Threat to Carson City’s Historic District

My name is Alexander Kirsch and I am a 30-plus year resident of Carson City and homeowner in the City’s Historic District. My neighbors and I, with support from a number of property owners in the Historic District, are fighting to protect and preserve the integrity of Carson City’s Historic District.

We strongly oppose construction of two 4-Plex apartment buildings proposed at 812 N. Division Street. This property was the former Carriage House and remnant of the historic Treadway orchard. We have a number of reasons for our opposition to such within Carson City’s Historic District. Many of these points were presented verbally and in written petitions to the Historic Resources Commission at several public meetings as well as at several Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor’s hearings and appeals.

The location and size of the property simply cannot accommodate the traffic and parking requirements of such construction which are contrary to Carson City Municipal Code. Also, this project would set a damaging precedent for the Historic District.

The debate has been going on since July 28, 2010. Recently a modified proposal to a previously-accepted compromise application to develop this project in “HRC-14-146” was denied on December 11, 2014, by a 6-to-1 vote by the Historic Resources Commission. We agreed to and supported the compromise proposal for construction of two duplexes with appropriate construction material and style; we oppose the current application because it attempts to ignore our previous agreement. This is why we remain steadfast to revert back to a previously approved development by the developer of two duplex buildings.

There is no similar 8-plex development within the West Side Residential/ Office zoned areas or within the Historic District. Approval of SUP-14-036 by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors (or similar magnitude project) renders the existence of a Historic District and the purpose of a Historical Resource Commission meaningless.

The proposed property development does not appear to allow for sufficient storage (e.g. bicycles, recreational equipment, BBQs) or outdoor recreational space for the potentially 16 (or more) occupants. Also the proposal does not identify space for water heaters and forced air furnace equipment for the upper units.

Parking, both on-site and street, remains an issue. Two (2) parking spaces per unit are currently required by City Ordinance and Development Standards. There is no justification for providing fewer parking spaces – 1.2 spaces/unit as proposed by the developer, and 1.5 spaces as unilaterally accepted by City Planning -- in an already congested area, especially based upon outdated and inappropriate survey data. Recent US Census data (2010) for household vehicle ownership showed that the average household in zip code 89703 operates and parks 2.3 cars per household.

The approval of 1.5 parking spaces per Dwelling Unit and the change of Carson City’s Municipal Code requirements during the Board of Supervisors Appeal of SUP-14-036 on 10/02/2014 will not only impact future development within Carson City, but will have grossly negative effects for the City’s Historic District. An ultimate approval of the developer’s project as proposed will jeopardize the integrity and the purpose of Carson City’s Historic Resources Commission and may render its existence moot.

City Planning Staff does not believe that an additional multi-family use building would be detrimental to the surrounding uses, stating the area is “in transition away from single family residential to higher density, multi-family residential and commercial office uses.” Neither the developer nor the Planning Commission, however, provided any analysis or documentation to support this statement. In fact, as of this date, no complex of this magnitude (Eight 1-Bedroom Apartment Units) has been built within the Historic District in the past several decades. The Historic Resources Commission most recent vote recognizes the negative precedent which the currently opposed development would set.

Recent illegal removal by the developer of several Historic Trees (which were supposed to remain on the property) was contested but without consequence. Two existing fruit trees will likely have to be removed to accommodate the Developer’s project. These trees remain lush and fruit-bearing without any watering (as shown in photos taken this fall).

Initially, and prior to the October 10th 2013 HRC compromise, the developer was required to plant 3 trees for each of the seven historic trees illegally removed because the planting of larger caliper trees as per CCMC did not provide insurance of survival. A total of 21 trees are indeed proposed for his new development, however one tree (the north center tree) cannot be planted, one of the newly proposed trees would replace yet another historic tree and two additional historic trees are to be removed completely, effectively bringing the number of trees designated for this property down to 20 with no historic landscape remaining.

Approval of HRC-14-146, SUB and four additional parking spaces to the last approved building plan of 2 duplex units to be developed will definitely change the footprint and scale of this new proposal of two four unit buildings. HRC-14-146 is essentially a new proposal and very similar to the one subject of discussion during previous Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and Historic Resources Commission hearings in which always significant public opposition has been represented. These facts were always acknowledged by all Boards and Commissions. Public opinion should continue to be considered as this will shape our City in the future.

The Historic Resources Commission should continue to focus on preserving Carson City’s Historic District. Previously negotiated and approved building plans for two duplex units on the property remain acceptable and can yet be pursued. It may also be suggested to review a speech by Art Hannafin at the HRC meeting from 11/10/2011 on this subject. Art Hannafin as quasi founder of the Historic Resources Commission talked then about his initial opposition to the location of the old Hospital and its effect on this City’s neighborhood. The development of the old hospital has since changed the landscape of Carson City’s Historic District which is evident with the amount of specially constructed office space to accommodate the Hospital that are now empty standing.

With many property owners in the Historic District opposing this new project we urge the public to retain the integrity of our nationally recognized neighborhood. On January 15, 2015 we will ask the Board of Supervisors to revert back to the February 9th, 2012, approved revised development of two, two-family dwelling (duplex) units and to an October 10th, 2013, HRC approved revised landscape plan. This type of development will better comport with and maintain the integrity of Carson City’s National Historic District.

In the future we recommend that HRC and the Planning Division share responsibilities and work in tandem regarding matters as such where both Commissions are ultimately involved. We ask for a more thorough investigation and consideration of all aspects, more oversight of compliance and speedy processes, but also for all Commissions to shape the future of this City with consideration of its past, suitable for a nationally recognized historic and tourist-inviting community.

We urge the Board of Supervisors to respect and value the opinion of Historic District property owners who have made the District what it is today and to stand by City guidelines, regulations and values appropriate for a nationally recognized area.

We invite the public to become familiar with (and support) our cause on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-the-Integrity-of-Carson-Citys-Histor...

A Carson City Board of Supervisor's Hearing on this subject is scheduled for: THURSDAY, January 15, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in the Carson City Community Center, Sierra Room, 851 East William Street, Carson City, Nevada.

Additional information regarding this Subject can be found at: http://www.carson.org, http://carson.org/index.aspx?page=6034

PDF File of agenda and supporting documents from 12/11/20 HRC-14-146 meeting is at: http://carson.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=43112

Sincerely,

Alexander Kirsch