High Country Advocate Staff Report
Salida, CO — Salida’s newly reconstituted City Council held its first meeting Monday night, swearing in new officials before immediately plunging into a contentious debate over riverside development that ended in procedural confusion when an emergency ordinance failed by a single vote.
The meeting began with the oath of office for newly elected officials at 6 p.m. After officials recited the oath to support the Constitution and laws of the United States, Colorado, and city ordinances, plaques were presented to outgoing council members.
“Well, that was all the good stuff for the people that wanted to take photos,” a voice said after the ceremony. “The rest of this is going to be fun for us.”
City Clerk Ms. Keller conducted roll call, confirming all council members present: Fontana, Stephens, Pappenfort, Rovinsky, Schreiner, and Martin, along with Mayor Justin Critelli. The consent agenda approving the meeting agenda and November 4 minutes passed unanimously. No one signed up for citizen comment.
The Property at the Crossroads
The first item of new business was Ordinance 2025-24, an emergency measure to change the zoning designation for 207 North D Street from MD (Mixed Use Downtown) back to MN (Mixed Use Neighborhood). The property, owned by the Kimmett family for generations, sits between Riverside Park and City Park along the Arkansas River.
Community Development Director Bill Almquist explained that both zoning designations allow the same commercial and residential uses, including restaurants, lounges, retail, and mixed-use development. The critical differences lie in dimensional standards.
Under MD zoning, development could extend to zero setbacks on all sides, potentially allowing a structure to occupy the entire buildable area up to 35 feet tall. Under MN zoning, the property would require five-foot side setbacks, a 10-foot front setback, and on-site parking for most uses.
The most contentious issue involved the riparian setback, a 40-foot buffer from the river’s high water mark. MD zoning exempts properties from this requirement. MN zoning does not.
Emergency ordinances require a two-thirds vote of council to pass, meaning five affirmative votes out of six council members. The mayor only votes in case of a tie.
Passionate Public Comment
Michael Kimmett emphasized a 2013 easement agreement with the city, arguing he was given development rights as part of a land swap for the river trail. “There’s no way you can have that with differentiated zoning there. You can’t have that with MN. You’ve got to have MD,” he said.
His daughters described living conditions affected by constant foot traffic and noise from the Scout Hut wave, including a 3 a.m. incident of spotlights shining into bedroom windows. One warned that zoning restrictions would force a sale to outside developers who “care a whole lot less about the neighbors in our community.”
Another Kimmett family member described plans for boutique shops and a quiet breakfast or lunch location, not “another structure that behaves as the Boat House with loud music into the evening hours and an ugly brick facade.” She warned: “For the sheer principle of how unjust this process has been, we’ll keep the space as ugly as it has been for decades. I’ll put it into a trust and keep it that way for generations if I have to.”
Michael Maramo of Ward 3 called it “the only last commercial waterfront property we have” and argued the city should honor agreements with multi-generational local families.
John Wood, who donated land for the river path extension past his property, supported riverfront development. “It’s about the last opportunity for actual riverfront development in the city of Salida. Where else is it going to occur?”
Neighboring property owner Laura Pomerenke countered that MN zoning still allows commercial uses as transitional zoning between downtown and residential areas. “We’re not trying to keep them from putting up a cafe or a business. We’re just trying to make it consistent with the neighborhood, consistent with the future land use map, and consistent with our city planners’ recommendations.”
The easement agreement “does not mention zoning. It does not mention setbacks. It allows for cantilevering over the sidewalk. And that’s it,” Pomerenke said.
Ed Colt raised the legal issue of spot zoning, warning that courts disfavor cases where one property receives different treatment without significant public benefit. “Spot zoning has been reversed by courts if it’s found to be spot zoning.”
Adam Shearer, calling in remotely, argued that MN zoning would make the property too constrained. “You’re really taking away a major property right of theirs that I just don’t think is fair to them.”
The Document That Changed the Debate
During the hearing, Michael Kimmett presented the 2013 easement agreement with the city. After a brief recess, the city attorney reviewed the document.
The agreement allows structures to cantilever a minimum of 12 feet above the river trail, effectively exempting that portion of the property from riparian setbacks regardless of zoning designation.
“Either zoning, whatever is, if this zone was zoned any, whatever it was zoned, we have to follow the easement agreement,” the attorney explained. The document only relates to the 12-foot clearance over the trail, not to all setback requirements.
This revelation undercut one of the main arguments for keeping MD zoning. The easement already granted the Kimmetts the ability to build over the river trail.
The agreement also transferred ownership of part of the former D Street right-of-way to the Kimmetts, including a parking easement area estimated at 2,000 to 3,000 square feet.
Council Debate
Council Member Alisa Pappenfort, who later made the motion to approve the ordinance, expressed concern about spot zoning creating legal liability. She noted neighbors were consulting attorneys about the issue.
Councilman Aaron Stephens argued the easement agreement already protected the Kimmetts’ development plans under MN zoning. “It sounds like the Kimmetts are gonna be able to do the project the way they would want to if it’s MN because of the easement.”
Council Member Fontana pushed back against characterizing the discussion as “flip-flopping,” noting it was a response to referendum threats. She pointed out that the 45-foot height possibility had already been eliminated since that option only applies west of F Street.
Concerns were raised about future transferability. One member said, “I’m concerned about the long range future. When this land passes on to the next person and they build right up to the edges, nobody wants to see that.”
New Councilman Joey Rovinsky said neighbors were trying to shut the door on the Kimmetts. “They sold that land for all these residential units, and now it just seems like those neighbors are trying to shut the door on the people that originally owned it.”
Almquist explained that the easement’s 12-foot cantilever provision only applied to building over the river trail, not to the entire property, leaving other setback requirements in place under MN zoning.
The Vote and the Confusion
Council Member Pappenfort moved to approve Ordinance 2025-24. Council Member Martin seconded.
The roll call vote:
- Stephens: No
- Rovinsky: No
- Pappenfort: Yes
- Schreiner: Yes
- Fontana: Yes
- Martin: Yes
Mayor Critelli initially announced “So the motion passes,” before being immediately corrected.
“Does it have to be five? It has to be five. So it doesn’t pass,” voices said.
Then came the mayor’s confusion about voting authority.
“I get to vote. I might vote. I don’t get to vote,” Critelli said in rapid succession.
The city attorney explained that emergency ordinances require five affirmative votes. The mayor only votes in case of a tie.
“If it was tied, you break the vote, but it doesn’t address the situation,” the attorney said. “But right now the mayor only votes in a tie and it did not tie and it did not get five. So the emergency ordinance has failed.”
“Thank God I didn’t have to vote,” Critelli said with obvious relief. “That would have been super weird.”
The property will remain zoned MD.
Orientation and Reports
The meeting continued with board portal training showing council members how to access agendas and packets electronically.
“It’s not like this all the time,” one council member reassured new officials as laughter rippled through the room. “It’s usually not as crazy.”
Council members provided brief reports on their committee assignments before the meeting adjourned.
What Happens Next
The property remains zoned MD (Mixed Use Downtown). The Kimmett family retains the ability to develop with minimal setbacks and can pay fees in lieu of providing on-site parking.
The spot zoning issue remains unresolved. Several speakers mentioned neighbors consulting attorneys, raising the possibility of legal challenges to the MD designation.
The 2013 easement agreement will continue to govern development rights related to the river trail regardless of zoning, protecting the Kimmetts’ ability to build over the trail with proper clearance.
For the new council, the vote demonstrated the difficulty of achieving the five-vote supermajority required for emergency ordinances on controversial issues.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent.
