug. 5.
The Littleton Independent reached out to Rooted in Littleton via their website and did not receive comment by press time.
City Counsel should represent the position of their constituents, not their personal views, which in certain instances are absolutely orthogonal to the majority views of Littleton citizens, and especially those of homeowners.
It should be noted that the reporter, Isabel Guzman, chose not to reach out to Rooted in Littleton or any of their representatives for comment, fact checking or input on this article. As such this is an unfair and biased article that does not accurately represent RIL’s agenda, position or proposed charter amendment.
This is not true, “The Littleton Independent reached out to Rooted in Littleton via their website and did not receive comment by press time.”
The reporter contacted RIL’s website on May 28th regarding an entirely different subject matter-not for this article. RIL looks forward to setting the record straight in future conversations with this media outlet.