ISSUE # 25 ... ARBITERS OF ASPEN STYLE AND CHARACTER WANT "DISTRICTS" OF CONTROL
January 25 "Historic Preservation policy does not need public input, but should come from the top down in our government."
(Junee Kirk, Aspen Historic Preservation Task Force member, 1/22/09)
The Ant takes great exception to that response, which addressed Task Force member Mike Maple's question as to how the public will be educated and brought into the process of considering and supporting new historic preservation policies.
The Red Ant attended the meeting of the Historic Preservation Task Force on Thursday, as members considered recommending "Historic District" legislation to Council as part of the upcoming set of proposals. (See Issue #24). We were astounded by the confusing process and lack of rationale or specifics, and the willingness of many members to dictate far-reaching regulations affecting homeowners. What we saw and heard causes us to caution, "Don't be naïve, and think that reason will prevail.If you want your property rights protected, you need to be informed and involved."
Is Your Property Within the "Original Aspen Town Site?"
If your property is in the area bounded by Aspen Mountain, Castle Creek and the Roaring Fork, your neighborhood was proposed as either a "conservation" district or "historic" district on Thursday, but may have narrowly escaped.
The good news is that the proposal to create two regulated "districts" was narrowly defeated (10 to 9) in a preliminary non-binding vote. If two members had not been absent, however, the vote could have easily gone the other way. But it's not over yet. A final vote is expected in several weeks.
Citizens’ comments seemed to be helpful as a reminder to the committee that they are dealing with people’s homes---not textbook theory.
So, What if I Get "Districted?"
Property within the two proposed districts would require a committee review for any exterior changes to your home. Any remodeling would have to meet not only the existing City design standards and code, but satisfy a new citizen review board on their subjective notions of character, mass and scale!
The concept is to have a Historic District in the West End requiring that any changes to any home meet the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission! Any changes to ANY property (old or new) in the West End would be subject to the most stringent district standards in town.
Other properties, not in the West End, but within the Old Town Site boundaries, would be in a "Conservation District," requiring a new 7 person board (2 professionals and 5 community members) to be the arbiters of character, mass and scale for any new construction or improvements you might wish to undertake -- (after you have met the City's existing design guidelines, such as height, windowand door placements, etc., which are not insignificant).
Advocates were asked repeatedly what the difference was in the review standards for a "historic district" and a "conservation district," but the advocates had no answers. Just that one would be more stringent. One member stated that the reviewers would consider questions such as "does this project contribute to the 'sense of history' in this neighborhood?" What does that mean??? Reviews of this type, regulating a "sense of history," sound terribly subjective to The Ant. It surely leads to favoritism, unpredictability and abuse.
Yes, it sounds crazy that half of this citizen task force wants to overlay more regulation and review on top of the existing heavy burden of bureaucratic reviews and regulations. Again, 5 laymen who likely can't read drawings would determine whether the "character" of your home is to their personal taste!!
Perhaps we'd be more sympathetic if the advocates would explain exactly what it is they want to do and why they want to do it.
Why Put Homeowners Through This?
Citizens present and some task force members kept questioning why the additional regulations and districts are needed, asking:
-What is the problem we are trying to address?
-What requirements would be added to the current regulations and why?
-What is inadequate in the current land use regulations?
Fairly basic questions, to which we found few logical answers.
-Some advocates claimed that districts would “level the playing field” so that all homeowners would have to endure the same pain of subjective and burdensome review, presumably eliminating the “target list” concept.
-Some stated that buildings would be regulated to be more in context with neighboring structures. (The Ant feels that the land use code itself should create such equity and context, without relying on additional Historic Preservation regulatory overlays.)
-Chairman Stirling wants to match Crested Butte’s and Telluride’s claims as a “Historic Town” on the city limits sign. (Aspen does not need regulated “districts” to make the claim and paint a sign.)
-The review committee could provide “predictability” for developers by implementing design planning reviews. (The Ant thinks that this sounds like the least predictable method imaginable---a rotating citizen committee reviewing “character.”)
-Others claimed aversions to "mass and scale" and distaste for "variances." When the public asked for specifics, and why Historic Preservation tools were needed to deal with mass and scale of NEW construction, no answers were forthcoming. (Ironically, in truth, mass, scale and height variances are very rare indeed, EXCEPT in the case of historic preservation development incentives which trump the basic code by allowing more F.A.R. and density. Most complaints about mass, reduced setbacks, and lot-line to lot-line building result from the redevelopment of “historic” properties using the current incentives. The way the Ant sees it—any issues with residential mass and scale in Aspen are a direct result of Historic Preservation policy, not the lack of it! )
If mass and scale regulations are the problem, or variances from those regulations, then demonstrate the problem with specifics and address the problem directly with changes to the basic land use code, not indirectly under the guise of "Historic Preservation."
It was clear to The Ant that some Task Force members simply want to stop all changes in Aspen, and through the creation of “districts,” they would gain a powerful tool to do this.
Talk to your Citizen Representatives
As you have a chance to have informal discussions with Task Force members, we urge you to share your perspectives with them.
Members Favoring the New Districts:
Bill Stirling, Joe Myers, Su Lum, Les Holst, Lisa Markalunas, Junee Kirk, Ann Mullins, Yasmine DePagter, Gilbert Sanchez
Members Against the New Districts:
Mike Maple, Marsha Cook, Pam Cunningham, Jack Wilke, LJ Erspamer, Tom Todd, Michael Behrendt, Suzanna Reid, John Kelley, Penney Carruth
Why Property Owners need to Be Informed and Involved
The recommendations of this Task Force are likely to carry significant weight in constructing far-reaching Historic Preservation regulations to be considered by Council this Spring.
If you think that we might be a bit alarmist, talk with some of the owners of the 53 properties still captive to Ordinance #48, who are having to either demolish or extensively and expensively remodel their homes to recover the value of the underlying land, put at risk after Ordinances #30/48.
The next important meeting is likely a few weeks away. We will keep you informed, and suggest that you participate to help protect your property rights, and set the right balance to protect important Aspen historic properties.
What Do You Think?
In the meantime, tell us what you think by taking thisONE QUESTION poll. Would you vote to raise local taxes to have the City buy post-WWII "historic" houses to prevent redevelopment of the property? See top right corner of blog to answer.
And as always, we encourage you to post your comments here. click on the comments bubble below.
Reminder
Comply with the New Carbon Monoxide Detector Law
ALL homes in Aspen and Pitkin County must have CO detectors by March 2. See the new regulations at
http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/Ptk_monoxide_cardFinal.pdf
The Red Ant salutes the Aspen City Council, City and County Staff, Pitkin County Board of Commissions, andEd Van Walraven, Fire Marshal for the Aspen Fire Protection District,for the strong leadership and dedication they have shown to address this issue. They did not allow any bureaucratic delays to the prioritization of this life-saving law. They saw the problem and collectively pushed forward to urgently address it. In doing so, they provided a model of leadership for other communities which are studying their work.
The Ants love the Elks for their commitment to buy and install detectors in seniors' homes! Our apologies for our gaffe in failing to use the Elks "LODGE" as the proper terminology in our previous recognition of their efforts.
Alpine ACE Hardware has been our partner in helping Ant readers acquire detectors hassle-free. Call them at925-3031 for purchase and free delivery.
Comprehensive information on the new CO monitor law will be available at a meeting Wednesday, February 4th at 5:30 in City Hall. If you have responsibilities for property management, you should definitely attend!
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/apps/news/news_item_detail.cfm?NewsItemID=1011
Reader Comments (13)
Les,
responding to your comments--
As for your comment on what we are “forgetting”---well, little of our objection has to do with "property values." It has to do with community values and honoring the individual and their rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. If they choose to improve their property and its value or not---it should be their choice—so long as they are abiding by the land use code.
We are definitely not saying “no controls”. We are saying let the land use code be revised to adopt whatever the majority of the community wants and then have ALL live within that code. Separate the issues of “mass, scale and design standards” from “historic preservation.” Don’t try to do indirectly what people don’t support directly. That is mixing apples and oranges, and makes for horrible law and begs for governmental abuses of power. Favoritism, subjectivity, and worse…..
As for “how community survives”---in my view, it is by honoring its citizens, and treating them kindly, and fairly. The abuse of the type that came down on those unfortunate people on “the list” is no way to build “community”. That is a way to drive out those who cannot afford to suffer the emotional and financial pain of having their homes and their value tied up by the government. It is a very elitist kind of regulatory abuse in my opinion.
Those who “have theirs” want to impose controls on others who have chosen to, or needed to, wait to sell or redevelop their properties. I think that it is a class bias that we should be ashamed of. For those people who financially can’t develop or haven’t developed their property---we tell them that they now cannot, because we want to look at their homes with nostalgia?? Sorry, that is just kicking around the little guy. Unfair.
The few people on the post WWII list who want to have their homes designated, and are doing so for the huge development incentives. If you walk through the West End and see the Victorians and their huge additions, or their reduced set back neighboring new structure, all done with “preservation incentives”, one asks, “what did we preserve?” It is not the small “mass and scale” I hear you reference. It is not an adherence to land use code without variances. It is not a ‘miners cabin” as it was historically. We preserve a charming replica of a Victorian structure (maybe) as a foyer to a contemporary, large home. Actually, I think that many are quite well done. But it is lost on me as to why we want to put the heavy pressure of those development incentives on our homeowners with post WW-II homes.
For us Ants, it is not about increasing the property value. It is about respecting our neighbors and their private property. And about law where everyone is equal. We don’t like a system where those that have the houses they want can tell those who don’t that they are shut out of doing what they want with their property. Or that they will have to suffer the decline in the property value so that we, their neighbors, can gaze at “what used to be” at their expense.