A proposed ordinance would eliminate the need for downtown property owners to get approval from city council to opt in to the Main Street Historic District.
Littleton City Council gave a unanimous preliminary nod to changing the often-controversial Historic Preservation Code July 17. If passed, the director of community development would handle opt-in applications, “and upon receipt of such application, the director shall include such property” in the district.
Previously, those applications had to be approved by both the Historic Preservation Board and council.
“If the property owner wants in, it just makes sense,” said Chuck Reid, chair of the Historic Preservation Board, adding it will make the process much faster for applicants.
He noted the existing code was Littleton’s first dealing with historic preservation.
It’s also unique because of its opt-in nature, a much-heralded compromise reached in 2006 after a year of wrangling between supporters who wanted to make sure downtown retained its historic character and some property owners who felt a mandatory district would trample their rights to maintain their buildings as they saw fit. Those who opt in are eligible for financial incentives and breaks on parking requirements.
In January, staff proposed making the entire district mandatory once 66 percent of the property owners had opted in – at that point 60 percent had done so. Council stood solidly against that recommendation. At that time, however, there was general support for enlarging the district to include more than just Main Street.
Councilors Jim Taylor and Peggy Cole voiced a number of questions and concerns during the July 17 meeting, many having to do with the vagueness of some words like “integrity” and “fabric.”
“That’s at HPB’s discretion,” said City Manager Michael Penny. “Historic preservation is a subjective world.”
Penny emphasized that the Historic Preservation Board unanimously accepted the revisions the night before.
“I’m just letting you know that your advisory board was comfortable with it,” he said.
Reid confirms that HPB is happy with the final draft proposal.
“I think that there were a couple sections (in the current code) that were confusing or challenging to interpret,” he said.
The proposal revises several sections and clarifies many definitions. One in particular is the difference between a “contributing” and a “noncontributing” property, which is one criteria used to determine whether a site qualifies as historic. “Contributing” would now be defined as “a site, structure or object within a historic district” that was present during a “period of significance and possesses sufficient integrity to convey its history,” or that meets the criteria for landmark designation.
Council will hold a public hearing before its final vote on Aug. 7.