City of Littleton Board of Appeals Chair Speaks Out

boa

I am Dave Mitchell and I come before you [Littleton City Council, watch video] as the Chair of the Building Board of Appeals and things have gone astray. There has not been an appeal of a staff decision for years…..years.

This board is an extension of city council and quasi-judicial and yet I have been told that we could not meet without staff present – told by the staff. Staff is in control of this facility and the city attorney so it’s difficult to have a meeting without their cooperation or without their permission???? Here is the current process/status: a contractor or home owner pulls a permit, does some work, and calls for an inspection. If the inspector says no, the permit holder asks for a review and has a discussion with the inspector and the inspectors’ supervisor (city staff) and they say no.

Please look at the photocopy provided. The holder wants to appeal and goes to the city website and what do they see – a way to contact the very staff that has already turned them down. They see an appeals board but good luck contacting any of them.

We have heard of the tail wagging the dog but how about the hairs wagging the tail that’s wagging the dog. By the way, this has gotten to where it is under the previous management and I doubt that the current management would approve.

The contact information for the board should appear first and clearly say that the permit holder has a right to appeal and then the staff information, if at all.

Advertisements

Historic Preservation Board Approves Littleton Mixed Use

lmu2

By Michael Price
At its February monthly meeting, the City of Littleton Historical Preservation Board (HPB) approved an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new building to be constructed at 2679 West Main Street, site of the former Valley Feed Store.

The Littleton Planning Commission required the application for this COA during its August, 2016 meeting, where it approved the Planned Development Overlay by a 4-3 vote, with the provision that the property be included in the Main Street Historic District, which encompasses most of the buildings along Main Street from Bega Park to the Melting Pot Restaurant.

The owner and applicant are Jon Benallo and a company called 2679 West Main Street Partners LLC. Architect Josh Rowland of LAI Design Group of Englewood, CO presented the COA application to the Board.

The Planning Commission approved a four story brick and siding mixed use building, which would front on Main Street, contain 41,691 square feet, and have main floor retail and banking operations, second and third floor offices and five penthouse apartments on the fourth floor. The building measured 61 feet at its highest point, 98 feet along the Main Street frontage, and 173 feet deep along its north-south line. The property is zoned B-2. Most of downtown Littleton is zoned Central Area (CA), with different height limitations and other standards than B-2.
The HPB approves COAs utilizing standards and guidelines approved and published by the City and must carefully consider whether or not the Guidelines are being followed to grant a COA to allow remodeling or new construction to occur.

The property owner added it to the Main Street Historic District on December 9, 2016. On December 19, 2016, the application, presented to the HPB, revealed that several variations from the B-2 zoning requirements were recommended by the Community Development staff and approved by the Planning Commission in August, 2016. These included a 50 per cent reduction in the required number of parking spaces, a reduction in the size of each parking space, a reduction to the open space requirement, a reduction in the unobstructed open space along Main Street, a deviation in the third and fourth floor setbacks, as well as a deviation in the parking lot location.

During the December hearing, the HPB heard from Community Development staff, the applicant’s architect, and members of the public, most of whom spoke against the proposed COA approval. The HPB decided to continue the hearing until January when the applicant would resubmit the COA to more closely conform to the standards that the HPB would consider.

On January 18, 2017, the HPB heard the amended COA application. Fifteen citizens testified at the public hearing, 80% opposed. The HPB reviewed four main standards and 53 additional standards of the Littleton Downtown Design Guidelines, finding several areas where the building did not conform. These included a curb cut along Main Street, a side parking lot, a lack of overall relationship with adjacent buildings, the high visibility of the third and fourth floors from a point across the street, that the mass of the building, would dwarf all other buildings along Main Street and did not comply with the City’s Comp plan for downtown. Members of the HPB viewed this building as creating a new skyline for downtown, detracting from the Arapahoe County Courthouse and the Old Mill on Rapp Street as the tallest buildings in the downtown area, as well as minimizing the Carnegie Library (which houses the Melting Pot Restaurant), the western iconic building in downtown.

The HPB voted unanimously to deny the COA application.

On February 22, 2017, the applicant, through Community Development staff and its architect, resubmitted the COA application, with a major change to the proposed project. The revised application called for the removal of the fourth floor apartments, resulting in a three story building which at its highest point would be 44 feet. The applicant added an additional retail bay to the Main Street frontage, resulting in a building length along Main Street of 118 feet. The public hearing involved four citizens, all of whom requested that the HPB deny the revised application, citing a lack of consistency with the Downtown Guidelines, and that the building character and mass still did not fit with the buildings currently along Main Street.

lmu

The HPB again carefully considered each of the four main standards, and reviewed again compliance with the 53 additional standards. A motion to approve the COA passed with a 4-3 vote.

The project now moves to a staff level Site Development Plan (SDP), where the Community Development staff ensures that lighting, landscape and paving standards are followed along the lines of Planning Commission approval. A separate COA will be done at the staff level for building signage.

 

FTR: Why is There Zoning Anyway?

 

By Carol Fey
One purpose of zoning is to give current and prospective property owners assurance of what the property near theirs can be used for.  If you buy a house, you want to know that a junk yard or a 12-story apartment building isn’t going to be built next to your house.

Yet in Littleton, we treat zoning as if it’s an obstacle to a developer’s supposed right to do whatever he wants.  Some members of city council claim again and again, “The developer has the right to develop his property!  He has the right to make money!”

But does that developer, who knows full well the zoning of a property when he buys it, have the right to build something very different from what zoning allows?   Or to go before the Planning Commission and claim that his sidewalk-to-sidewalk development will have no negative impact?

How did we get to the place where the supposed rights of a developer to do whatever he wants is more important than the rights of citizen property owners to expect city government to enforce city code, to protect citizens’ property values and lifestyle?

FTR: LIFT Resignations

At the 10 January 2017 council study session, Bruce Beckman announced that there had been three resignations from the LIFT board and a fourth member that was not seeking another term.  Since that meeting another resignation has been delivered making five vacancies.  At present, the LIFT board has no executive director, no projects, one urban renewal area and two out of seven members.  What happens next?  We are not sure.

The law states: 31-25-104(2)(c) Vacancies other than by reason of expiration of terms shall be filled by the mayor for the unexpired term… The mayor shall file with the clerk a certificate of the appointment or reappointment of any commissioner, and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the due and proper appointment of such commissioner.

What we do know is that there will not be another LIFT meeting until there are enough members for a quorum!

A “Train Wreck” in Southwest Littleton…Coming Soon?

platte-r-5-17-15-3

By Don Bruns

Many have long puzzled over how things became so disjointed in the world of planning, especially for land use, management and master plans. A main reason why is that the real world is not at all so disjointed. Biologists have a handy metaphor for walled-off compartmentalization of the real world, the “territorial imperative.” In human society, it’s commonly called “turf.” People like to stake out territory, protect and defend it.

Pros and Cons of Walled-Off Turf
Among many reasons for territorialism, not all are bad. No one can be equally knowledgeable about all subjects across the board. So administrators commonly create departments to help staffs address various bite-sized components of the real world that lies beyond their office walls.

Yet real world complexity and interconnectedness is seldom reflected in the ways that inter- and intra-office planning and staffing is structured and functionally integrated. While it’s much easier for a single entity to plan independent from outside influencers and affecting providers, consideration of their actions through collaborative engagement is critically important to ensure success. Especially if success is measured in terms of maintaining desirable conditions and delivering satisfying end-results to those being served.

Other “turf” results from each organizational unit’s sense of mission, including its administratively conveyed sense of empowerment. Among local governments in particular, this is where planning particularly gets messy. When special interests walk on stage from outside organizations bringing funding with them to achieve their own ends. Another, less conspicuous but even more troubling, is when special interests find their way to sit at the table by masquerading as public officials.

Among Littleton’s city departments are separate organizational units for Community Development, Economic Development, Public Works, Human Resources, and Communications among others. Conspicuous by their absence are any units responsible for Community Stewardship and Natural Resource Management. The short answer seems to have been that South Suburban Parks and Recreation (SSPR) does that natural resource piece. For all the good SSPR does, its scope of influence is nonetheless limited. There appears to be no department or departments charged with responsibility for maintenance of neighborhood community character and the stewardship of natural/open space resources. This however is critical for balancing the well-orchestrated efforts of community and economic development departments. This deficiency is particularly problematic in the world of planning—in all of its phases: comprehensive, land use and master plans.

Needed: More Broadly Focused Plans & Key Affecting Provider Engagement
Several of these problems are manifested in the city’s current approach to plans underway for both South Platte Park (SPP) and the Mineral Light Rail Station. In the case of SPP, significant offsite challenges have surfaced in the park’s management plan update process that lie well beyond the scope of SPP managers, its planning process, and the purview of SSPR as well. This leaves SPP managers caught between the proverbial “rock and hard spot.”

In the case of the Mineral Station plan, the city is in control of what that effort does to SPP. However this plan’s scope of work was evidently not designed to ensure that whatever happens at that site—including new trails being considered as “low hanging fruit” to SPP across the RTD site and its environs (although favored by many)—would not introduce further crowding on Park trails, reduce visitor safety and adversely impact park experiences and resources.

Until and unless the city engages other significant affecting providers and influencers within both planning efforts, it is extremely unlikely that either plan will optimize benefits and avoid adverse impacts generated off-site. And these could well be substantial and irretrievable.

Mineral Station Plan Threatens to Adversely Impact South Platte Park
More specifically, the Mineral Light Rail Station planning effort appears to have been structured without regard to the pressing need to address its sizeable adverse impacts. It is now clear that these include direct impacts from the kinds of commercial and retail development favored by the city, RTD and DRCOG to SPP environs, to its visitors and to affected neighborhoods in particular. Transit Oriented Development (TOD)—this planning effort’s focus—and any new two and three-story structures would further obstruct highly valued views to this unique floodplain park. Looking at things from the inside out, park aesthetics and experiences would be compromised from the urbanization’s impact on natural countryside. Value-wise, planned developments risk exchanging public resource integrity for privately owned visual park access from the new developments.

Inadequate Planning Frameworks and Approaches
For the Mineral Light Rail Station planning effort, it is evident that development interests funded by RTD and DRCOG helped set the stage. Initially billed as a master plan, its scope falls far short of what is required for such plans. The planning contract focuses narrowly on Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and limits the areal scope to one-quarter mile of the RTD site. That pre-decisional determination, made even before any planning was done and any public input was sought, is unwise. Primary issues facing this effort—confirmed by public feedback and Planning Commission dialogue—are the enormous threat that urbanization of this site holds for SPP and affected neighborhoods. Also is a failure to address what publics have identified as even greater challenges: inadequate on-site parking and yet unresolved Mineral-Santa Fe traffic congestion.

Most significant challenges to South Platte Park’s public service delivery system and its stewardship appear to originate off-site. Besides planned urbanization of Mineral Station, there is the challenge of how to manage public use originating beyond the City of Littleton. Of course these challenges lie beyond the purview of SPP and SSP&R, but not that of Littleton’s City Council and its Planning Commission. It is therefore unthinkable that the critical need for an expanded planning framework that collaboratively engages other municipalities to address their effects on the Park and its users could have been overlooked. Even greater geographic and socio-political on- and off-site challenges face the Mineral Station planning effort, especially traffic and parking.

Because both plans are being done by Littleton, independent the involvement of other affecting providers, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that they are insufficiently comprehensive for adequately addressing all critically important key influencers and their effects.

Community Engaged but the Window for Corrective Action is Closing
It is heartening to have seen several citizens bring key issues before the City, but definitive action is urgently needed to avoid that proverbial “train wreck.” Citizens appreciate that the Acting City Manager in particular and some staff as well have begun to wrestle with this situation. But City Council itself must not remain disengaged.

Absent significant changes to both planning efforts, adverse, irreversible and irretrievable impacts to South Platte Park and those it serves seem certain. Yet none of them are being adequately addressed. Neither are adverse impacts to Santa Fe-Mineral traffic, affected neighborhood character, and even Aspen Grove. The most imminent threat is the out-of-character development being envisioned for Mineral Station. Out of character with the Park and affected communities and out of touch with supply-demand realities of light rail commuter travel. Even area retail business enterprise and values held dear by Littleton’s citizens are sure to be adversely impacted unless the conceptual framework for this plan is significantly altered.

There is far too much at risk to imagine that current plans and conceptual planning frameworks will somehow avoid these impacts. Citizens can only hope that City Council will act expeditiously.

Did You Know: Historic Preservation Board Says No to Littleton Mixed Use

lmu

Littleton has a long history as an agricultural community but did you know we once were the home of Centennial Racetrack? Just north of Bowles on the west side of the river Centennial Racetrack attracted audiences for 33 years before closing in 1983. Little remains from the horse racing days in Littleton and the demolition of the Valley Feed and Supply at the end of Main Street marks another rite of passage from those days.

Paul Sutton opened his Valley Feed and Supply in 1936 and provided the farmers in the area feed for their livestock and when the racetrack opened it was only natural that his business would serve the racetrack. Today the racetrack is long gone and Valley Feed is no longer. Paul’s son, Gary, retired recently and sold the prime piece of real estate in downtown Littleton and everyone has waited to learn how it would be redeveloped.

The wait was over in December when plans were presented to the Planning Commission for a very attractive but very big (four stories high) project named Littleton Mixed Use. Although staff recommended a denial the Planning Commission approved a conditional rezoning of the property. The condition imposed required the applicant to get a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the Historic Preservation Board, (HPB) which had many scratching their heads – how could a new building be historic? But we have seen dirt designated historic in downtown Littleton so…………..

On December 19, 2016 HPB found that “revisions to the proposed design are necessary to bring the application into compliance with the criteria for a COA.” (Staff Report to HPB dated 1/18/2017) On January 19th HPB once again held a public hearing on the project that had been slightly redesigned in an attempt to garner favor for approval. The meeting attracted several citizens from several different areas of the city to testify why the project did not warrant the COA. The applicant, the owner and the owner’s partner in LaVaca testified in favor of the project.

Even though the staff recommended approval after hours of testimony and deliberation the HPB voted to deny the COA based on the following criteria not being met:
1. Parking lots shall be located at the rear of the building and side parking lots shall be avoided along Main Street. (this designed had a side parking lot)
2. Buildings shall be designed to provide human scale, interest and variety while maintaining an overall sense of relationship with adjoining or nearby buildings. (the four stories was not in relationship with the adjoining buildings)
3. Proposed buildings on Main Street higher than two stories shall step back the upper story so only 25% or less of the upper floors is visible to the pedestrian from the center sidewalk directly across the street. (HPB did not believe this standard was met)
4. It is not visibly compatible with the development on adjacent properties. (The mass, size, scale and height were issues)

But the story has not concluded. The applicant has options. They can, according to the city:

1. Appeal to the city council to over-rule the HPB
2. Submit a revised plan to HPB again for review/approval
3. Ask the Planning Commission to remove the PDO (Planned Development Overlay) and build under the B2 zoning code which would require the parking and open space regulations of B2 zoning to be met.

Even though the story is not over, we commend the HPB for a thorough review of the criteria as it pertained to the project and having the resolve to vote their own conscience rather than follow the staff recommendation.

For the Record: Urbanization of Littleton’s Suburbs Outruns Citizen Support

By Don Bruns
Across much of Littleton there is growing concern about adverse effects of urbanized development.  Much of that new development appears wildly out of character from its surroundings, bio-physically as well as socio-culturally.  In other words, it includes intrusive architectural designs, disproportionate structural scales, and undesirable changes to the human environment.  Impacts show up as disappearing green space, loss of neighborhood community character, growing crime, and mounting costs of associated infrastructure maintenance and community services.Although results are readily observable, entities responsible for development approvals exhibit an alarming disregard for the primary reasons why so many Littleton residents choose to live here—young and old alike.  Unlike those driving the urbanization “growth machine,” a great many citizens still like the Littleton that brought them here.  Their concern about the erosion of Littleton’s defining character is therefore understandable.

Real-world evidence suggests that much of Littleton’s development activity is geared primarily towards bringing higher residential density.  The pro-growth passion seems to be driven by non-residents and locals mostly interested in immediate cash flow to stay out of the “red.”  This shows up in several ways.  One is the sizable grants and contributions flowing from the U.S. Treasury and pro-growth associations that make it possible.  Both the real estate and construction industry have become skilled at partnering with regional funding conduits.  DRCOG (Denver Regional Council of Governments), RTD (Regional Transportation District) and CML (Colorado Municipal League) are also effective partner advocates for the growth and development industry.

Something yet more disconcerting may lie at the root of the transformative urbanization movement.  Some representatives of powerful pro-growth organizations seem to have assumed public decision-making positions as elected officials and as members of various local boards and commissions.  But how could anyone know that?  Simply by watching how people act and vote, not by what they say.  Seldom, in such capacity, do those committed to the development industry exhibit as much enthusiasm for maintaining community character and mitigating adverse impacts to citizens’ quality of life as they do for advancing urbanization and the development industry.

The current passion for urbanization of Littleton’s defining suburban character has far outrun available evidence for doing it.  That drive instead appears too often to be only a surrogate for promoting local economic stability.  Affected citizens therefore need to become more adept at recognizing what is actually going on.

Before it is too late, many more citizens need to become involved in holding municipal representatives and officials accountable for responding to their interests, rather than those of the development industry.  But only if the people want to keep what they most value about Littleton—the character of its neighborhoods, its parks and open space resources, its downtown historic district, the character of its varied communities, and their residents’ quality of life.

How to get involved?  See dates and times for Littleton’s regularly scheduled meetings, study sessions and agendas for each at http://www.littletongov.org/connect-with-us/city-leadership/meeting-videos-documents.  The city’s website states: “The public is invited to attend all regular meetings and study sessions of the Littleton City Council or any city board, authority, commission, or public program.  Individuals can speak before each regular meeting in council chambers at 2255 W. Berry Avenue for three minutes each, and comments may be sent to members of each body.  See http://www.littletongov.org/connect-with-us/city-leadership/city-council-members for City Council and http://www.littletongov.org/connect-with-us/city-leadership/authorities-boards-commissions/planning-board for Planning Commission members. Learn more at http://www.littletongov.org. Citizens can make a difference—you really can!