Littleton is still deciding what it wants to be when it grows up. The Planning Commission, which is responsible for providing guidance for the growth …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
If you made a voluntary contribution in 2022-2023 of $50 or more, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access includes access to all websites and online content.
Littleton is still deciding what it wants to be when it grows
The Planning Commission, which is responsible for providing
guidance for the growth and development of the city, is working to
update Littleton’s comprehensive policy plan, or Complan,
originally written in 1985 and last revised in 2000.
Inside the Littleton Report, which is slated to be mailed out
March 26-27, will be a survey regarding the Complan. Commissioners
are hoping to solicit input from key community members or
stakeholders identifying key areas and resources in the
The Complan is designed to be a guiding principle for all
aspects of city planning. It addresses parks and open space,
transportation, land use, annexation, housing and urban design —
such as trees, landscaping, etc.
Reading the 1985 version is a trip down memory lane. It
discusses depressing the railroad tracks under Main Street, plans
for the Arapahoe County Fairgrounds if it hadn’t been annexed into
Littleton (Cornerstone Park is there now), what would happen if
Grant Junior High School was sold for development (Littleton Public
Schools retained the building; it’s now the Education Services
Center), and developing “commercial and multifamily residential
mixed used if (Centennial) racetrack is ever relocated of
Now there’s Aspen Grove, RiverPointe, fast-food restaurants and
oceans of townhouses and apartments — all of which aren’t included
in the existing plan.
But the Complan has been a matter of contention for some time.
In 2006, the Planning Commission was tasked with updating the
document. With the aid of a citizen advisory committee, the
planners presented what was called the Littleton 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, detailing visions for the future of the city. However, city
council rejected this document in 2007.
“Since the project was initiated in March 2006, ComPlan 2030 has
generated a great deal of debate and discussion in the community,”
the council’s annual workshop report said. “Consequently, the 2008
city council wanted to conduct an overview of the current draft
plan and determine if a new direction was needed.”
Council identified three major issues with the plan.
First, they said citizens had expressed concern that the
planning process was a “top-down” rather than a grass-roots
“bottom-up” approach to seeking community input at a neighborhood
Second, concerns were raised about the degree of protection for
existing neighborhood plans, and the fact that some areas of the
city were not covered by the plan.
Third, questions were raised about the concept of the draft 2030
plan as being primarily a “vision document.” Citizens were
concerned the document wouldn’t be useful for specific land use
Recommendations from the 2030 plan were broader, suggesting the
consideration of mixed-use projects in areas of change, including
the South Platte River and increasing connectivity and transit
throughout the community.
With senior planner Dennis Swain at the time, and community
development director Mary Roberts providing technical assistance,
there was an open-ended and vigorous discussion with all seven
councilmembers contributing their observations and opinions about
both the process and the content of the 2030 Plan, and also the
strengths and weaknesses of the existing 1981 Plan, according to
the workshop report.
“The purpose of the Complan is to describe what development
people will tolerate. We have this whole mechanism in place, our
zoning code, that says that's the document we use,” Mayor Doug
Clark told the Littleton Independent in July 2008. “And then you
have the 2030 plan that went over here, and they're creating
something completely different.”
Council considered allowing the planning commission to complete
its work on the 2030 draft, with recommendations on areas that
In March 2008, the planning commission was directed to start
over with a new process, a new plan and several new board members.
In an unusual move, council removed three members from the
commission when they made their annual appointment to the city's 14
boards and commissions in April.
The commission and council in a joint meeting decided Aug. 12,
2008 that the new comprehensive plan would follow the same format
as the 1981 plan — highlighting goals, policies and neighborhood
The new planning commission was concerned about clarifying
details, so their plan wouldn’t also be rejected.
“We want to make sure that before we go too far along in the
process — when we’ve already seen a process that went too far along
— that we are on the right track before we go out and start taking
steps that are going to be expensive and time consuming,” said
Commissioner Pavlo Stavropoulos at the meeting.
But some councilmembers expressed that it was not their place
for council to give the commissioners direction.
“City council has made the planning commission responsible for
the preparation of the comprehensive plan. All city council does is
ratify it,” said Councilmember John Ostermiller. “I sat on planning
commission for 20 years and only once did city council say what
they wanted. We should not be telling them how to do something
we’ve given them the responsibility to do.”
Councilmember Debbie Brinkman also said the planning commission
should seek input outside of meetings, identify stakeholders in
each community and ask them what they want.
“It’s going to be easier to make decisions once you hear what
the community thinks,” she said.
While the nine planning commission members seemed to agree that
community input is a valuable part of the process, Commissioner
Julio Iturreria pointed out it’s also a time-consuming and costly
endeavor. Before putting in the investment, he wanted to make sure
everything was on the right track, especially given that several
commissioners were just appointed to their positions in April.
“Some of us who haven’t been around can’t go forward and say,
‘This is what the city council wants,’” Iturreria said. “We’re
really trying to get a better foundation so when we get the
go-ahead, we can go.”
Other items that may interest you
We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.