HomeMy WebLinkAboutDavid Harris HPC Members
HPC Members,
While some may find her style to be contrary, or even combative, in the instance of the 205 W.
Main project, Elizabeth Milias' analysis is spot-on.
Historic Preservation aside for a moment, I believe small-scale Workforce housing development in
neighborhoods makes for community. Ordinance No. 13 Series of 2022 may have gone a bit far in allowing
multifamily AH in R-15 and R-30. But reasonably applied, a geographically distributed approach to increasing
Workforce Housing on a small scale (e.g. duplex, 3-4 plex) is a strategy that is actionable right away in
contrast to the "someday" endless and very expensive Lumberyard effort. Such an application in this instance
is appropropriate. But please keep in mind the charge of the HPC does not concern Workforce Housing. The
proposed development project (the truth about what the proposed project is!) is far off the mark of
the responsibility, intent and spirit of Historic Preservation.
Let's look back now to the focus of HPC's review in this matter. As is so often the case "a picture is worth a
1,000 words" - so true here. The photos Milias replicates in her RED ANT
���� column absolutely says it all. So
pardon me for trying to capture both the lovely scene (Existing Condition) VS. proposed new construction in
words:
EXISTING:
A beautiful Victorian framed by...NOTHING. As it was; historic in form, place, and context.
********************************************************************************
***********************
PROPOSED:
Hummm? "Historic"? Not even close folks; the new building dwarfs the historic
resource!
Note - HPC standards require the addition must be:
“...similar in scale and proportion to the historic home”
Clearly the application does not meet this important standard. The Code has standards - please apply
those carefully curated design principles.
I am struck how virtually every historic preservation application includes numerous variances. I would hope
that this trend can be recognized and understood in the context of the true definition of the need for a
variance in connection with a land use application. In the 205 W. Main application, the "need" for variances
are created by the development's proposed design. There is no need - but rather a desire; with the only
objective being the ability to create more units. Substandard living space dimensions? Why have minimum size
rules if a request for variance can be requested with no proven need? How is such a notion even allowed in
the application process? Extra 750 sq. ft building floor area - why? How can these requests be considered
under the guise of enhancing Historic Preservation? This project is a classic (bad) example of overcrowding;
hopelessly urban density. A single family home on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot morphs into 9 units? 22 bedrooms will
likely result in at least 30 occupants. Such density is really more akin to a small hotel than a residential
building- but worse as it will carry 100% occupancy year-round. And then the project provides only 7 parking
spaces. Whether within the rules of MU Zone district or not - no one can say this parking plan makes sense
with a straight face. There is much more to frown upon in this application - but nothing more needed to earn
denial than my foregoing observations and what the ANT has succinctly articulated.
Lastly, HPC - Historic Preservation Commission - as an unelected appointed body should not be empowered to
make material decisions on what in this case is clearly a new land use project application. The current policy of
allowing an unelected body to be the final authority on a new land use development application is an
abdication of the responsibility of City Council (See COA Home Rule Charter). I believe the current "Call-up"
process should be modified to result in City Council being the final authority in all land use applications. My
comment here is in no way a judgement of the individual HPC members' ability to evaluate an application and
apply the rules of the COA Land use Code provisions concerning Historic Preservation. In the instant matter,
however, the application conflates appropriate process. That is to say combining review (and even approval)
of a Historic Preservation effort together with a straight-forward high density new development project
cannot be rightly processed by HPC alone.
Please deny this application.
Thank you,
David Harris
117 Neale Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
davidharris24@gmail.com
(970) 379-1513