Zoning Issues Continue

littleton-crossing-2

By Deanna Cook

The 170 tenant-capacity, low-income housing development called Littleton Crossing will be built at 5591 South Nevada Street on the old St. Mary’s Church and school site.  After citizens were persistent in their request for council to intervene, the subject was finally on their agenda.  However, upon the advice of counsel and under threat of possible litigation from the developer, council’s discussion was very limited.  But now it is abundantly clear that the previous council rezoned this parcel of land in violation of the city’s zoning code as it did not meet the minimum lot size for rezoning.  (Councilmembers Brinkman, Cernanec, Stahlman and Stein supported the rezone and Councilmembers Beckman, Cole and Valdes did not.  Clark was not on council at the time.)  Now staff is negotiating construction design changes, attempting to mitigate the zoning violations inherent from the original wrongful rezoning.  Surprisingly, the City advised concerned citizens last week that Littleton, not the Montana developer, will be paying for those changes.

Did You Know: Council Rethinks Stance on Written Minutes

After abandoning written minutes in 2014, city council voted to return to a written format at their February 21, 2017 meeting. The exact words of the motion:

For the purposes of the charter, this code, or state law, the term minutes shall mean action minutes of the meeting of city council or any of its authorities, boards, or commissions. Action minutes shall mean motions, the vote of any motion, and the name of any citizen speaking under public comment and/or public hearings and their stance.

The video recordings of meetings shall be kept in perpetuity.

To refresh your memory, council voted 4/3 (Beckman, Cole and Valdes dissented) on Mar 18, 2014 to define minutes as a video tape recording, and since that time written minutes, as they existed in the past, were not provided. But council has rethought its position, mostly because Councilman Doug Clark, who was not on the council when the definition of minutes was changed the first time, continues to vote no on the approval of the minutes which is a certification of the video recording of the meeting. He pointed out that the written Journal provided was never reviewed or approved by council and contained errors. He stood fast that council should be accountable for reading and approving the written record of their meeting. We are grateful to Mr. Clark for his steadfastness and we applaud the action of all councilmembers to provide action minutes in a written format.

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.

Colorado Finance and Housing Authority (CHFA) Presents to Council in Conjunction with Littleton Crossing Development

littleton-crossing-2

By Deanna Cook
(Council Study Session ID# 17-25. See More High Density for Downtown Littleton for the back story.)

In a nutshell: CHFA’s representative, Tasha Weaver, made CHFA look foolish.  She admitted they rarely hear from the public and that our opposition, while “unprecedented” and the likes of which CHFA has “never seen before”, was ignored by them in their decision-making. She stated she ‘bundled up’ the Petition and numerous letters and emails and gave them to the CHFA Voting Committee. According to CHFA’s own inside attorney, the Summit application documents provided to the Voting Committee for a final decision did not include our opposition. It did, however, include what CHFA called ‘support’ that CHFA itself sought out and by notifying South Metro Housing Authority which then, in return for hearing about the project, provide a letter of support to Summit.

Weaver confirmed CHFA’s Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) goals in 2016 were for four specific types of projects for extreme needs such as the homeless, special needs persons, low population areas and disaster area victims. Summit’s project did not fall into any of those categories.  She also confirmed when LIHTC properties are found to be non-compliant after construction and occupied, they have never sued any of those developers or investors. Further, after Summit sells as planned at year 15, there appears to be very little oversight or control for the next 40 years. In this case the original developer and investors will be gone. CHFA looks at ‘vacancy’ rates but no specific low income housing needs. They don’t even investigate what other low income housing already exists in a community. Downtown Littleton currently supports a very high percentage of low income housing.

The City Council advised CHFA its process was “flawed” and essentially chastised it for ignoring the public voice and dropping down a 55-year low income project without involving the City which is tasked with managing the dispersing of socioeconomic properties and zoning and also taking into account that properties like Littleton Crossing may even be exempt from paying sales and use or property taxes to the City.

During council discussion, it was brought up that this piece of property may have been illegally rezoned. The zoning change required an approximately 4 acre plot whereas it is only 43,000 squ ft. The City Council ended with a plan that they would delay as much as possible to review the potential improper zoning issue.

Legal counsel has been retained by various community members – including residents and business owners.

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!

Did You Know: More High Density Development for Downtown Littleton

littleton-crossing-2

littleton-crossing-3

By Scott Keyser

Development and land use changes without citizen input is happening yet again now that the land use has changed for the proposed Littleton Crossing Development at 5591 S Nevada, a block north of Main Street.

Despite community and downtown business objection, in 2013 zoning for the lot at 5591 S Nevada was approved for high density luxury condominiums.  In 2016, with no public hearing, the proposed development was changed to low income housing for 55 years by the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA).  The Littleton Crossing Development is being developed by out of state developer, Summit Housing Group

The zoning allows the development of 63 units (85 bedrooms) on a lot smaller than the size of one block and is unlike all other zoning in District One (Downtown Littleton). One of the main objections is related to parking, which is already a challenge for residents and visitors to the local businesses. The city has suggested that restricting visitor parking would be a potential solution should there be further parking issues from the new, high density development. Business owners and visitors are already vocal about parking issues in downtown Littleton, and the new development could certainly lead to more congestion.

The residents of downtown Littleton created a petition in July of 2016 to oppose the CHFA approval for low income housing. The petition was signed by local residents in district one as well as many business owners. There are already four low income housing developments within 3 blocks of the proposed development as well as many more within walking distance of downtown Littleton, and many in the community would rather see a “market rate” development as downtown Littleton continues to prosper.

The CHFA approval is being scrutinized by Littleton city council after learning the community objection was omitted from the review process. Instead, the CHFA approval was based on support from developers and an individual associated with RTD. It has also been realized the development will give priority to Section 8 applicants despite originally promoting the development as a place for teachers, police workers and firefighters, who will not qualify for the low income units. Furthermore, the CHFA approval was based on the low income housing development to stay for the next 55 years.

Littleton City Council is holding a special ‘Study Session’ on January 24 during which it will interview CHFA and learn more about its process related to this project.  After the study session City Council will decide whether to give further direction to the City concerning approval of the project. People are encouraged to voice their opinion to city council and the city manager as they continue to scrutinize the CHFA approval. You can find contact information for city council members and the acting city manager at http://littletongov.org/connect-with-us/city-leadership/city-council-members and http://www.littletongov.org/city-services/city-departments/city-manager.

Thanks for helping!