Denver mansion on Gaylord Street is city 2nd owner-opposed historic landmark

For only the second time in the city’s history, the Denver City Council voted to make a building a historic landmark against that property owner’s wishes.

That owner on Monday called the decision “anti-affordable housing” and said he is considering legal remedies.

The stately home eventually turned nonprofit space at 1741 Gaylord St. would be on its way to demolition to make way for a four-story apartment building with 50 or more units if owner and developer Mike Mathieson had his way.

But 10 City Council members on Monday voted to make the house a landmark and spare it from the wrecking ball.

Councilmembers Kevin Flynn, Stacie Gilmore and Chris Herndon were not present for the vote, which made the controversial decision a unanimous one.

“To be very honest, I hate hostile historic designations. I think it’s unfair, I think it’s interfering with people’s property rights and that’s not OK,” Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer said before voting to preserve the 1741 Gaylord house.

Sawyer said in order to overcome the importance of personal property rights, a property would have to be an extraordinary example of historic value.

“I think we have before us tonight is an example of extraordinary,” she said.

Mathieson purchased the home for $1.5 million in 2021 from nonprofit grief therapy organization Judi’s House, city property records show. Mathieson allowed the previous owner to continue using the space rent-free until last year, he said. All told, with planning and design costs, he has invested roughly  $1.75 million in the property — an investment that is now in limbo.

“This is anti-development. This is anti-affordable housing,” Mathieson said Monday ahead of a council vote that he anticipated would not go his way. “It has nothing to do with the structure.”

Reached after the designation passed, Mathieson stopped short of saying he would sue in an effort to overturn the decision but did say he wants an outside entity to assess if the city planning department followed the proper guidelines in recommending his property for historic preservation.

“I don’t have enough information to sue today,” he said. “I would like to have an independent third party say, ‘You have to follow your criteria or you don’t.’”

In August, Mathieson filed to obtain a certificate of demolition eligibility for the building to make way for an apartment project he has described as workforce housing. He told The Denver Post that he had recently been in talks with city officials to include twice as many affordable housing units in that project than the city’s Expanding Housing Affordability program requires — as many as 10 apartments available to people making 60% of less of the area median income.

Seeking a demolition certificate opens the door for structures that are more than 30 years old and maintain their structural integrity to be assessed for their historic value. The city’s landmark preservation staff found that the house at 1741 Gaylord was a good candidate for designation.

After facilitated conversations about options — including finding a preservation-minded buyer to take the house off Mathieson’s hands — did not bear fruit, City Park West neighborhood residents Scott Holder, Karen Herbert and Peggy Muldoon filed a hostile landmark application in February.

The application, filed with support from the city’s lead preservation organization, Historic Denver, highlighted three criteria from the city’s landmark ordinance that the applicants, supporters including the City Park West Neighborhood Association and city’s volunteer Landmark Preservation Commission agreed made the house worthy of preservation.

Those three criteria are:

• Having direct and substantial association with a recognized person or group of persons who had influence on society

• Embodying distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style

• Being a significant example of the work of a recognized architect

The research highlighted that the house was built between 1902 and 1903 for Edward Hurlbut, a local small business owner who turned his father’s local grocery store into a chain — a major innovation for the time. The house was later owned by James and Edith Burger. James Burger was a bank president, prominent Mason and state senator. His wife was a founding member of Children’s Hospital, according to the research.

The house also exhibits characteristics of the Dutch Colonial Revival style of architecture including a balcony supported by columns and a symmetrical façade, per city documents.

Finally, supporters of designation and city landmark staff found the house is a significant work by the architecture firm Gove & Walsh, the designer of the central portion of Denver Union Station.

Kara Hahn, the city’s landmark planning and regulatory supervisor, said city staff estimates just 10 to 12 residential properties designed by Gove & Walsh are still standing in Denver.

“It was called out as one of the 25 most beautiful homes in Denver in 1910,” Hahn said as part of her presentation Monday.

Mathieson did not speak as part of Monday’s hearing but Adam Wilmot, an architect representing him, urged the council to consider the impact of affixing a historic designation to the property at a time when the city is in a housing crisis. Aside from being protected from demolition, historic landmarks in Denver are subject to rules governing their appearance and the owners must seek city approval to make substantial changes to those buildings.

“The stark reality here is a house of this age is already difficult enough to remodel, to repurpose, to restore,” Wilmot said. “Add in landmark status to that and it makes it even more expensive and more difficult to retrofit.”

Parker Semler, a lawyer representing Mathieson, argued that the house is a mix of architectural styles, with some Georgian architecture blending in with the Dutch Colonial Revival characteristics. Further, the owner’s research could not directly tie the house to Aaron Gove, the lead architect of Gove & Walsh.

That means the application does not the criteria for designation, Semler argued.

“It is beautiful, it’s gorgeous but it doesn’t comply with your elements,” he said, possibly setting the groundwork for a future legal challenge.

A vast majority of people who spoke as part of the hearing favored preserving the home. Arguments centered on its beauty and contribution to the fabric of the City Park West neighborhood but also branched out to cover the sustainability of preserving an old, brick structure rather than demolishing them for what many described as the bland apartment projects that now dot Denver.

“We are here to give a voice to an iconic house that can’t speak for itself,” said Holder, one of the residents who filed the application. “We should be celebrating the discovery of an early example (of the work) of the Union Station architects, not destroying it.”

Edith Burger’s story may not be as exciting as that of Molly Brown, namesake of Denver’s most storied landmark house in nearby Capitol Hill, but her work to cofound Children’s Hospital positively impacted thousands of Denver children, Holder said.

In emails shared with City Council, Mathieson questioned why the house was not highlighted in a 2019 Discover Denver survey of historic properties in the neighborhood. That 88-page report highlighted 61 homes that might be good candidates for preservation, but 1741 Gaylord was left off.

Officials involved in that survey testified Monday that the house was identified as being architectural significant but the project did not have the funding to dig deeper. Now that that work has been done.

The findings were strong enough to convince a City Council that in 2021 voted unanimously to reject a hostile landmark effort that would have protected local news station Denver7’s building at 123 Speer Blvd. to instead fully support preservation.

The house at 1741 Gaylord St. now joins the former Beth Eden Baptist Church at 3241 Lowell Blvd. as the only two historic landmarks in the city protected against the owners’ wishes.

Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca, whose District 9 includes the property (at least until district boundaries change this summer), lauded members of the community for coming together to save the building in the face of a developer she characterized as greedy and uncaring.

The demolition eligibility application, she said, demonstrated “a flagrant disregard for the people, the culture and the history of our city.”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Source: Read Full Article