MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 448 East First Street, Salida, CO

Transcription

1 AGENDA CITY OF SALIDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: Monday, April 25, 2016 MEETING TIME: 6:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 448 East First Street, Salida, CO AGENDA SECTION: I. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES February 22, 2016 IV. UNSCHEDULED CITIZENS V. AMENDMENT(S) TO AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Park Avenue Townhomes Variance Application - The purpose of the request is to receive two (2) variances. The first request is to receive a variance from the minimum setback of twenty feet (20 ) required for a front yard setback for primary structures. The second request is to receive a variance from the minimum setback of twenty feet (20 ) required for a rear yard setback for primary structures. The applicants are requesting a minimum allowed front yard setback of ten feet (10 ) for the construction of a townhome on the proposed lot 2 and a minimum allowed rear yard setback of ten feet (10 ) for the construction of townhomes on the proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 located at 300 Park Avenue. If the variance request is allowed the subdivision of the lots will go before the Planning Commission as a Minor Subdivision in the future.. A. Open Public Hearing B. Proof of Publication C. Staff Review of Application D. Applicant s Presentation E. Public Input F. Close Public Hearing G. Commission Discussion VII. VIII. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS BOARD COMMENTS X. ADJOURN

2 The Board of Adjustment 02/22/16 DRAFT MEETING DATE: Monday, February 22, 2016 MEETING TIME: 6:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 448 E. First Street, Salida, CO Present: Follet, Mandelkorn, Kasper, Thomas, Berg, Jefferson, Spitzig Absent: Cocovinis, Wood, Schalit, Pokorny, Osborn I. CALL TO ORDER Mandelkorn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES February 9, Berg made a motion to approve the minutes. Kasper seconded the motion, with all in consensus the motion carried. III. UNSCHEDULED CITIZENS - There were no unscheduled citizens. IV. AMENDMENT(S) TO AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Hersh Variance Application - The purpose of the request is to receive a variance from the maximum allowed height of thirty-five feet (35 ) for a primary building. The applicant is requesting a maximum allowed height of thirty-seven feet (37 ) to allow for the construction of a cupola upon the roof of a proposed renovated historic timber frame gristmill structure to be reconstructed at 109 River West Drive. A. Thomas recused himself from the public hearing at the request of Mandelkorn. B. Open Public Hearing- 6:02 p.m. B. Proof of Publication - C. Staff Review of Application Jefferson summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommends denial of the application because the variance request is not in conformance with Section , Required showing, because none of the criteria required to grant a variance have been met. D. Applicant s Presentation Deke Spillyards presented the variance application. He stated that the 4 by 4 cupula cannot be seen from the street. He stressed the applicants desire to maintain the historical integrity of the gristmill. He stated that the HOA met on February 13 th and voted unanimously to approve the cupula and that no privacy or view shed issues were a result of the cupula. E. Public Input Velda Counter, 8742 C.R. 175, stated she lives across the river from this property and did not think it was necessary to allow the variance. Spillyards responded to this by asking if people would like to look at a historically incorrect structure without the cupula. F. Close Public Hearing 6:25 p.m. G. Commission Discussion- Mandelkorn opened commissioner s discussion by stating the two decks facing the riverfront does not make a good case for preserving the historic integrity of the gristmill. Spillyards responded by stating about 90% of the historic structure would be maintained and that the aesthetic of the cupula should be appreciated by the community. Berg asked if the cupula would be accessed from the interior. Mr. Spillyards responded

3 The Board of Adjustment 02/22/16 DRAFT that the cupula is purely aesthetics and there would be no access from within. He also stated that they would be removing the bottom 2/3 of the grist mill in order for it to fit into the site parameters. Kasper stated that it seemed obvious why the staff recommended denial of the request due to the code but felt that the request would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioners discussed the danger of setting a precedent if this variance request was approved. Follet felt that this 4 x 4 structure wouldn t be setting much of precedence and he felt the cupula is part of the structure. Mandelkorn asked if the cupula can be lowered 2 feet to fit into the height requirement. Mandelkorn stated that a variance should not be granted based solely on non-conformity. H. Commission Action - A motion was made by Berg to deny the variance request. Kasper seconded the motion. Follet was opposed and the motion carried. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS- None VII. NEW BUSINESS- None VIII. BOARD COMMENTS- None IX. ADJOURN- The meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m.

4 MEETING DATE: April 25, 2016 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM TITLE: AGENDA SECTION: Park Avenue Townhomes Variance Application Public Hearing REQUEST: The purpose of the request is to receive two (2) variances. The first request is to receive a variance from the minimum setback of twenty feet (20 ) required for a front yard setback for primary structures. The second request is to receive a variance from the minimum setback of twenty feet (20 ) required for a rear yard setback for primary structures. The applicants are requesting a minimum allowed front yard setback of ten feet (10 ) for the construction of a townhome on the proposed lot 2 and a minimum allowed rear yard setback of ten feet (10 ) for the construction of townhomes on the proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 located at 300 Park Avenue. If the variance request is allowed the subdivision of the lots will go before the Planning Commission as a Minor Subdivision in the future. APPLICANT: The applicant is Harder-Diesslin Development Group. LOCATION: Lots 14 thru 20 Block 54, Sacketts Addition to the Town (now City) of Salida, Chaffee County, Colorado. This property is also known as 300 Park Avenue. PROCESS: Variances are addressed in the City s Code of Ordinances, Section , Zoning Variances. Variances may be granted from the standards of the underlying zone district and shall be authorized only for maximum height, minimum floor area, maximum lot coverage, maximum lot size, minimum setbacks and parking requirements. The Board of Adjustment holds a public hearing after fifteen days advance notice of the hearing. The public hearing shall be held, at which any person may appear or be represented by an agent or attorney. The Board may describe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the Zoning title of the City Code. OBSERVATIONS: 1. The subject property is located within the Medium Density Residential (R-2) zone district and the surrounding properties are also zoned R-2. According to Table 16-D of the Land Use Code: Residential (3-4 units) in the R-2 zone district are allowed with administrative review. Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 1

5 2. The request is to receive relief from the minimum 20 front setback and the minimum 20 rear setback requirements to construct three (3) townhomes attached to the existing structure. The new units will encroach into the rear setback 10 and the unit shown on Lot 2 will also encroach 10 into the front setback. View looking from Park Avenue 3. There is an existing structure that was a former church and is currently being renovated into a residence. The structure is considered nonconforming because the eaves of the front encroaches 1 over the front property line and the structure does not meet the required 20 front setback. The structure meets all of the other required setbacks. No exterior changes are proposed with this residential structure 4. The applicants are proposing to construct three townhomes attached to the existing residence. 5. If the variance requests are allowed the applicants will apply for a minor subdivision once the project is complete to create individual lots for each of the units. Existing residence- B Street view View looking from B Street REQUIRED SHOWING (Section ): The applicant shall demonstrate the following to the Board of Adjustment before a variance may be authorized. For variances to continue an existing building line it must only be shown that maintenance of the building addition can be provided on the subject property and that it is not injurious to adjacent neighbors. Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 2

6 A. Special Circumstances Exist. There are special circumstances or conditions which are peculiar to the land or building for which the variance is sought that do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood. Applicant s response: Three sided lot. Impossible to meet setback This property was previously used as a church and recently purchased by the applicants. The lot is challenging as to what is being requested but special circumstances do not exist. B. Not result of Applicant. The special circumstances and conditions have not resulted from any action of the applicant. Applicant s response: Lot configuration is existing The applicants are creating the special circumstance through choosing the dimensions of the proposed structures. The applicant recently purchased the property and will construct the townhomes if the variance requests are allowed. C. Strict Application Deprives Reasonable Use. The special circumstances and conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the building or land. Applicant s response: Yes narrow shape of lot prohibits reasonable use. Strict application would not deprive reasonable use of the lot. The applicants have reasonable use of the property and denial of the variance would not deprive the applicant. It is not unreasonable that the applicants rethink their desired floorplans. The applicant could investigate building smaller units to meet the setback requirements or reduce the number or units. D. Variance is Necessary to Provide Reasonable Use. The granting of the variance is necessary to provide the applicant a reasonable use of the land or building. Applicant s response: Yes, need reduced setback to make use of the lot. No variance is necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The applicant would like to construct additional units on the property. This goal can be achieved without the granting of this variance. All new construction in the City is required to meet the setback requirements unless some special circumstance exists such as an existing building that does not meet the setback requirements. E. Minimum Variance. The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land or building. Applicant s response: 10 Currently the applicant has reasonable use of the property. Reasonable use of the property is possible without the granting of these variance requests. Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 3

7 F. No Injury to the Neighborhood. The granting of the variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood surrounding the land where the variance is proposed, and is otherwise not detrimental to the public welfare or the environment. Applicant s response: Existing conditions as shown in photos. No harm to existing condition. The variance request is to build three additional units on the lot and subdivide in the future. Approval of the variance request would set a precedent for primary structures to be allowed in the front and rear setbacks. The Board should consider the impact that this would have on the traditional built environment of the neighborhood where an application such as this is being proposed. Salida has a historic streetscape that is defined by the front setback and the unit proposed for Lot 2 is encroaching into the required 20 front setback. G. Consistency With Code. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purposes and intent of this Land Use Code. Applicant s response: Correct The applicant complies with all other aspects of the code besides the proposed front and rear setbacks. Setbacks help provide open space and to address basic safety issues: distances between buildings decrease the potential damage in case of a fire, provide the room necessary for a homeowner to maintain his/her buildings on his/her own property and provide for solar access and ventilation. There should still be adequate space which the owner can use for maintenance of the structures. REVIEW AGENCIES: Doug Bess, Salida Fire Chief: No concerns Jan Schmidt, Finance Director: This property currently has a ¾ inch commercial tap. System development fees will need to be paid for new taps for the townhomes. Dan Higgins, Atmos Energy: No concerns from Atmos Energy. The map showing gas line is incorrect. REQUIRED ACTIONS BY THE BOARD: 1. The Board shall confirm that adequate notice was provided and a fee paid. 2. The Board shall conduct a public hearing. 3. The Board shall make findings that points A and G of the above section are met by the applicant. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: 1. That no special circumstances exist. 2. The applicants are creating the special circumstance with new construction of the proposed structures. 3. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 4. No variance is necessary to make reasonable use of the property. 5. That permitting this variance could negatively impact the neighborhood. Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 4

8 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on above findings staff recommends DENIAL of the application to receive two variances, the first request is to receive a variance from the first request to receive a variance from the minimum setback of twenty feet (20 ) required for a front yard setback for primary structures. The second request is to receive a variance from the minimum setback of twenty feet (20 ) required for a rear yard setback for primary structures. The requests are for a minimum allowed front yard setback of ten feet (10 ) for the construction of a townhome on the proposed lot 2 and a minimum allowed rear yard setback of ten feet (10 ) for the construction of townhomes on the proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 located at 300 Park Avenue. If the variance request is allowed the subdivision of the lots will go before the Planning Commission as a Minor Subdivision in the future. Or Based on the findings below, the Board of Adjustment may recommend APPROVAL of the two variance requests based on the following findings of fact: 1. The existing conditions of the lot are not the result of any action by the applicant. 2. That the applicant will be able to maintain the proposed townhomes on the subject property and it should not be injurious to neighbors as required by Section (6). RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the recommended findings be made and the recommended action be taken. If approved, all variances shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of issuance if no building permit has been issued to establish the variation authorized, or if the variation does not require a building permit, unless the variation is established, ongoing, and in operation. Such time period shall not be altered by transfer of ownership. BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A VARIANCE, THE SALIDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHALL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION. THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY BE APPEALED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DECISION BY AN AGGRIEVED PERSON AS SET FORTH IN SECTION OF THE LAND USE CODE. Attachments: Application materials Site Plan Agency reviews Letters from neighbors Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Item 1, Pg. 5

9

10

11

12

13 VARIANCE APPLICATION 448 East First Street, Suite 112 Salida, CO Phone: Fax: A. TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Fill In Applicable Requests) 1. Variance from Maximum Height: Existing Height (in feet): Proposed Height (in feet): 2. Minimum Variance from Floor Area: Required Floor Area: Proposed Floor Area: 3. Variance from Maximum Lot Coverage: Allowed Lot Coverage: Proposed Lot Coverage: 4. Variance from Parking Requirements: Existing Spaces: Required Spaces: 5. Variance from Minimum Setback Requirements Total Spaces Proposed: Percent Reduction Proposed: a. Setback Variance Information: i. Type of setback: Front yard Rear yard Side yard ii. Which direction: North South East West Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest iii. Type of Building: Principal Accessory Building iv. Current Setback: v. Proposed Setback: vi. Required Setback: b. Second Setback Variance Information (if applicable): i. Type of setback: Front yard Rear yard Side yard ii. Which direction: North South East West Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest iii. Type of Building: Principal Accessory Building iv. Current Setback: v. Proposed Setback: vi. Required Setback: 6. Variance from Land Use Code Section: Variance Application Page 1 of

14 B. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (City Code Section ) 1. Pre-Application Conference. Optional. 2. Submit Application. 3. Staff Review. Schedule Hearing. Forward Report to Applicant and Board. 4. Public Notice Provided For Hearing. 5. Public Hearing Conducted by Board and Action Taken. C. APPLICATION CONTENTS Twelve (12) copies are required of all application materials. 1. General Development Application 2. Site Plan. A site plan of the subject property, showing existing and proposed features, buildings, etc. which are relevant to the review of the application. The copies shall only be accepted on 8½" x 11", 11" x 17" or 24"x 36" paper. 3. Required Showing. The applicant shall indicate the way the proposal meets the required showing as outlined in the application. 4. Public Notice a) List. A list shall be submitted by the applicant to the city of adjoining property owners names and addresses. A property owner is considered adjoining if it is within 175 feet of the subject property regardless of public ways. The list shall be created using the current Chaffee County tax records. b) Applicant is responsible for posting the property and mailing public notice to adjoining property owners. Return Address shall be: City of Salida, 448 E. First Street, Suite 112, Salida, CO c) The applicant must submit notarized affidavits for proof of posting and mailing of the public notice. 5. Application Fee. $400 cash or check made out to City of Salida. 6. Special Fee and Cost Reimbursement Agreement completed. 7. Outside Review Deposit. In the event the City must retain professional services to process or evaluate an application, the applicant shall bear the costs for the review, including consultants and attorney review time. A deposit of $ to cover the reasonable anticipated costs for outside professional services may be required from the applicant at the time of the application. D. VARIANCES FOR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS 1. Existing Primary Structure. The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from a setback requirement for an addition to a primary structure if it continues the existing building line. The Board of Adjustment shall only consider allowing the encroachment into the setback if it can be shown that maintenance of the building addition can be provided on the subject property and that it is not injurious to adjacent neighbors. 2. Traditional Neighborhood Setbacks. The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from a front Variance Application Page 2 of

15 setback requirement for a primary structure if the neighboring properties encroach into the front setback. The variance shall not permit the structure to encroach further into the front setback than the neighboring primary structures. The Board of Adjustment shall only consider allowing the encroachment into the setback if it can be shown that such encroachments are the existing development pattern of the block on which the subject property is located and that the encroachment would not be injurious to adjacent neighbors. D. REQUIRED SHOWING (If necessary, attach additional sheets) The applicant shall demonstrate the following to the Board of Adjustment before a variance may be authorized: 1. Special Circumstances Exist. There are special circumstances or conditions which are peculiar to the land or building for which the variance is sought that do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood. 2. Not Result of Applicant. The special circumstances and conditions have not resulted from any act of the applicant. 3. Strict Application Deprives Reasonable Use. The special circumstances and conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Land Use Code would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land or building. Variance Application Page 3 of

16 4. Variance is Necessary to Provide Reasonable Use. The granting of the variance is necessary to provide the applicant a reasonable use of the land or building. 5. Minimum Variance. The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land or building. 6. No Injury to Neighborhood. The granting of the variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood surrounding the land where the variance is proposed, and is otherwise not detrimental to the public welfare or the environment. Variance Application Page 4 of

17 7. Consistent with Land Use Code. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purposes and intent of the City s Land Use Code. 8. Existing Primary Structure. If the proposal is an addition to a primary structure which continues the existing building line the applicant must demonstrate that maintenance of the addition on the subject property is feasible and not injurious to adjacent neighbors. Variance Application Page 5 of

18

19

20

21 Kristi Jefferson, City Council and Mayor Livecchi This is a Formal Objection to the setback variance request proposed by the Harder-Diesslin Development Group for the property known as; Lots 14 thru 20 Block 54, Sacketts Addition to the Town (now City) of Salida, Chaffee County, Colorado. This property is referenced in this document as 300 Park Avenue. We would like to start by saying that we find ourselves in strange company. We are pro development. We know that Salida is growing and changing, and we re not afraid of that change in fact, we embrace development and look forward to the future of a vibrant and thriving Salida. We know that 300 Park Ave. is going to be developed, and we are not against it being developed in a tasteful way within the framework of our Land Use and Development Code. The planned Park Avenue Townhomes development on 300 Park Avenue is an egregious disregard for the City s Land Use and Development Code and we must object. Citizens and developers alike must follow established rules in order to maintain the standards and character of our commercial and residential areas. If allowed, this development sets a dangerous precedent of developers ignoring code and the city allowing them to build what they want, where they want. This particular case is a slippery slope that threatens the unique tradition and charm of our residential areas. Below, I ve outlined my objections and have included Appendices containing drawings of the land and possible development proving that reasonable use development within the code is possible. Full resolution.jpg s of the drawings are also included. Objection: The planned Park Avenue Townhomes development on 300 Park Avenue is in direct conflict with the City Of Salida Land Use And Development Code. Title 16, Article IV Sec states: (2) Medium-Density Residential (R-2). The purpose of the Medium-Density Residential (R- 2) zone district is to provide for residential neighborhoods comprised of detached single-family dwellings, duplex dwellings and multi-family residences on smaller lots than are permitted in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone district, allowing for slightly greater overall densities. Complementary land uses may also include such supporting land uses as parks, schools, churches, home occupations or day care, amongst other uses. (3) High-Density Residential (R-3). The purpose of the High-Density Residential (R-3) zone district is to provide for relatively high density duplex and multi-family residential areas, including primarily triplex, townhouse and apartment uses. Complementary land uses may also include such supporting land uses as parks, schools, churches, home occupations or day care, amongst other uses. 300 Park Avenue is currently zoned Medium Density Residential (R-2). Harder-Diesslin Development Group s plan to build 4 common wall townhomes on the lot is in conflict with the Land Use and Development Code. Townhomes are explicitly categorized as High Density Residential (R-3). Sec Zoning Variances defines (e) Required Showing for Variances, which are included in the Variance Application. The Variance Application completed by Harder-Diesslin Development Group contains false statements and fails to meet the requirements defined in Sec

22 1. Special Circumstances Exist. There are special circumstances or conditions which are peculiar to the land or building for which the variance is sought that do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood. Applicant Response: Three sided lot. Impossible to meet setback Objection: This statement is false. While the lot is three sided, it is quite possible to meet the 20 setback. Appendix 1 contains a drawing of 300 Park Ave with setbacks included. The resulting area of property after setbacks is over 4500 square feet. This footprint is certainly ample for reasonable use. In fact this lot is only peculiar in that its buildable area after setback is very large when compared to the other lots in the neighborhood. 2. Not Result Of Applicant. The special circumstances and conditions have not resulted from any act of the applicant. Applicant Response: Lot configuration is existing Objection: While the lot configuration is existing, I do not believe there are any special circumstances or conditions requiring a variance be granted. 3. Strict Application Deprives Reasonable Use. The special circumstances and conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Land Use Code would deprive the application of reasonable use of the land or building. Applicant Response: Yes, narrow shape of lot prohibits reasonable use. Objection: We do not believe there are any special circumstances or conditions requiring a variance be granted. Appendix 3 shows 300 Park Avenue with existing building and a new structure all within 20 setbacks and meeting the definition of Medium Density Residential (R-2). The new structure is a large house with dimensions of 30 x 40 (with a garage/rooftop deck added for good measure). This new house matches the dimensions of our home at 507 E 3 rd St. (see Appendix 5 for photo) which is the largest home in the area and certainly shows that reasonable use of the property is possible without variance or demolition of the existing building. Appendix 4 shows 300 Park Avenue with a plan for a large duplex within the 20 setback and meeting the definition of Medium Density Residential (R-2). 4. Variance is Necessary to Provide Reasonable Use. The granting of the variance is necessary to provide the applicant a reasonable use of the land or building. Applicant Response: Yes, need reduced setback to make use of the lot Objection: While the setback is requested to accommodate the planned Park Avenue Townhomes, this plan doesn t meet the definition of Medium Density Residential (R-2). Further, a variance is not required to provide the applicant reasonable use. Appendix 3 shows 300 Park Avenue with existing building and a new structure all within 20 setbacks and meeting the definition of Medium Density Residential (R-2). The new structure is a large house with dimensions of 30 x 40 (with a garage/rooftop deck added for good measure). This new house matches the dimensions of my home at 507 E 3 rd St. (see

23 Appendix 5 for photo) which is the largest home in the area and certainly shows that reasonable use of the property is possible without variance or demolition of the existing building. Appendix 4 shows 300 Park Avenue with a plan for a large duplex within the 20 setback and meeting the definition of Medium Density Residential (R-2). 5. Minimum Variance. The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land or building. Applicant Response: 10 Objection: The requested variance is not the minimum necessary to make possible reasonable use of the land or building. Particularly with regard to the variance requested of the 20 rear setback from the alley there is absolutely no way the applicant can prove that 10 is minimum necessary. There is no reason for the applicant to require any rear setback variance. Appendix 2 shows 300 Park Avenue with existing building. There is more than 42 feet between the existing building and the 20 rear setback and thus absolutely no necessity for rear variance. 6. No Injury to Neighborhood. The granting of the variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood surrounding the land where the variance is proposed, and is otherwise not detrimental to the public welfare or the environment. Applicant Response: Existing conditions as shown in photos. No harm to existing condition. Objection: The granting of the variance would be injurious to the neighborhood. This is a quiet residential area and the building that is proposed is offensive to every neighbor we have spoken to and many will represent themselves with letters and/or in person at the hearing. The planned development and requested setback variance would significantly invade the privacy of our back yard, it would block our mountain views and would be incongruent with the existing homes and style of the neighborhood. Adhering to the City s Land Use Code for Medium Density Residential (R-2) i.e. no townhouses and 20 setbacks would significantly reduce these effects on the neighborhood. 7. Consistent with Land use Code. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purposes and intent of the City s Land Use Code. Applicant Response: Correct Objection: 300 Park Avenue is currently zoned Medium Density Residential (R-2). Harder- Diesslin Development Group s plan to build 4 common wall townhomes on the lot is in conflict with the Land Use and Development Code. Townhomes are explicitly categorized as High Density Residential (R-3). Thus the plan is not consistent with the general purposes and intent of the City s Land Use Code. 8. Existing Primary Structure. If the proposal is an addition to a primary structure which continues the existing building line the applicant must demonstrate that maintenance of the addition on the subject property is feasible and not injurious to adjacent neighbors. Applicant Response: Single family homes to maintained [sic] by home owner.

24 Objection: Harder-Diesslin Development Group s plan is to subdivide the property into four lots and to build 3 additional structures resulting in 4 common wall townhomes. Three additional single family homes is not an addition to an existing primary structure. These 3 additional structures do not follow existing building lines particularly with regard to the rear setback variance requested as the existing building is 43 feet from the 20 rear setback as seen in Appendix 2. Thank you. We truly appreciate the opportunity to be heard. We have confidence in the City of Salida Board of Adjustment that this variance request will be disallowed and the Harder-Diesslin Development Group be held accountable to the Land Use and Development Code when presenting future plans for 300 Park Avenue. Sincerely Jesse Kaisner and Mandy Kaisner 507 E 3 rd St. Salida, CO 81201

25 Appendix 1: 300 Park Avenue Property; no buildings (attached full resolution JK01.jpg)

26 Appendix 2: 300 Park Avenue Property; existing building (attached full resolution JK02.jpg)

27 Appendix 3: 300 Park Avenue Property; existing building plus reasonable use (attached full resolution JK03.jpg)

28 Appendix 4: 300 Park Avenue Property; no existing building plus duplex development (attached full resolution JK04.jpg)

29 Appendix 1: 507 E 3 rd St. photo; adjacent home. (attached full resolution JK05.jpg)

30

31

32

33

34

35 To members of the Salida Planning Commission: I am writing to state my opposition to the application for set-back variances for the Park Avenue Townhouses. As conceived, I feel that the mass and scale of the project is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Kathryn Hardgrave and I were ultimately successful in creating a design overlay for part of the Sackett s Addition to prevent just this kind of development from happening in our neighborhood. Unfortunately, the overlay does not extend to the property in question, but the issues remain the same. With the exception of the large home at 3 rd and B Streets, this project would, at a maximum height of over 33 feet, loom over all the homes in the vicinity. That is bad enough. But allowing variances in the setbacks, with the townhomes built right up to the sidewalk on B Street and within ten feet of the alleyway would make them appear more massive still! Additionally, I believe that granting the requested variances would provide an unfortunate precedent which could ultimately change the character of historic neighborhoods throughout the city. The stated purpose of the municipal code as it pertains to land use and development is to achieve compatibility of uses and character within each zone district (Section ). Granting the requested variances would most certainly fail to do that. Marilyn Moore 414 E. 2 nd Street

36

37

38