Home

Steamboat Springs — As city officials prepare for another look at Steamboat Springs' historic preservation ordinance, kudos should be given to the advisory committee for emphasizing public awareness and clarifying ambiguities about the issue.

But a troubling amount of ambiguity remains - specifically, the lack of a complete inventory of potentially historic structures within city limits.

Historic preservation sent local sparks flying in August 2007 when a Steamboat Springs City Council facing widespread development, and fearing a related loss or alteration of historic structures, issued a sudden moratorium on building permits for all structures older than 50 years in Old Town.

In October 2007, the City Council formed the Historic Structure Policy Review Committee to address and revise the city's historic preservation regulations. Since that time, the committee has been working tirelessly and publicly to create recommendations that balance private property rights with preservation of our city's historic structures - no easy task.

And the committee's recommended revised ordinance takes many steps forward.

It has an entire section of definitions, clarifying terms such as "demolition," "alteration," "historic resource" and "local landmark" that previously were open to interpretation.

It also continues the idea of a two-tiered approach to historic structures, which could be designated as either a historic resource or a local landmark. The latter tier would be prohibited from demolition in all cases except for a risk to public safety. Designation in either tier, which gives property owners economic incentives in exchange for building restrictions, remains voluntary in the revised ordinance.

Finally, the revised ordinance would establish a Local Register of historic structures in city limits, placing those structures under protection by law - protection that is lacking in the current Routt County, state and national registers, which are honorary.

But the fact remains that Steamboat is without a complete inventory of structures within city limits that could be deemed historic, meaning it is unclear how wide of an impact a revised historic preservation ordinance could have.

The cultural resource survey, a block-by-block examination of Steamboat structures that are more than 50 years old or have other significance, has been under way since at least 2000. It is funded through repeated local government grants, which this year totaled $25,000 in federal dollars distributed by the state of Colorado.

Laureen Schaffer, the city's historic preservation coordinator since 2000, said the survey so far has examined about 350 buildings within city limits. By this summer, 55 more buildings will be added to that total.

But as city officials prepare for another go-round of historic preservation debate Thursday and Jan. 20, the survey could be only halfway completed - in 2000, Schaffer said, 700 was the total estimated number of buildings to be surveyed.

Schaffer said there currently are about 90 surveyed properties that could be eligible for the Routt County historic register, which is comparable to "historic resource" status under the revised ordinance. Of those, about 12 are eligible for the national register, which is comparable in historic significance to the "landmark" status proposed in the revised ordinance. Possible local landmarks include the Depot Art Center, the Maxwell building that houses Lyon's Corner Drug & Soda Fountain, the Crawford House, the Routt County Courthouse and the Rehder Building, to name a few.

Results for every building surveyed - regardless of whether it was deemed historically significant - can be found on the city's Web site, www.steamboatsprings.net.

The advisory committee is correct to recommend that more public outreach and research is needed. But before we pass an ordinance prohibiting the demolition of landmark buildings, shouldn't we know what the landmark buildings are?

Until the city has completely assessed potential historic structures within city limits, property owners will be left in the dark - and a revised historic preservation ordinance cannot be properly written.