[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6454743,"mediaKeyId","5859837-d032f5308e601335d401f52d319c8b58","parentId",5859837,"title","Historic Preservation Commission begins code review on downtown standards, signage and administrative COAs; plans outreach","audioSeconds",3058,"startMs",6488000,"endMs",9546000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5859837-d032f5308e601335d401f52d319c8b58&start=6488&end=9546","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5859837-d032f5308e601335d401f52d319c8b58/thumbnail_6488000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6454743/Littleton-City/Arapahoe-County/Colorado/Historic-Preservation-Commission-begins-code-review-on-downtown-standards-signage-and-administrative-COAs-plans-outreach","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454743-c6c4cf95cf100394108aafa5dd993c9e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143794&Signature=ariB4nP-4LF8B3ltbUYwm4~R~9Lt8iRAb4WmKgVVkW5--MCcjpJv0wVaC0zu6gW2-x48~1hGzGULaOcxh-XNZjIqu6~QEA1NspzI6dG-zSM0xxLlYT2dYN10bg-jzpam0uNJuKF1LcMdUZINaHx~rDquGMEGXoM9iFA83BVyFuiAH03J5nAFxgx5uVTiICv2BGE2Xj7024buLY4JY352wjoRfvTzvuGA1fkrUpNq6zQJXzemeGKiBuPsrhL16CQ344Vm525psHPaHd-mfRWbdC5othLpePjeTWJwUZRbi4Cw26zdSPdp5OFw5nSnldK4jeKd7bEIEo7FLdY5hySjQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Littleton City, CO","date","2025-09-30T15:24:18Z","article","Commissioners held a study session on Unified Land Use Code (ULUC) amendments affecting downtown design standards, the major/minor alteration chart, window-sign rules and administrative review of in-kind replacements.

Planner Sarah Duesenberry summarized proposed language that would allow properties within the downtown historic district or individually landmarked buildings to have alterations and minor expansions reviewed and approved through the historic preservation COA process rather than automatically being subject to the downtown zoning district's design standards. The draft aims to reduce conflicts between the downtown zone standards and district-specific preservation decision criteria.

Commissioners questioned definitions and how \"alteration\" and \"minor expansion\" would be distinguished from \"major expansion\" or new construction. Duesenberry said the code defines alteration as any change to 1 or more exterior architectural features and that the proposed amendment seeks to treat alterations differently from substantial new construction. Commissioners asked staff to clarify the language and to make the distinction explicit (for example, specifying minor alteration vs. major alteration) before the proposal advances.

The commission also discussed window signage and the use of vinyl decals. Current downtown sign code provisions prohibit certain decal-style window signs; Duesenberry presented research showing other cities vary in how they handle window decals and suggested the commission consider whether to keep the prohibition or update it. Commissioners generally leaned toward leaving the rule as-is or remaining neutral, and asked staff to preserve the option to refine the language before a formal code amendment.

Duesenberry proposed adding signage considerations to the COA review so Commission/administrative review would cover sign placement and materials for downtown properties; commissioners supported a measured approach that would not change maximum sizes in the sign code but would allow COA review to address historically appropriate placement and materials. Commissioners asked that existing zoning size limits remain unchanged.

The commission discussed whether certain in-kind replacements (for example, replacing a non-original window with a visually similar product) could be moved to an administrative COA process instead of needing a public hearing. Duesenberry said the city's practice is to encourage repair over replacement and to evaluate in-kind requests case-by-case, but that an administrative pathway could reduce regulatory burden for owners of non-contributing or non-original features. Commissioners were split: some favored an administrative option for clearly in-kind replacements; others said the commission should retain review authority for consistency and public transparency.

On the major/minor chart itself — a technical table used to determine when work is considered major and requires a full COA — commissioners asked staff to return with clearer definitions and recommended a targeted outreach: staff will prepare a short survey to send to property owners in designated areas to gauge whether the current process is a barrier to designation or to routine maintenance.

Public comment earlier in the meeting had urged caution on expanding administrative approvals. Pam Chadbourne, a downtown resident, told commissioners during public comment: \"I urge you not to accept any administrative approval of those.\" Commissioners asked staff to prepare sample language, provide examples from peer communities, and to bring a refined draft and outreach plan (including a survey) back to the commission at a future study session. Duesenberry said staff plans to return within weeks with sample language and recommended outreach materials; commissioners agreed to a follow-up study session in approximately three weeks to continue the discussion.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Historical Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting - Special Night - 09/29/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners held a study session on proposed ULUC amendments affecting downtown design standards, signage and administrative certificate-of-appropriateness processes and asked staff to return with clarified language and a survey for property owners.","taxTitle","Littleton City, Arapahoe County, Colorado","taxId",52180,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6454748,"Commission approves state tax credit for Mohawk Road rehab despite staff's recommendation to deny",3786,1913000,5699000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5859837-d032f5308e601335d401f52d319c8b58&start=1913&end=5699","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5859837-d032f5308e601335d401f52d319c8b58/thumbnail_1913000.jpg","/articles/6454748/Littleton-City/Arapahoe-County/Colorado/Commission-approves-state-tax-credit-for-Mohawk-Road-rehab-despite-staffs-recommendation-to-deny","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454748-a3656270dc62cd651fe4d90b45b48a57/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143794&Signature=dklQlVjjXiRZY~CJMjWj2YAUNLuzb1bu7Qw8MV4-pddH7Y0Z4yMcTetuBBv5-zQRYkNVILRosWkUhRCVYv~lwu~-fBGoUnSLhN-eUoKMPOMKIqhs~Skl7yKnGo2hSya1sQ6~CCe-ivDeUSOqyigg8jbwzTBxYvvm-Uc7StNEqZjoqOD3Xk~uGzvDgf42AEQBfm~VmslRlHe7K5Bj~h3C6ONfiV3fXRZ3roFvEzTeEXCxGNz4QaJDs41t6SG~TPiSxXfbOLL8CtgEcCXb5d02AQilOFiG~Eamv-nMsvaztj9bdCJKMYQZfM4RVOddUyjewsnI019nGNKr3Jw3UGrrLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Preservation Commission voted 3-2 to approve an application for a Colorado state income tax credit for rehabilitation work at 5475 Mohawk Road, a contributing property in the Arapahoe Hills National Register Historic District.

Staff recommended denial, saying key interior changes did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. \"Staff has found that the project does not qualify for the credits because it does not meet standards 2, 5, and 6,\" Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Duesenberry told the commission, citing alterations to the kitchen layout and to the rear window wall.

Commissioners approved HPC Resolution 04-2025 with a 3-2 vote; Commissioners Hoehne and Fisher voted no. The resolution authorizes the commission to certify the project's Part 1 application for the state program; a separate Part 2 review will certify whether completed work meets the Part 1 submission.

Staff presented the project scope and finances. Staff reported total project costs of $232,666 and estimated \"qualified rehabilitation expenditures\" of about $114,416; at the state program's 20% rate, staff calculated a prospective credit of $22,883.20. Staff said the program requires the entire project to meet the Secretary of the Interior standards; if any component fails the standards, the entire project is ineligible for the credit.

Homeowner and applicant Brent Forger, who identified himself as an architect and the property owner, summarized why he and his husband proceeded with the work and why they believe it should receive the credit. \"Since we discovered the leak and the damage 5 months ago, it's been my full time job as a homeowner, on top of my full time job as an architect to try to stop any further damage and remediate what was there and find solutions to the additional problems that we've discovered,\" Forger said. He described discovery of a leaking sewer line, mold remediation, slab settlement, a sagging header beam, and a gas-line replacement discovered during structural work; Forger said the owners prioritized long-term, compatible repairs over short-term fixes.

Duesenberry said staff concluded that two elements did not meet the standards: the project relocates and reconfigures the original mid-century kitchen and replaces a fixed/sliding window wall with an accordion-style system that, while operable, departs from the historic fixed-window rhythm. Under Standard 2 (retain historic character and avoid removal of features that characterize the property), Standard 5 (preserve distinctive features and finishes), and Standard 6 (repair rather than replace deteriorated features and match new features to old), staff found the work did not qualify.

Commission discussion was split. Commissioners who voted to approve said the project includes substantial repair work, addressed immediate safety and structural issues, and the replacements were designed to be sympathetic to the house's character. Commissioners opposing the application said the kitchen relocation and window-wall changes fundamentally altered character-defining interior features and therefore did not meet the standards required for state tax credits. One commissioner said the standards are not always applied only to exteriors and can properly be applied to interior rehabilitation when the incentive is financial.

The commission approved the Part 1 application despite staff's recommendation. The applicant will still need to complete the Part 2 certification after work is finished and provide evidence that the completed work meets the standards; the state program allows municipalities with HPCs to act as the initial certifying body for residential tax-credit applications.

The commission also discussed limits on awarding credits when applicants have already performed work before approval; staff reiterated that timing and the content of work affect eligibility and that the entire project is considered under the program rules.","The Littleton Historic Preservation Commission approved HPC Resolution 04-2025, granting a Colorado state income tax credit application for rehabilitation of a National Register-contributing house at 5475 Mohawk Road over staff advice that the project did not meet Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation; the vote was 3-2.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6454753,"Historic Preservation Commission awards $50,000 in downtown grant funding",966,833000,1799000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5859837-d032f5308e601335d401f52d319c8b58&start=833&end=1799","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5859837-d032f5308e601335d401f52d319c8b58/thumbnail_833000.jpg","/articles/6454753/Littleton-City/Arapahoe-County/Colorado/Historic-Preservation-Commission-awards-50000-in-downtown-grant-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454753-a61c866f83bce26099bd74662c028431/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143794&Signature=esyNzMOUfUe-eCcaFJfQqtx2Agomseh7X3oGTLwbjzRRUQ1IcLhPptgwq6BHv~uRBZUc2Z1JbNn1LBT232snVlA9XyAha3FudOSuzJgX~QbmZg0wRuEIfzbWKsMBeWw5wNUhUsdUGtaIXQM5Wh644AAHZJYZ-4p7uRMVs5jgbzmZOEHbUO8Qy04wgino-5s5tRDGQPsHD6rdg7jGznPTDPxqtOGXCrvSXRszRttxfAasjqUxF2W9s1CNpzh5Yg13pT~-Jsvz4WeZw-mM27tQJbXpJE85E9obLVIpXbvzcVXJf~K09C5YdMY~oKPolwEq6AVkeiHqHQNDe3POupN32g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Littleton Historic Preservation Commission on a unanimous vote approved HPC Resolution 03-2025 awarding $50,000 in Downtown Historic District Historic Preservation Grant funds to three applicants.

Staff recommended splitting the fund to cover design and safety work: $17,500 to the Littleton Elks Lodge at 5749 S. Curtis St., $15,000 to Roots Colorado for Dirt Coffee at 2506 W. Alamo St., and $17,500 to 2530 LLC for Jake's Beer Garden (OJ Hill Drugstore) at 2530 W. Main St. The motion carried 6 in favor, 0 opposed.

The grants program is structured to cover up to 80% of eligible project costs and allows retroactive funding in some cases, staff said. Planner Sarah Duesenberry told commissioners the Elks Lodge application sought funding for electrical work that, while largely interior, posed a safety risk: “This type of mechanical upgrade does not require a COA,” she said, adding that maintenance, repair and mechanical work can be eligible when safety concerns are present.

The Elks Lodge project included replacement of damaged electrical panels; the applicant had completed the work after an electrician reported damaged components that could not be safely switched off. Dirt Coffee sought $15,000 toward architectural design services for an elevator previously approved by a certificate of appropriateness; staff recommended the full $15,000 because the elevator is at the rear of the building and improves access. Jake’s Beer Garden applied for maintenance work including roof replacement behind a parapet, repainting of previously painted brick and a proposed front-door replacement; staff recommended that grant funds be limited to reroofing and repainting unless a COA for the door is later approved.

Applications requested substantially more than was available. Staff reported the Elks had requested $28,173 and Jake’s had requested $45,975; Dirt Coffee’s total project was listed at $150,000 with a $15,000 request. The review committee — a staff-led panel that evaluated eligibility and public benefit — recommended the allocation above. Duesenberry said invoices and permits are required for retroactive awards.

Commissioners asked technical questions about eligibility and whether older mechanical equipment is required to be historic to qualify; Duesenberry said program language focuses on building threat and safety rather than the age of mechanical parts. After discussion and allowance for small adjustments by the commission, a motion to approve the staff recommendation passed 6-0.

The commission noted that replacement of exterior features such as doors still requires a COA if the replacement affects the building’s character; staff will stipulate awards if necessary so grant funds cover only eligible scope. The commission directed staff to notify awardees of COA requirements where applicable and to document compliance with permit and invoice requirements before issuing funds.

Commissioners and staff said the program aims to preserve downtown building fabric by supporting safety and maintenance projects that prolong building life.","The Littleton Historic Preservation Commission approved allocation of a $50,000 Downtown Historic District preservation grant fund to three property owners for electrical safety work, elevator design services and roofing/paint work, voting 6-0 to carry the recommendation from staff and the review committee.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Historic Preservation Commission begins code review on downtown standards, signage and administrative COAs; plans outreach

Commission approves state tax credit for Mohawk Road rehab despite staff's recommendation to deny

Historic Preservation Commission awards $50,000 in downtown grant funding