AGENDA CITY OF SALIDA PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 AGENDA CITY OF SALIDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Monday, September 26, 2016 MEETING TIME: 6:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 448 East First reet, Salida, CO AGENDA SECTION: I. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES July 25, 2016 IV. UNSCHEDULED CITIZENS V. AMENDMENT(S) TO AGENDA VI. VII. UPDATES PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Altamont- Annexation - The request is to annex (1.43) acres located at 1591 East Highway 50 into the City of Salida. A. Open Public Hearing E. Public Input B. Proof of Publication F. Close Public Hearing C. aff Review of Application G. Commission Discussion D. Applicant s Presentation 2. Altamont- Zoning - The request is to designate the newly annexed property at 1591 East Highway 50 as Commercial (C-1) Zone District and include the property within the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay. The property is also known as the Altamont Annexation. A. Open Public Hearing B. Proof of Publication C. aff Review of Application D. Applicant s Presentation E. Public Input F. Close Public Hearing G. Commission Discussion 3. Little Rivers Property Zoning - The request is to recommend zoning designations for the forty-five and three-tenths (45.3) acres located on the southeast corner of Highway 291 and County Road 105 in the County of Chaffee, ate of Colorado. The applicant is requesting Central Business (C-2), Residential Mixed Use (RMU), Medium-Density Residential (R-2), and High-Density Residential (R-3). The C-2 and southern RMU parcels will be included in the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay. A. Open Public Hearing E. Public Input B. Proof of Publication F. Close Public Hearing C. aff Review of Application G. Commission Discussion D. Applicant s Presentation

2 4. Two-Rivers Property Planned Development Major Impact Review - The request is for Major Impact Review for a Planned Development and Subdivision for out-lots 1 &2 and Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the Two-Rivers Planned Development. A. Open Public Hearing B. Proof of Publication C. aff Review of Application D. Applicant s Presentation E. Public Input F. Close Public Hearing G. Commission Discussion VIII. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS- October 11 th work session to discuss short-term rentals X. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS XI. ADJOURN **An alternate can only vote on, or make a motion on an agenda item if they are designated as a voting member at the beginning of an agenda item. If there is a vacant seat or a conflict of interest, designate the alternate that will vote on the matter. If a Voting member shows up late to a meeting, he cannot vote on the agenda item if the alternate has been designated

3 PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes DRAFT MEETING DATE: Monday, July 25, 2016 MEETING TIME: 6:00 PM MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 448 E. First reet, Suite 190, Salida, CO Present: Thomas, Follet, Berg, Kasper, Wood, Cocovinis, Denning, Bomer, Osborn, Jefferson, Campbell Absent: Mandelkorn AGENDA SECTION: I. CALL TO ORDER BY Wood: - 6:00 PM II. ROLL CALL: III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES June 27, 2016 Thomas made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion was seconded by Follet. All voters were unanimous and the motion carried. IV. UNSCHEDULED CITIZENS None V. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA - None VI. UPDATES: Osborn stated that we will be hosting a work session at the eamplant on August 4 th regarding the short-term rental discussion VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Judd Limited Impact Review The request is for approval to construct five (5) apartment buildings with nineteen (19) living units and one (1) laundry facility on the parcel known as Lot 1 of the Lowry Subdivision Exemption located at TBD Illinois reet. A. Open Public Hearing 6:05 p.m. B. aff Review of Application. Osborn gave an overview of the application and stated that staff supported the application and recommends approval with 2 conditions. Berg asked about parking for bicycles. C. Applicant s Presentation: Joe Judd explained the project and was available to answer questions. Judd explained that they are not doing the affordable housing model but they will try to build the units and keep the rents at 80% AMI. Cocovinis asked about the drainage plan for the site. Judd stated that he is having his engineer review the drainage. Cocovinis is also concerned with the single access. Osborn explained that both the Fire and Police Departments reviewed the application and both are fine with the single access. Thomas asked if the parking will be paved and Osborn said yes it is a requirement of the Land Use Code. D. Public Input- Bonnie McDonald, is in support of the application and asked what the rents will be and she asked how the road will be aligned. Ken Griesel asked about the alley because it is considered Caldwell reet. Caroline Putney, voiced her concerns about having only one access, the limited parking and the number of proposed units. Colby Bartlett, 622 Walnut reet, is concerned with the proposed exterior materials, landscaping and parking. E. Closed Public Hearing 6:31 p.m. F. Commission Discussion Wood opened commissioner s discussion. Osborn explained that Illinois Avenue is built right to the property line and will not be realigned. Because of the alignment of the street the applicants will be required to Page 1 of 2

4 PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes DRAFT add crusher fines for a walking path. Wood asked if there will be a kids play area and Judd stated that adding a playground would take away units and they are trying to build enough units to help meet the housing demands. Follet asked if they will have an onsite manager and Judd stated that they are not sure if that is the direction are going but they live in the area and will take care of the property so that the property values continue to rise and not fall. Judd explained that the structures are not going to be just a cinder block structure. Denning asked about landscaping between units. Thomas stated that he is pleased to see this project and he stated that it meets all of the criteria of the Land Use Code. Berg asked the applicants if any neighbors had contacted them regarding the project. Bomer is pleased that they added a laundry facility to the project. Judd stated that the laundry facility is an amenity for the tenants but it is not a requirement. Denning asked about the size of the units and Judd explained the size of the one bedroom and two bedroom units. Wood explained that this request is a use by right and the Commission is to make sure the applicant is meeting the code requirements. Kasper is in support of the project and would like to see some kind of play area for children. Follet agrees and commended the applicants for attempting this project and agrees with Commissioner Thomas that this application meets the code. Cocovinis asked if this application is a use by right and Osborn said yes because this property is not within any of the highway overlays. G. Commission Action - A motion was made by Berg to approve the Limited Impact Review with the 2 recommended conditions: 1. The applicant shall resubmit the final engineering documents for approval by the City review engineer. 2. The applicant will provide final construction drawings and final landscape plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Cocovinis made a friendly amendment to the motion to add that the applicant resolves the concerns of the engineers and Berg accepted. Cocovinis wanted to add an additional condition that that the applicant adds another access prior to approval of the project and Berg did not accept that amendment. Kasper seconded the motion and the first amendment. Cocovinis was opposed and the motion carried. VIII. UNFINSHED BUSINESS- None IX. NEW BUSINESS- X. COMMISSIONER S COMMENTS- Bomer thanked the Judd s for coming forward with this project. XI. ADJOURN: With no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Page 2 of 2

5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: Sept. 26, 2016 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: AGENDA SECTION: Altamont LLC Annexation Public Hearing REQUEST: The request is to annex to the City of Salida (the City ) a certain unincorporated tract of land comprised of acres located at 1521 East U.S. Highway 50 in the County of Chaffee, ate of Colorado. APPLICANT: The applicant is Altamont LLC, 7032 CR 107, Salida, CO represented by David Armstrong. LOCATION: The subject property is a certain unincorporated tract of land comprised of acres located at 1521 E. Hwy 50. The property is adjacent to the City of Salida on the western boundary. Existing Land Use: Currently the property is undeveloped. Surrounding Land Use: North; Highway 50, Northwest; commercial (High s Liquor property) South; vacant, agricultural, East; Highway 50 and vacant property. Proposed Land Use: The applicant states that the property is to be used as a commercial site for the operation of the Altamont Landscape business. Commercial facilities are to be constructed and the applicant plans to connect to City water and sewer. Existing Zoning: Currently the property is zoned COM (commercial) in Chaffee County. The existing zoning on the property adjacent and to the west (which is within the City limits) is C-1 Commercial. City zoning across Hwy 50 and to the north is C-1 as well. Surrounding zoning within Chaffee County is COM commercial on all County adjacent sides (east and south). Public Hearing Agenda Item 1, Page 1 of 4

6 Proposed Zoning: C-1 Commercial in the City of Salida. This zone permits most retail, offices, and auto-related uses with administrative review or limited impact review of other commercial uses. Residential uses require administrative or limited impact review for single family to duplex units or major impact review for multi-family uses. Single mobile homes and mobile home parks are not permitted in the C-1 zone. Given the property location, it is also to be included in the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay Zone. PROCESS: An application for annexation is a multi-step process. The application was accepted by the City Council, by adoption of Resolution No. 72, Series 2016 on Sept. 6, 2016, and authorized to proceed with the annexation process. A City Council public hearing is scheduled on October 18, The annexation application is addressed by the Planning Commission through a public hearing process. The Commission shall review the annexation map and all required supportive information and shall submit a written recommendation to the City Council. In its review of the application, the Commission shall focus on the standards for annexation contained in Chapter 16, Article IX, Annexation, of the Municipal Code. Council has final decision-making authority in such applications. OBSERVATIONS: 1. The application for annexation was submitted on July 28, The proposed annexation has greater than the required 1/6 th contiguity (as required by ate atute CRS ) with the municipal boundary of the City of Salida. The total perimeter of the property is 1, feet with feet contiguous to the City of Salida, which is 37.1% of the perimeter. One sixth contiguity would be 16.7%. 3. The annexation property is under single ownership and the owner has signed the application for the annexation. 4. The annexation property is currently zoned commercial in Chaffee County. Commercial zoning will also be requested for the property with annexation to the City. 5. If annexed, the property falls within the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay Zone (Section of the Salida Land Use and Development Code). 6. The annexation property is adjacent to existing water and sewer infrastructure. A water main is contiguous along the northern border. A sewer main is adjacent to the western boundary. The property can be served by water and sewer in addition to service by the City fire and police departments. 7. The property is a natural extension of the City s municipal boundary and meets the legal requirements for annexation. 8. The property is adjacent to Hwy 50 from which it can obtain its access. Public Hearing Agenda Item 1, Page 2 of 4

7 9. The annexation of the property is consistent with the vision and goals set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan (adopted April 16, 2013) states that annexation allows the city an opportunity to expand its border, address deficiencies in available space for industrial, commercial or residential lands and may create financial opportunities for the city. The applicant stated in his narrative Altamont Landscapes was started and has operated in Chaffee County since The business employs people from March to November and 3-5 people over the balance of the year. The company is an active community member and chooses to provide donations to important charities and sponsor local events throughout the year. Annexation will enable Altamont to continue growing its employment and develop an under-utilized property on the main highway. The application also states that currently the site is not developed which provides little revenue for the city and no value to the community. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS Project review requests were sent to referral agencies on August 29, 2016 with a request for response by Sept. 16, Finance Department The Salida Finance Department responded on Sept. 1, 2016: taps are required at the time of development. Fire Department The Salida Fire Department responded no concerns. Police Department Terry Clark of the Salida Police Department responded on Sept. 12, 2016: I reviewed the request for annexation by Altamont LLC. I am familiar with the property and location. I have no concerns at this time. Public Works The Salida Municipal, Section (b), requires, Utility lines, water and sewer lines and storm drainage facilities shall extend the full length of the property. Public Works has indicated that a waterline with appropriate capacity to service the development is located adjacent to the property in Highway 50. aff is recommending that the applicant tie into the line on highway 50 and extend it length of the property. Two additional lines are located at the rear of the property but due to age and location they are not appropriate for consideration. Additionally, the applicant has requested to use the existing well for domestic service. It is City policy to require annexed properties to connect to the City system for domestic water service. The applicant would be able to use the well for landscaping. Colorado Department of Transportation No comments have been received. Chaffee County No concerns. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: 1. That the application meets the requirements of Article IX for annexations. Public Hearing Agenda Item 1, Page 3 of 4

8 2. That the applicant can enter into an annexation agreement which will detail any issues or additional requirements negotiated and approved by the City Council, including, but not limited to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the property. 4. That the annexation provides for orderly development of the City by annexation of an area that is adjacent to the municipal boundary and serviced by the City for sewer, water and police and fire protection. 5. That the annexation further implements the Comprehensive Plan and supports the vision and goals set forth therein. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based upon the observations, review standards, and findings outlined above, staff recommends the following: That the Commission recommend approval of the application to annex Altamont LLC Annexation, a parcel of land comprised of acres located at 1521 East U.S. Highway 50, in addition to the adjacent right-of-way described on the annexation plat, with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant connects to the City water main located in Highway 50 adjacent to the site for the purpose of domestic water service. The applicant will limit the use of the existing well to permitted non-domestic purposes. 2. That the applicant connects into the City sewer system for property sewer service. 3. That the applicant comply with the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay (Section of the Salida Land Use Code) which includes specific requirements pertaining to curb cuts, access, streetscape, lighting, landscaping and architecture. RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the recommended findings be made and the recommended action be taken. Attachments: Application and Petition Annexation Plat BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR AN ANNEXATION THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SALIDA CITY COUNCIL WHO WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION. Public Hearing Agenda Item 1, Page 4 of 4

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: Sept. 26, 2016 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: AGENDA SECTION: Altamont LLC Annexation - Zoning Review Public Hearing REQUEST: The request is to recommend zoning designation for the acres located at 1521 E. Hwy 50 in the County of Chaffee, ate of Colorado known as Altamont LLC Annexation. The request is to designate the newly annexed property as Commercial (C-1) Zone District and include the property within the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay. APPLICANT: David Armstrong of Altamont Landscaping, 247 W. Highway 50, Salida, CO LOCATION: The subject property is a certain unincorporated tract of land comprised of acres on east Hwy 50, adjacent to the City of Salida (High s Liquor property is adjacent on the west) in the County of Chaffee, ate of Colorado as shown on the attached annexation plat. The annexation property also includes a portion of the Highway 50 right of way as required by the City to extend the City boundaries in a unified fashion. BACKGROUND REVIEW: All territory annexed to the City subsequent to July 3, 2002 shall be zoned according to district classifications of Article IV and detailed in Section Such classification shall be determined by the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. Zoning of the property is the second step in the annexation process. The applicant is requesting a Commercial (C-1) Zone District designation and include the property within the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay. The zoning designation is in conformance with adjacent City properties to the west and north; also zoned C-1. The existing zoning on the property in Chaffee County is COM, commercial. County COM zoning also covers the properties to the east and south. The Commercial (C-1) Zone District allows most retail, offices, and auto-related uses with administrative review or Limited Impact Review of other commercial uses. Residential uses require Administrative or Limited Impact review for single family to duplex units or Major Impact Review for multi-family uses. Single mobile homes and mobile home parks are not permitted. The applicant has stated that they plan to use the property for a base of operations for their landscaping business. REVIEW STANDARDS FOR MAP AMENDMENTS Section (c) Public Hearing Agenda Item 2, Page 1 of 3

19 1. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is a natural extension of the City s municipal boundary. The annexation of the property is consistent with the vision and goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with adjacent land and appropriate for the area. 2. Consistency with Purpose of Zone District. The proposed amendment shall be consistent with the purpose of the zone district to which the property is to be designated. The applicant is requesting one zone district, C-1 commercial. Designation of the subject property is consistent with the surrounding area and will provide an appropriate commercial extension of the City s land use. 3. Compatibility With Surrounding Zone Districts and Uses. The development permitted by the proposed amendment shall be compatible with surrounding zone districts, land uses and neighborhood character. The zoning classifications are consistent with the zoning of other properties in the area. The proposal is adjacent to Commercial (C-1) zoning in the City and commercial (COM) zoning in the County. 4. Changed Conditions or Errors. The applicant shall demonstrate that conditions affecting the subject or the surrounding neighborhood have changed, or that due to incorrect assumptions or conclusions about the property, one (1) or more errors in the boundaries shown on the Official Zoning Map have occurred. This application is a result of the need for zoning due to annexation, not due to a map error or change in use in the neighborhood. PROJECT REVIEW HISTORY: The Altamont LLC Annexation proposal went before the City Council and Planning Commission for joint concept review on August 15, Comments were generally favorable. It was pointed out to the applicant that they will need to comply with the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay Zone which includes regulations concerning access, landscaping, signage, architecture, and lighting along Highway 50. Discussion occurred concerning the sewer easement west of the property along the western boundary (which holds a sewer line from which the property can obtain service). A water service line is located directly north of the property. On Sept. 6, 2016 the application went before the City Council for consideration of a resolution before the Council finding substantial compliance on the part of the annexation proposal and setting the date for public hearing with regard to an annexation petition. The resolution passed and the date was set for October 18, OBSERVATIONS: This section is intended to highlight observations or concerns raised by staff to assist the Commission in doing the same. Additional concerns or questions may arise after a presentation by the applicant. Public Hearing Agenda Item 2, Page 2 of 3

20 1. Annexation of the subject property is underway, with a public hearing scheduled before the City Council on October 18, Zoning the property is required at the time of annexation, or may occur within 90 days following annexation approval by the City Council. 2. The property consists of approximately acres of land located on Highway The proposed zoning district provides a logical extension of the City commercial zone along Highway The property has access from Highway The property can be served by City water and sewer and extension costs will be installed by the developer. 6. The zone district provides a compatible land use with surrounding properties. The proposed district is consistent with the goals of the Salida Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay is to establish standards for the efficient, well-ordered and safe development of one (1) of the primary entrances to the City which is also one (1) of its major highways. A combination of landscape and architectural standards and provisions for pedestrian and vehicle access will provide for attractive and functional development while allowing continued commercial growth within this corridor. The standards of the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay currently apply to all parcels which front Highway 50 and this parcel should be included as well to ensure compatible development or redevelopment that meets the goals of the City. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: 1. That the application is compliance with the review standards for map amendments. The proposed Commercial (C-1) Zone District designation and inclusion in the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay for the property furthers the goals and policies of the Salida Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the zoning and use of nearby and neighboring properties. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based upon the observations, review standards, and findings outlined above, staff recommends the following: That the Commission recommend APPROVAL of the application to designate the newly annexed property at 1521 E. Highway 50 as Commercial (C-1) Zone District and include the property within the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay. RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the recommended findings be made and the recommended action be taken. BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A ZONING OF AN ANNEXATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SALIDA CITY COUNCIL WHICH WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION. Public Hearing Agenda Item 2, Page 3 of 3

21

22

23

24

25

26 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: September 26, 2016 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: AGENDA SECTION: Little River Properties - Zoning Review Public Hearing REQUEST: The request is to recommend zoning designations for the forty-five and three-tenths (45.3) acres located on the southeast corner of Highway 291 and County Road 105 in the County of Chaffee, ate of Colorado. The applicant is requesting Central Business (C-2), Residential Mixed Use (RMU), Medium-Density Residential (R-2), and High-Density Residential (R-3). The C-2 and southern RMU parcels will be included in the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay. APPLICANT: James L Treat, represented by Tom Pokorny, P.O. Box 745, Salida, CO LOCATION: The subject property is a certain unincorporated tract of land comprised of forty-five and threetenths (45.3) acres located on the southeast corner of Highway 291 and County Road 105 in the County of Chaffee, ate of Colorado, as shown below. Public Hearing, Item 3, Page 1 of 7

27 BACKGROUND REVIEW: All territory annexed to the City subsequent to July 3, 2002 shall be zoned according to district classifications of Article IV and detailed in Section Such classification shall be determined by the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. Zoning of the property is the second step in the annexation process. The applicant is requesting the following district designations: Lot 1, 4.47 Acres: Central Business (C-2) and Highway 50 Corridor Overlay, The purpose of the Central Business District is to provide for the business and civic functions that make up the City s core. The Central Business District has a strong pedestrian character and provides for concentrated commercial activity. It contains a mix of business, commercial and residential uses, and serves the needs of the entire community and of visitors to the community. The Highway 50 Corridor Overlay provides additional landscape and architectural standards to provide for attractive and functional development within the corridor. Lot 2, 5.27 Acres: High-Density Residential (R-3), the purpose of the High-Density Residential 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. Lot 3, Acres: Medium-Density Residential (R-2), the purpose of the Medium-Density Residential district is to provide for residential neighborhoods comprised of detached singlefamily dwellings, duplex and multiple-family residences on smaller lots that are permitted in the Single-Family Residential district, allowing for slightly greater overall densities. Complementary land use may also include such supporting land uses as parks, schools, churches, home occupations or day care, amongst other uses. Lot 4, 2.17 Acres & Lot 5, Acres: Residential Mixed Use (RMU), The purpose of the Residential Mixed Use district is to provide for opportunities for an integration of residential and commercial uses that are developed and operated in harmony. The district should provide a variety of housing choices and promote pedestrian connections. Lot 5 will be included in the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay. Requested zoning map below. Public Hearing, Item 3, Page 2 of 7

28 OBSERVATIONS: This section is intended to highlight concerns raised by staff to assist the Commission in doing the same. Additional concerns or questions may arise after a presentation by the applicant. 1. Annexation of the subject property is underway, with a public hearing scheduled before the City Council on August 2 nd, 2016, which was continued until Sept. 20, Zoning the property is required at the time of annexation. 2. The property consists of approximately 45.3 acres of land located on the southeast corner of County Road 105 and the intersection of Highway s 291 & 50. The South Arkansas River flows west to east across the property and roughly divides it in half. A small section of the eastern parcel boundary abuts the main channel of the Arkansas River. 3. The proposal has several zoning districts that will prove a mix of medium to higher-density land uses intended for the development of an integrated pedestrian friendly neighborhood. 4. The property has access from County Road 105. CDOT will require a traffic study at the time of final development which will primarily address the impact on the intersection of Hwy 291 and Hwy The property can be served by City water and sewer with the main extensions being installed by the developer, who shall bear all associated costs. Public Hearing, Item 3, Page 3 of 7

29 6. The zone districts provide compatible land uses with complimentary densities. The proposed districts are consistent with the goals of the Salida Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW STANDARDS FOR MAP AMENDMENTS Section (c) 1. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is a natural extension of the City s municipal boundary. The annexation of the property is consistent with the vision and goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with adjacent land and appropriate for the area. 2. Consistency with Purpose of Zone District. The proposed amendment shall be consistent with the purpose of the zone district to which the property is to be designated. The applicant is requesting four zone district designations. The district boundaries will be the same as the boundaries proposed by the subdivision. The proposed districts will provide for a variety of residential and commercial uses with the intent of developing a mixed-use higher density pedestrian friendly neighborhood. Designation of the subject property is consistent with the surrounding area and will provide an appropriate gateway to the community. 3. Compatibility with Surrounding Zone Districts and Uses. The development permitted by the proposed amendment shall be compatible with surrounding zone districts, land uses and neighborhood character. The zoning classifications are consistent with the zoning of other properties in the area. The proposal is adjacent to Commercial (C-1) and Manufactured Housing Residential (R-4) which provides for relatively high density to the north. The west and south properties are zoned Planned Development as part of the Vandaveer Ranch. These parcels allow for higher density and a mix of residential, educational, and commercial uses. County Road 105 and the Arkansas River bind the property on the east. The proposed zoning classifications are compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses. 4. Changed Conditions or Errors. The applicant shall demonstrate that conditions affecting the subject or the surrounding neighborhood have changed, or that due to incorrect assumptions or conclusions about the property, one (1) or more errors in the boundaries shown on the Official Zoning Map have occurred. This application is a result of the need for zoning due to annexation, not due to a map error or change in use in the neighborhood. PROJECT REVIEW HISTORY: The project went before the Planning Commission on June 27, 2016 for review and recommendation (to the City Council) of the annexation petition and associated zoning, and Public Hearing, Item 3, Page 4 of 7

30 minor (5 parcel) subdivision. Following their review and public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation (45.3 acres). The Commission did not reach a consensus to vote for approval of the zoning, however. The developers were recommending the C-2, R-3, R-2, and RMU zones as described above. The Commission had concerns regarding the limited number of larger lots provided by the proposed zone districts. Subsequently the developer stated that they would return with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay application. The Commission did review and approve the minor subdivision as presented for the property. Final subdivision approval (as well as final zoning approval) would occur after final annexation approval. The developers have returned with a PD Development Plan and Overlay zoning as well as subdivision plats for two phases for a 18.8 acre portion of the annexation. In response to the concerns expressed by some members of the Planning Commission, the applicant submitted a statement explaining their reasons for the underlying zones proposed: RESPONSE TO DENIAL OF ZONING During our last presentation of the zoning application to the Planning Commission, the application was denied due to a 2-2 split vote. It was argued by one Commissioner that RMU was not appropriate for lot #5 for the following reasons: 1) RMU allows a minimum lot size of 5625 sq. ft., which is too small. 2) RMU allows for too much density. 3) RMU zoning is not appropriate given its location. The RMU minimum lot size is the same size or larger than all other zone districts but one: R-1. If the developer were to choose a zone district that had a larger "minimum lot size", the only zone district that would comply is R-1. However, as shown below, this lot #5 must be designated as a "commercial zone district" by Code as it lies adjacent to U.S. Hwy 50 and will be incorporated into the Hwy 50 Overlay District. -In response to the density argument, we again look to Table 16-F in the Code under allowed density (minimum lot area per dwelling unit): R-1 = 3750 s.f./unit R-2 = 3125 s.f./unit R-3 = 2400 s.f./unit R-4 = 2400 s.f./unit C-1 = 2800 s.f./unit C-2 = no minimum I = 2800 s.f./unit RMU = 3125 s.f./unit The possible density of RMU is less than the zone districts R-3, R-4, I, C-1 and C-2, the same as R-2, and only greater than R-1. I do not believe RMU is a zone district that allows for "too much" density. -In response to the statement that RMU zoning is not appropriate given its location, I will argue the opposite, that RMU is the appropriate zoning for this lot #5 for the following reasons: First, given that this parcel is adjacent to Highway 50, it is by code required to be within the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay District. If we read the Code we find in section ( )-Highway 50 Corridor Overlay (a) Purpose the following: " The purpose of the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay is to establish standards for the Public Hearing, Item 3, Page 5 of 7

31 efficient, well-ordered and safe development of one (1) of the primary entrances to the City which is also one (1) of its major highways. A combination of landscape and architectural standards and provisions for pedestrian and vehicle access will provide for attractive and functional development while allowing continued commercial growth within this corridor. " Given that lot #5 is adjacent to U.S. Hwy 50 and in the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay the code demands a commercial zone district be used. RMU, being a subset of commercial zone districts, is appropriate. Second, looking to the City's Zoning-Address Map, we see that the existing surrounding zoning and intended uses mesh with RMU zone district. The parcel directly to the south of lot in question (lot #5) is zoned PD with the proposed development plan of a food processing factory with on site housing and a campus environment. Adjacent to that lot is the existing U.S. Forest Service building, which is intended to be part of a government services complex. In fact, the DOW is purchasing property there now for a nearfuture building. Across the highway to the west is the Vandaveer Ranch Property, which already has a proposed high density mixed-use development plan in front of the public and depends on RMU zoning. RMU zoning fits in well with the neighboring uses. Also, looking at the Zoning Map we can see all the annexations and developments that have come into the City in the last 15 years. 1) Trailside:... zoning = R-2 Medium Density 2) Mesa Circle:... zoning = R-3 High Density 3) arbuck:... zoning = PD (high density) 4) Rex Circle:... R-4 High Density manufactured homes 5) River West:... zoning = PD (R-2 underlying) 6) Cottonwood Greens :... zoning = R-2 Medium Density 7) Crestone Mesa:... Zoning = R-2 Medium Density 8) Vandaveer:...PD with proposed RMU areas 9) Angler's Ridge: RMU (proposed high density PD) No one has ever annexed into the City as R-1. The only area in the City zoned R-1 was platted in the 1800's and assigned an R-1 designation when the City adopted codes at a much later date. Third, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Salida Land Use Code for a PD process encourages a mixeduse approach as defined within the RMU zone district. In the code in section Purposes and Objectives of the Code, we see " The purpose of a planned development (PD) is to encourage innovation and flexibility in the development of land so as to promote variety in the type, design and layout of buildings; improve the integration, character and quality of land uses; promote the more efficient use of land and infrastructure while achieving compatibility of land uses; promote the preservation of open space and natural and scenic areas." Furthermore, a PD is intended to "allow tor the mixture of uses and greater diversity of building types, promote environmental protection, limit sprawl, improve design quality and offer a higher quality of living environment, encourage innovative design and a variety of housing types, promote bicycles and walking as an alternative to the automobile, and manage the increase in demand for public amenities as is feasible..." In the Comprehensive Plan the opening paragraph of Chapter 6 "Housing" reads: " The existing pattern of a mixture of housing types, family sizes and incomes in Salida neighborhoods is integral to the character of the community. Decent housing should be attainable by all citizens of Salida whether to rent or own... Ensuring diverse housing opportunities are available will enhance and support the City's economic and social diversity and help maintain the sense of community. " Looking to the Land Use Code, section it reads: " The purpose of RMU zone district is to provide for opportunities for an integration of residential and commercial uses that are developed and operated in harmony. The district should provide a variety of housing choices and promote pedestrian connections." An R-1 zoning designation would not allow any flexibility, variety in housing types or integration of housing sizes. I believe that the RMU zone district is appropriate for this lot. Public Hearing, Item 3, Page 6 of 7

32 Finally, the Commission will have more input into the final look of any project that might be considered in the future when the future developer comes back with a development plan and subdivides the parcel. That will be the appropriate time for Commissioners to give their input to control development densities and uses. Concerning the vote to deny during the previous zoning application, I appreciate the Commissioner who gave a reason, as required by Code. This gives the applicant a chance to address the issue and return to the Commission. However, a second Commissioner voted to deny the zoning application. He did not give any reason other than he was voting his "principles". Although I admire a person of "principle," I would respectfully ask that if any of the Commissioner vote to deny, that you give a specific reason as dictated by the Code. The code states in (2) that if you deny an application, you must follow these rules: "Deny the development proposal and recommend to the City Council that such application for development be denied since it does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, other adopted City Plans, the Code, or City Policies as adopted by ordinance or resolution. The recommendation to deny shall specify which provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, this Code or City Policies as adopted by ordinance or resolution have not been complied with, with respect to the proposed development." ( (e)(2)). Thank you for your time in reviewing this zoning application. Respectfully submitted, Tom Pokorny, RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: 1. That the application is compliance with the review standards for map amendments. The proposed zone district designations for these parcels further the goals and policies of the Salida Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the zoning and use of nearby and neighboring properties. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Based upon the observations, review standards, and findings outlined above, staff recommends the following: That the Commission recommend approval of the application to designate the forty-five and threetenths (45.3) acres located on the southeast corner of Highway 291 and County Road 105 in the County of Chaffee, ate of Colorado, commonly known as Little River Properties, with the following zone districts as described on the attached zone district map and noted below: Lot 1, Central Business (C-2) and Highway 50 Corridor Overlay Lot 2, High-Density (R-3). Lot 3, Medium-Density (R-2) Lot 4, Residential Mixed-Use (RMU) Lot 5, Residential Mixed-Use (RMU) and Highway 50 Corridor Overlay RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the recommended findings be made and the recommended action be taken. BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR MAJOR IMPACT REVIEWAPPROVAL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MAKING A DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE SALIDA CITY COUNCIL WHO WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION. Public Hearing, Item 3, Page 7 of 7

33

34 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 448 East First reet, Suite 112 Salida, CO Phone: Fax: TYPE OF APPLICATION (Check-off as appropriate) Annexation Pre-Annexation Agreement Variance Appeal Application (Interpretation) Certificate of Approval Creative Sign Permit Historic Landmark/District License to Encroach Text Amendment to Land Use Code Watershed Protection Permit Conditional Use Administrative Review: (Type) Limited Impact Review: (Type) Major Impact Review: (Type) Other: 2. GENERAL DATA (To be completed by the applicant) A. Applicant Information Name of Applicant: Mailing Address: Telephone Number: FAX: Address: Power of Attorney/ Authorized Representative: (Provide a letter authorizing agent to represent you, include representative s name, street and mailing address, telephone number, and FAX) B. Site Data Name of Development: reet Address: Legal Description: Lot Block Subdivision (attach description) Disclosure of Ownership: List all owners names, mortgages, liens, easements, judgments, contracts and agreements that run with the land. (May be in the form of a current certificate from a title insurance company, deed, ownership and encumbrance report, attorney s opinion, or other documentation acceptable to the City Attorney) I certify that I have read the application form and that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of applicant/agent Signature of property owner Date Date General Development Application Form 03/09/15

35 CR 105, LLC (Applicant) P.O. Box 745 Salida, CO July 18, 2016 Planning Commission City of Salida 448 East 1 st. Salida, CO Dear Chairman and Commissioners, This serves as a cover letter to the attached formal application for zoning of the previously recommended Little River Properties Annexation and Minor Subdivision. This package describes the proposed zoning for the five lots of the minor subdivision and explains why the zoning is appropriate. The following documents are included in the Zoning Application package: Cover Letter Application Review andards Vision atement for development Purpose and Objective of Underlying Zoning Response to Denial of previous Zoning Application by Commission Aerial Photo of Land Annexation Plat Little River Properties Minor Subdivision Plat Proposed Zoning Proposed Two Rivers residential Planned Development plan Proposed Two Rivers commercial Development plan City Zoning Map Adjacent Properties Zoning Certificate of Good anding Mailing List Mailing List Map Public Notice

36 CODE OR MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION 448 East First reet, Suite 112 Salida, CO Phone: Fax: A. TYPE OF AMENDMENT (City Code Section ) Text Amendment to the Land Use Code Map Amendment to the Official Zoning Map (Rezoning) B. APPLICATION PROCEDURE (City Code Section ) 1. Preapplication Conference (optional) 2. Submittal of Application 3. aff Review. Schedule Hearing. Forward Report to Applicant and Planning Commission 4. Public Notice Provided for Hearing 5. Public Hearing Conducted by Planning Commission and Recommendation to City Council 6. Public Notice of City Council Hearing 7. Public Hearing Conducted by City Council and Action Taken. C. APPLICATION CONTENTS (City Code Section (text amendment ) Text Amendment: 1. General Development Application. 2. Precise Wording. Precise wording of the proposed text amendment. Ten copies of the text amendments shall be submitted. The copies shall only be accepted on 8.5x11paper and shall be typed. 3. Application Fees. Map Amendment: 1. General Development Application. 2. Ten (10) copies of the map amendment package shall be submitted. The copies shall only be accepted on 82" x 11", 11" x 17" or 24"x 36" paper. The copies shall include: a. Zone Districts. The present zone district designation(s) of the property and the zoning of all adjacent properties. b. Survey Map. An accurate survey map of the property proposed for amendment, stating the area of the property proposed to be amended in square feet or acres. c. Existing Uses. Current land use on the property and on all adjacent properties. d. atement of Intended Development. A written statement by the applicant identifying the intended use or development of the subject property and the timing of said development, describing the community need for the change in zoning, and explaining the effect the change of zoning would have on surrounding uses. 3. 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 for all public hearings. Return Address shall be: City of Salida, 448 E. First reet, Suite 112, Salida, CO c) The applicant must submit notarized affidavits for proof of posting and mailing of the public notice. City of Salida Page 1 of 3 Code or Map Amendment Application

37 4. Application Fees. Cash or check made out to City of Salida - $1,050 (text amendment) ($350 application fee + $700 deposit for outside professional services) or $1500 (rezoning) ($500 application fee + $1000 deposit for outside professional services). 5. Special Fee and Cost Reimbursement Agreement completed. D. REVIEW STANDARDS (If necessary, attach additional sheets) Text Amendments (City Code Section ). 1. Consistency with Purposes. The proposed amendment shall be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code. 2. Not Conflict with Other Provisions. The proposed amendment shall not conflict with any other applicable provisions of this Land Use Code, or shall repeal or amend provisions of this Land Use Code which are inconsistent, unreasonable or out-of-date. 3. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or shall implement a new portion of the Comprehensive Plan, or shall implement portions of the Comprehensive Plan which have proven difficult to achieve under the existing provisions of this Land Use Code. 4. Public Health, Safety and Welfare. The proposed amendment shall preserve the public health, safety, general welfare and environment and contribute to the orderly development of the City. City of Salida Page 2 of 3 Code or Map Amendment Application

38 Map Amendments (Rezoning) (City Code Section ). 1. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment shall be consistent with the City of Salida Comprehensive Plan. 2. Consistent With Purpose of Zone District. The proposed amendment shall be consistent with the purpose of the zone district to which the property is to be designated. 3. Compatibility with Surrounding Zone Districts and Uses. The development permitted by the proposed amendment shall be compatible with surrounding zone districts, land uses, and neighborhood character. 4. Changed Conditions or Error. The applicant shall demonstrate that conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood have changed, or that due to incorrect assumptions or conclusions about the property, one or more errors in the boundaries shown on the Official Zoning Map have occurred. City of Salida Page 3 of 3 Code or Map Amendment Application

39 Vision atement for Development as an explanation for underlying zoning: The developer wishes to create a community that honors Salida s traditional neighborhoods and the vision of Salida as directed within the Comprehensive Plan by proposing: Diverse Housing --- Something for everyone. Provide a mix of residential zone districts to support varied housing. Affordable Housing --- provide parcels for high density apartments/attached units and affordable housing Provide varying sized lots for our diverse housing needs Provide trails along the river for recreational purposes and to promote healthy lifestyles. Provide community gathering places: along trails, river access and public patios overlooking river in commercial area Respect the river corridor --- make improvements to the river channel to benefit fish habitat and native plant species Provide commercial property for economic development Approximate our traditional grid layout with porches front facing and garages in a rear alley when possible Purpose and Objective of proposed Underlying Zoning : The future Development Plan will allow for development of different housing needs which will coincide closely with the proposed underlying zoning. (see attached zoning map and proposed Planned Development). We propose the following zone districts for the subdivided lots: Lot 1: (C-2) zoning will allow for commercial development with a mix of residential uses. Lot 2: RMU zoning provides for opportunities for an integration of residential and commercial uses that are developed and operated in harmony. It provides a variety of housing choices and promotes pedestrian connections. Lot 3: R-3 zoning will allow for higher density and smaller units that will provide for lower priced housing. Lot 4: R-2 zoning will allow for larger lots to provide single family and multi-family housing that are larger than within the R-3 zoning. Lot 5: RMU zoning provides for opportunities for an integration of residential and commercial uses that are developed and operated in harmony. It provides a variety of housing choices and promotes pedestrian connections.

40 Zoning (Use) Appropriate and Compatible: Lot 1 (C-2): Given that this lot will be brought into the Hwy 50 Overlay District and must be used for commercial use, and given that the adjacent properties to the north along Hwy 50, to the north across CR 105, and to the west across Hwy 50 are all zoned commercial, we feel the use of C-2 zoning is appropriate and compatible. Lot 2 (R-3): Given that the parcels to the north of the development are zoned C-1 and R-4 and that they currently house campers, manufactured housing and allow for high density housing, the designation of R-3 to Lot 2 for the use of apartments, small houses, duplexes and triplexes on our side of the street seems compatible and appropriate. Lot 3 (R-2): Given that this parcel transitions from R-3 zoning to the north and west to open space to the east and south, we feel that the use of this lot for larger single-family housing and some limited multi-family housing is appropriate and compatible. Lot 4 (RMU): Given that the adjacent parcel to the west is zoned commercial, the parcel to the north is proposed for R-3 zoning, and the parcel to the east is proposed R-2 zoning, the use of the RMU zoning for this lot seems appropriate and compatible and shall serve as a good transition area to the larger, less dense development of the R- 2 zoning to the east. Lot 5 (RMU): Appropriateness and compatibility to adjacent parcels is discussed below. Specific proposed uses of lots: As the proposed Planned Development plan that accompanies this zoning application shows, we intend to use the above underlying zoning more specifically as shown on the plan and described below: Lot 2 of Subdivision Plat (2.17 acres proposed RMU zoning) (Lots 1-6 of the PD comprise Lot 2 of the Subdivision plat.) RMU zoning allows for some flexibility for future use. Our intended use is for single-family houses for these lots. However, we have been approached by a developer who has expressed interest in these lots as RMU zoning for his plan. If this were the case, he would most likely come back to the Commission with a separate development plan for approval. This would transition the use pattern from the 4.5 acre commercial lot adjacent to the west to the larger single-family lots 7-27 along the river to the east. Lot 3 of Subdivision Plat (10.07 acres proposed R-2 zoning) (Lots 7-27 of the PD comprise part of Lot 3 of the Subdivision plat.) These lots are part of the R-2 underlying zone district. However, these large lots along the river ---

41 --- proposed to be between 7,694 square feet to 16,484 s.f. --- will be restricted to one single-family house with the possibility of an ADU. There will be no multifamily housing allowed on these lots (emphasis added to highlight this criteria in response to a concern from a Commissioner.) This restriction will be noted on the plat and in the HOA documents. (Lots of the PD comprise part of Lot 3 of the minor Subdivision Plat) These lots are part of the R-2 underlying zoning. They are large enough to allow for either single-family houses or duplexes. Lot 2 of Subdivision Plat (5.27 acres - proposed R-3 zoning) (Lots of the PD): These are the smaller single-family lots within the planned development. The HOA will not enforce a minimum size house within the development. Thus, we anticipate small, more affordable houses being built in this area, similar to what is happening in the Crestone Mesa subdivision. Lots of the PD: These lots front River Road, what is currently CR 105. We are providing a mix of lot sizes to encourage small single-family houses, duplexes and triplexes. Apartments (parcel 2A of the PD): We have set aside a parcel to allow up to 24 apartments along CR 105 (River Road). We are partnering with a developer to allow them to incorporate affordable housing within the apartment complex. We anticipate 24 apartments with 8 of them being rent restricted to an affordability quotient to be negotiated with the Council. Lot 1 of Subdivision Plat (4.47 acres C-2 zoning) This lot will be developed as a commercial center. It will fall under the Hwy 50 Corridor Overlay district and must comply with those additional standards. Lot 5 of Subdivision Plat (18.65 acres proposed RMU zoning) There are no plans for this lot at this time. However, as the lot is adjacent to Hwy 50 and will be included in the Hwy 50 Corridor Overlay district, the underlying zone district must allow for commercial use. It is the belief of the owner, Jim Treat, the prospective developer and the City staff that the commercial RMU zone district is appropriate for this lot.

42 RESPONSE TO DENIAL OF ZONING During our last presentation of the zoning application to the Planning Commission, the application was denied due to a 2-2 split vote. It was argued by one Commissioner that RMU was not appropriate for lot #5 for the following reasons: 1) RMU allows a minimum lot size of 5625 sq. ft., which is too small. 2) RMU allows for too much density. 3) RMU zoning is not appropriate given its location. -In response to the lot size argument, I point out the minimum lot size for all specific zone districts as given by Table 16-F in the Code: The RMU minimum lot size is the same size or larger than all other zone districts but one: R-1. If the developer were to choose a zone district that had a larger minimum lot size, the only zone district that would comply is R-1. However, as shown below, this lot #5 must be designated as a commercial zone district by Code as it lies adjacent to U.S. Hwy 50 and will be incorporated into the Hwy 50 Overlay District. -In response to the density argument, we again look to Table 16-F in the Code under allowed density (minimum lot area per dwelling unit): R-1 = 3750 s.f./unit R-2 = 3125 s.f./unit R-3 = 2400 s.f./unit R-4 = 2400 s.f./unit C-1 = 2800 s.f./unit C-2 = no minimum I = 2800 s.f./unit RMU = 3125 s.f./unit

43 The possible density of RMU is less than the zone districts R-3, R-4, I, C-1 and C-2, the same as R-2, and only greater than R-1. I do not believe RMU is a zone district that allows for too much density. -In response to the statement that RMU zoning is not appropriate given its location, I will argue the opposite, that RMU is the appropriate zoning for this lot #5 for the following reasons: First, given that this parcel is adjacent to Highway 50, it is by code required to be within the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay District. If we read the Code we find in section ( )-Highway 50 Corridor Overlay (a) Purpose the following: The purpose of the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay is to establish standards for the efficient, well-ordered and safe development of one (1) of the primary entrances to the City which is also one (1) of its major highways. A combination of landscape and architectural standards and provisions for pedestrian and vehicle access will provide for attractive and functional development while allowing continued commercial growth within this corridor. Given that lot #5 is adjacent to U.S. Hwy 50 and in the Highway 50 Corridor Overlay the code demands a commercial zone district be used. RMU, being a subset of commercial zone districts, is appropriate. Second, looking to the City s Zoning-Address Map, we see that the existing surrounding zoning and intended uses mesh with RMU zone district. The parcel directly to the south of lot in question (lot #5) is zoned PD with the proposed development plan of a food processing factory with on site housing and a campus environment. Adjacent to that lot is the existing U.S. Forrest Service building, which is intended to be part of a government services complex. In fact, the DOW is purchasing property there now for a near-future building. Across the highway to the west is the Vandaveer Ranch Property, which already has a proposed high density mixed-use development plan in front of the public and depends on RMU zoning. RMU zoning fits in well with the neighboring uses. Also, looking at the Zoning Map we can see all the annexations and developments that have come into the City in the last 15 years. 1) Trailside:. zoning = R-2 Medium Density 2) Mesa Circle:... zoning = R-3 High Density 3) arbuck: zoning = PD (high density) 4) Rex Circle: R-4 High Density manufactured homes 5) River West:.. zoning = PD (R-2 underlying) 6) Cottonwood Greens: zoning = R-2 Medium Density 7) Crestone Mesa:. Zoning = R-2 Medium Density 8) Vandaveer:.PD with proposed RMU areas 9) Angler s Ridge:... RMU (proposed high density PD)

44 No one has ever annexed into the City as R-1. The only area in the City zoned R-1 was platted in the 1800 s and assigned an R-1 designation when the City adopted codes at a much later date. Third, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Salida Land Use Code for a PD process encourages a mixed-use approach as defined within the RMU zone district. In the code in section Purposes and Objectives of the Code, we see The purpose of a planned development (PD) is to encourage innovation and flexibility in the development of land so as to promote variety in the type, design and layout of buildings; improve the integration, character and quality of land uses; promote the more efficient use of land and infrastructure while achieving compatibility of land uses; promote the preservation of open space and natural and scenic areas. Furthermore, a PD is intended to allow tor the mixture of uses and greater diversity of building types, promote environmental protection, limit sprawl, improve design quality and offer a higher quality of living environment, encourage innovative design and a variety of housing types, promote bicycles and walking as an alternative to the automobile, and manage the increase in demand for public amenities as is feasible. In the Comprehensive Plan the opening paragraph of Chapter 6 Housing reads: The existing pattern of a mixture of housing types, family sizes and incomes in Salida neighborhoods is integral to the character of the community. Decent housing should be attainable by all citizens of Salida whether to rent or own. Ensuring diverse housing opportunities are available will enhance and support the City s economic and social diversity and help maintain the sense of community. Looking to the Land Use Code, section it reads: The purpose of RMU zone district is to provide for opportunities for an integration of residential and commercial uses that are developed and operated in harmony. The district should provide a variety of housing choices and promote pedestrian connections. An R-1 zoning designation would not allow any flexibility, variety in housing types or integration of housing sizes. I believe that the RMU zone district is appropriate for this lot. Finally, the Commission will have more input into the final look of any project that might be considered in the future when the future developer comes back with a development plan and subdivides the parcel. That will be the appropriate time for Commissioners to give their input to control development densities and uses. Concerning the vote to deny during the previous zoning application, I appreciate the Commissioner who gave a reason, as required by Code. This gives the applicant a chance to address the issue and return to the Commission. However, a second Commissioner voted to deny the zoning application. He did not give any reason other than he was voting his principles. Although I admire a person of

45 principle, I would respectfully ask that if any of the Commissioner vote to deny, that you give a specific reason as dictated by the Code. The code states in (2) that if you deny an application, you must follow these rules: Deny the development proposal and recommend to the City Council that such application for development be denied since it does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, other adopted City Plans, the Code, or City Policies as adopted by ordinance or resolution. The recommendation to deny shall specify which provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, this Code or City Policies as adopted by ordinance or resolution have not been complied with, with respect to the proposed development. ( (e)(2)). Thank you for your time in reviewing this zoning application. Respectfully submitted, Tom Pokorny,

46 Bing Maps 1 of 1 2/29/2016 3:40 PM Notes

47

48

49

50

51 Co Rd Riverfront Ave 15 Co Rd 176 Co Rd Co Rd 154 Co R d sas Ri v 7725 Dr sh u R N L K st o ne Av e ve Ouray A JS t IS l Park P Thonoff Park Riverside Park Mac Witty Park Sa Monarch Spur Park ck ett Co Rd 1 Blvd Poncha Ra i l ro a t Se D 8208 rd Fi fth IS 8172 Th i Longfellow Elementary Alpine Park Six Fo ur th S th t nd Fi rst Wood Ave R Co d1 ir t Dodge Chisholm Park t t Illinois Ave Co Rd Sun Rd wy US H ha 's L 7343 an e B Rd Rd C Nicole Ln Wa y Hilton Lane City of Salida Official Zoning Map 6405 R Co d Rd 1 -B Rd Co Co R R Co D 06d d Co d1 Ad r ian Co Rd 107-A Rd na Bu ck Ru n es Paradise Acr Co Rd 111-A un Co Rd 104 d Oa k ate 7030 R Co Fox Run ver South Arkansas Ri Co Rd Co Co Amended by the Salida Community Development Department April ar t Fawn Run xr Lyn M Base parcel information provided by the Chaffee County Assessor. This map is not intended to be used for survey purposes or to supersede information provided by licensed surveyors. 135 A / Maple Dr Co R Co Rd 110-A ,000 Feet Illinois Ave Jones Ave Co Rd Nicholls Ave Salida Early Middle Childhood School Center M & M Lane Blake Salida High School H 7865 Co Rd 109 Co Rd Hot Springs Pool/ Centennial Park Co Rd ,000 C Vesta Rd Hunt t Chilcott Palmer nt hs F 8545 Co Rd 125 th S th S 8470 en tee en E 8522 fte ur 0 Elm Dr Teller r Rex C nt h Fo Tw e lf th Milford 8172 tee t Six Fi JS rte Salida City Limits D K Th i H 7477 El ev en th th New Co Rd Te n B IS Monarch Spur Trail 8475 Public Schools Dodge Maxwell t 8125 ec ilsid Tra 8025 th S Parks Scott in Koenig Greenbelt Oak 8089 N t 7670 Trailside orth le N TraileAccess Circ d i ils Trailside Tra h Parkcle Sout hs C 7690 Ben Oswald Soccer Fields 7630 Pickett Park Ave Park Meadowlark Lane 7710 Se ve nt t Sackett's Addition Neighborhood Walnut Loyal Duke Dog Park 7653 hs G 7681 Co Rd L 7723 Ei gh t Salida Downtown Historic District Bridge B 7610 Local Historic Landmark G 7705 Monarch Spur Trail co Holman Ave 7875 Historic Protection Scott Hwy 50 Corridor d 8206 C Hwy 291 Established Residential Hwy 291 Established Commercial E F 8444 Overlay Districts 77 Eas t 7888 Residential Mixed Use (RMU) t Co Rd Manufactured Housing Residential (R-4) Rou tt Spruce Mesa Cir t t Eaton S Ave Adams 8095 P Nuno Park ark Ave t Routt S Co Rd 141-C Mesa Ct Pitkin S Co Rd 141-B Ave Pitki n Cr e High Density Residential (R-3) e Av Shav an o Co Rd 141 t et ck Crestone Mesa Dr Salida Golf Club 8115 Medium Density Residential (R-2) Sa Mesa View Ln M Gr a n t 8465 Single-Family Residential (R-1) Co Rd 144 Hwy i rd Th Co Rd 141-D nd co Se 8315 Co Rd 141-D Co Rd 142 Grand Ave Planned Development r Industrial (I) Tenderfoot Hill Recreation Area Marvin Park 256 Central Business (C-2) D e ad Ro Commercial (C-1) / / / / / A C / Indigo Ln y 17 sid t un o C FS ill H S Service Road Co Rd er ive 910 Gulch Cottonwood Circle n Harringto Cottonwood Circle 8315 Co R d Arkansas Hills Open Space 8742 Arkan Hospital Zone Districts

52

53 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO CERTIFICATE OF FACT OF GOOD STANDING I,, as the Secretary of ate of the ate of Colorado, hereby certify that, according to the records of this office, CR 105 LLC is a Limited Liability Company formed or registered on 02/26/2016 under the law of Colorado, has complied with all applicable requirements of this office, and is in good standing with this office. This entity has been assigned entity identification number This certificate reflects facts established or disclosed by documents delivered to this office on paper through 03/08/2016 that have been posted, and by documents delivered to this office electronically through 10:37:25. I have affixed hereto the Great Seal of the ate of Colorado and duly generated, executed, and issued this official certificate at Denver, Colorado on 10:37:25 in accordance with applicable law. This certificate is assigned Confirmation Number *********************************************End of Certificate******************************************* Notice: A certificate issued electronically from the Colorado Secretary of ate s Web site is fully and immediately valid and effective. However, as an option, the issuance and validity of a certificate obtained electronically may be established by visiting the Certificate page of the Secretary of ate s eb site, entering the certificate s confirmation number displayed on the certificate, and following the instructions displayed. Confirming the issuance of a certificate is merely optional and is not necessary to the valid and effective issuance of a certificate. For more information, visit our Web site, click Businesses, trademarks, trade names and select Frequently Asked Questions.