Historic Preservation Task Force Issues: Public Comment Needed
October 7 (SEE CITIZEN COMMENTS AT END)
Don't assume that you and your neighbors are not affected by the latest in potential land use code changes - in the form of Historic Preservation of Post World War II properties - until you read through this summary.
Many property owners make the mistake of thinking that new soon-to-be-determined Historic Preservation rules won't apply to their properties because they do not own mining era Victorian properties, or they own condos/multifamily, or live in the East End or West Aspen. Everything is back on the table---including your neighborhood, if within the City Limits---possibly affecting you directly or indirectly---depending on how Council responds to the immediately upcoming Task Force recommendations.
It should be noted that the Task Force (handpicked from many applicants by the previous Council) was divided almost equally on ideology of preservation, property rights and economic implications. 19 of 21 Task Force members voted. The report, " Introduction and Task Force Recommendations" as presented has 10 votes and the two minority reports have 9 votes and 1 vote, respectively. Of the 10 votes supporting the "Introduction and Task Force Recommendations," Tom Todd also supported a minority report. Bill Wiener created a different minority report. In other words, the resulting draft reports from the task force are basically evenly split, with no clear mandate to be recommended to Council. The "Proactive Voluntary Program" gained virtually equal support with the "Task Force Recommendations " which includes a barely passed "involuntary program." (see below for a summary of member's positions on key votes.) Note that the "minority" reports are attached, although one is almost a majority report. 1. My house is over 30 years old, but was not on "the list." If the Council adopts the involuntary recommendation, am I safe from having the City designate my property against my will?
I've said for almost 20 months now that I would keep you informed as the Historic Preservation Task Force prepared its sure-to-be-controversial final recommendations for City Council, in the still messy and confusing aftermath of ill-conceived emergency Ordinance 30. NOW (this Thursday, October 8) is your final chance for input to the Task Force before their final recommendations go to Council on October 26.
Your Chance to Have a Voice-This Thursday, October 8!
Two public outreach/input sessions are scheduled for Thursday, October 8th from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A short presentation will be followed by your questions, and most importantly, your feedback to the Task Force before they make recommendations to Council.
Therefore it is important for community members to clearly express their opinions to the Task Force now, before their final recommendations are submitted to City Council. The entire Task Force has worked diligently and extended their own deadlines in order to ensure that the public has a comprehensive document to respond to in the upcoming session.
My Concerns
I have some serious concerns based on my attendance and reviews of the meetings. I urge you take the referenced reports seriously and consider the long term effects on your property, your neighborhood and Aspen's economy and character. Please attend one of the meetings and give the Task Force your feedback before they finalize their report. Your input will be important for Council to hear. The session will be taped by Grassroots and made available to City Council. We expect that they will watch it in order to hear citizen input. This is your chance to be heard!
I support the basic proposals in the nine member supported "Proactive Voluntary Program," and will ask the Task Force and Council to fully support those recommendations rather than the far more restrictive and heavy-handed provisions of the "Task Force Recommendations."
My key concerns about the Task Force Recommendations:
1. The recommendation of an involuntary program, where property owners' rights do not have to be honored, nor appropriate compensation or incentives given in the event of involuntary designation of the property.
2. The recommendation that Council should consider "conservation districts" which could cover large areas of town with yet-to-be-determined restrictions on all property in the neighborhoods included.
3. Any requirements on age of structure or location in town (no longer river to river) would be lifted for potential consideration as "historically significant" for possible designation.
4. Despite a professional appraiser's opinion to the contrary (p 75 of the report), the Task Force does not recognize the loss of value of property when property is restricted.
5. Recommendation that another professional review take place to determine additional properties of historic importance. The focus of the effort currently would be "Modern, Rustic Log homes, Chalets, Interiors of Public Spaces and People Trends & Events." Age would not have to be considered, nor single-family/multi-family or location in the City, (vs. the former limitations granted by Ordinance 48.)
6. Recommendations that interiors of privately owned public spaces can be involuntarily designated. (The lobby of a restaurant or hotel.)
7. Historic Preservation incentives that increase density and mass will continue to be awarded.
Task Force Recommendations and Minority (?) Reports
No doubt you will have many questions when you read the reports at http://www.aspenhistoricpreservation.com/documents/OCT_8_REPORT_001.pdf
The Proactive Voluntary Report (which the The Red Ant supports) begins at page 65. It is supported by Task Force members: Michael Behrendt, Penney Evans Carruth, Marsha Cook, Pam Cunningham, Yasmine dePagter, John Kelly, Mike Maple, Tom Todd and Jack Wilke.
Bill Weiner's alternative proposal begins on page 62.
I suggest that you submit questions and comments in advance to be certain that all your questions get covered in the recorded session.
Here are some questions people I know would like to ask:
2. My house is a Modern design, I think, but only 25 years old. What are the implications for my property?
3. My house was "on the list" at one time, but now exempted because it is outside the "river to river" district. Am I still safe?
4. My restaurant has some interesting architectural features in the bar area. Can the City potentially restrict what I can do with them?
5. I own a condo in a 1970's building. It was exempted under Ordinance #48. Am I still safe?
6. My home is only 20 years old. What restrictions would be on my home if a conservation district were enacted?
7. Would I get compensation if the value of my house decreased due to involuntary designation?
8. I have a home on the list on Ordinance #48. Can I still redevelop or demolish it before City Council adopts new legislation?
9. Will the big incentives for historic preservation redevelopment remain in place, to create more density, and give FAR and lot line variances? Will this have more impact or less impact on my neighborhood than in the past?
10. When will Council be presented with final recommendations?
11. While I own newer, more generic property, can these recommendations affect my taxes in the future by creating costly programs?
12. If my Post World War II property, is determined to be historic, but is already built our to the permitted maximum, what incentives would I get for historic designation?
13. Could the City add new categories of Historic styles?
14. Why are we talking about this at all?
15. Will more city staff be required if the Council adopts the recommendations?
16. Will another citizen board be needed if new districts are created?
17. How long will review processes be for potentially designated properties be?
18. How long will review processes for new districts be?
19. What if I just want to be left alone?
20. Will there be another list?
More Information and your Feedback:
More comprehensive information on the working documents and background may be found at http://www.aspenhistoricpreservation.com
No- Hoffman, Holst, Kirk, Lum, Markalunas, Mullins, Myers, Sanchez, Sitrling, Wiener.
You may email your questions or comments to sara.adams@ci.aspen.co.us I would like to receive a copy of your questions as well, to ensure that I learn as much as I can. Please send a copy to MarilynRMarks@gmail.com
Even if you cannot be at the meeting, I urge you to put your questions and opinions on the record. If you cannot be there, and would like to have your question asked on the record, please ask Sara Adams to do so. Or I would be happy to do so.
Who Supports What:
Supporter of Weiner Alternative (pages 62-64) -Bill Weiner
Supporters of the Proactive Voluntary Program (pages 65-76)- Michael Behrendt, Penney Evans Carruth, Marsha Cook, Pam Cunningham, Yasmine dePagter, John Kelly, Mike Maple, Tom Todd and Jack Wilke.
Abstaining: L.J. Esparmer L.J. has abstained from a number of Task Force Recommendation votes.
Not Voting-Michael Hoffman
A Few Fundamental Questions and How Members Voted:
No!-Michael Behrendt, Penney Evans Carruth, Marsha Cook, Pam Cunningham, Yasmine dePagter, LJ Erspamer, John Kelly, Mike Maple, Tom Todd, Jack Wilke
Is Historic Designation of post WWII properties financially detrimental to property owners?
Yes-Behrendt, Carruth, Cook, Cunningham, dePagter, Kelly, Maple, Todd, Wilke
Abstain-Reid.
Should There be a new West End Historic District? (adding restrictions to all properties in the West End.)
Yes-Hoffman, Holst, Kirk, Lum, Markalumas, Mullins, Myers, Sanchez, Stirling, Wiener,
No-Behrendt, Carruth, Cook, Cunningham, dePagter, Kelly, Maple, Reid, Todd, Wilke
(tie vote which failed. This shows the rather consistent ideological split in the task force.)
Should interiors which the public can access be considered for designation? (voluntary and involuntary)
Yes- Hoffman, Holst, Kirk, Lum, Markalunas, Mullins, Myers, Reid, Sanchez, Stirling, Wiener,
No-Behrendt, Carruth, Cook, Cunningham, dePagter, Kelly, Maple, Todd, Wilke,
All Members and Staff Merit Our Thanks!
The number of hours of meeting and out of meeting work that the task force has committed over the last 20 or so months has been extraordinary. There has been great exchange of ideas, and much important history of Aspen further documented as a result of their efforts. Most citizens have no idea of the extreme amounts of time and energy this group has devoted to address our community's historic preservation goals. They all deserve our thanks for their dedication.
Please Attend!
Please attend on Thursday at either 12p.m or 5 p.m. ---or both, of course. It is your best opportunity for input! The Red Ant will be there and writing commentary on the meeting and the recommendations which result.
Marilyn Marks
Marilyn
New Proactive Voluntary Preservation Report
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
From: Harris Ron
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 2:32 PM
To: sara.adams@ci.aspen.co.us
Cc: MarilynRMarks@gmail.com
Subject: Historic Hypocrisy
The subject of historic preservation continues to raise its ugly head.
I have spent my entire life in the construction industry and, in my view, there is virtually no building in the general area of any more historic value than a '97 Ford four-door. The concept would be laughable if it weren't for the potentially negative consequences on affected property owners.
My question is, how does this form of seizure differ from eminent domain without compensation? Simply put, it means ownership in an historically designated property may be retained by its owner while
his or her value is being stolen forcibly by a government agency.
Now, if someone voluntarily wants their property designated historic, that's fine. It must not be mandatory.
Thankfully, we live in the United States of America, not North Korea.
An action like that which is now hanging over us should not happen here.
Ron Harris
Knollwood Area of Aspen
This is Nicholas Lundy (Mark's Brother) co-owner of the Modern House
> at 301 Lake Ave. If you wouldn't mind forwarding this email to
> everyone on the Task Force I would really appreciate it.
>
> As the co-owner of the Modern House at 301 Lake Ave. (designed by
> Victor Lundy) I would like to express my dismay at even the notion of
> forced designation. Our family has ties to Aspen from the 1950's when
> my mother Anstis first came, we have had the honor of knowing many of
> the great Aspenites through the years and have loved Aspen for all
> that time. This whole notion of forced designation from a
> philosophical point of view is so incredibly misguided and wrong that
> it's hard to believe that it's even on the table. Since when is it
> right to force a homeowner into some kind of unwanted contract with
> the City that lowers the value of his property, creates unwanted
> restrictions and opens the door for meddlesome public officials who
> come and go and who all have their own agendas.
>
> Our house is a very specific property and is a good example of why the
> proposed incentives are ridiculous at best. The siting of a house,
> it's placement on the lot, its scale, is an enormous part of what
> constitutes good architecture. The house was designed as a studio,
> it's scale appropriate to the lot and to the neighborhood.
> It was a controversial house then, and I doubt we would be permitted
> to build it now with this insanity of so called "preservation" fever
> spreading through the town. I have seen for the last 30 years these
> preposterous houses being built as tumors attached to smaller older
> Victorians. Is that preservation? Filling up an entire lot with a
> structure adorned with faux Victorian details attached to some poor
> little house that serves as a mud room? And now, we're going to
> preserve every last shack in amber as a knee jerk reaction to the sins
> of the last 30 years? And somehow we're supposed to trust City
> Officials in their wisdom to force us into consulting them with any
> and every decision we want to make concerning our property?
>
> For anyone who knows our house, how could splitting the lot in two and
> building a McMansion in front of it somehow be an incentive.
> That's the whole point of the house, that it looks out onto a
> beautiful and natural meadow. How does that preserve our house? It
> doesn't. What it does is allow us to rape our own property and create
> another tax stream for the City. If the City really wants to help us
> preserve our properties, why doesn't it lower our taxes?
> Provide us with low cost options to restore instead of saddling us
> with more restrictions and requiring endless meetings with bureaucrats
> not to mention so called "Historic Preservation Contractors" (another
> opportunity for for price gouging).
>
> So obviously I'm writing in support of the "Proactive Voluntary
> Program" if only out of shock that I have to write this at all. This
> situation is very disappointing to me personally - I think somehow
> what began as a well intentioned idea has spun out of control.
> Forcing property owners in Aspen into Historical Designation is just
> plain wrong.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Nicholas Lundy