Karen_Dixon

Karen_Dixon 4 years ago on Our View: Time to end silence after 700 vote

Scare tactics for what exactly? I have no clue what you are talking about. I think the community lost on this deal. You think the opposite. 61% thinks the opposite. This is okay. Are you not able to disagree in a civil manner? I won't perpetuate this, so go ahead and get in the last word. I'll see you at our next Planning policy worksession & I look forward to your input.

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years ago on Let's Vote issue committee: Why did 61 percent say ‘no’?

Scott - you are the one putting spin on my words. You act as if I have personally attacked you in some way. I'm curious. Are you a property owner? What do you have the right to do with your property?

Let's Vote - Thanks for your letter. Most of the reasons given further the point I was trying to make in the other blog - not the point Scott Wedel claims I was trying to make. This was presented as a development and voted on as if it were a development, both in City Council & in the referendum process. The distinction between an annexation application & development application was muddied. I was part of the process that perpetuated that confusion - and for that I am sorry. I got caught up in the trees & lost sight of the forest.

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years ago on Our View: Time to end silence after 700 vote

Scott The point being made consisted of more than 1 sentence. Additionally confusion is not synonymous with ignorance. You put meaning behind my words that was not there.

I did not lose an election. I have no stake in the property. No one voted for me or against me. I placed no blame on any voters for any particular outcome. City officials treated this as a development rather than an annexation. It is no surprise that "a" development was voted down through the democratic process.(A process which I hold in high regard, by the way) It is, in my opinion, unfortunate that the city treated it as a development, presented it as a development, & did nothing to clarify the distinction. It is also unfortunate, again in my opinion, that the city has possibly lost the opportunity to control what happens on the land. Admittedly however, we don't know that we've lost it because we don't know what the land owner is going to do next. We do know that he can do another Storm Mountain Ranch by right. And through a fairly simple county process, we also know that he can do another Maribou or Catamount or Alpine Mountain Ranch. We do know that he cannot do what the WSSAP declares that this community wants him to do without going through the annexation process again. (Do you think it's likely he or anyone who buys the property will choose that path?) We also know that if he chooses to sell it in 35's & the buyers of those 35's, as you suggest, have the intent to annex, that they will each have to come through the annexation process individually. Each application is time & money. 15 applications, one at a time, is more costly & less efficient. That isn't rocket science.

You are way off base Scott. Left field in fact. Confused possibly? LOL.

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years ago on Our View: Time to end silence after 700 vote

Wow Scott. Misinterpretation rules when something strikes a nerve. I did not call anyone ignorant. What I said was that the process created confusion over what the application actually was. That's a discredit to the CITY not the Citizens. And YES - property owners have rights in America. 1 per 35 in this state is their development right. I do not believe that type of development is good for the future of Steamboat for this particular piece of property. Nor is it environmentally responsible development. Perhaps you should apply for Planning Commission?

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years ago on City hires planning director

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years ago on Our View: Time to end silence after 700 vote

In my opinion, this was a straightforward case of confusion. People thought they were voting on a development. That misconception was started & perpetuated by the city process - shame on us. The fact is, this was not a development. It was a zoning acquisition. It was an opportunity for the city to take control of land that has been deemed beneficial to the city. That deeming was done through a lengthy city wide process during which smart folks took a broad view of the valley - from 10,000' in the air & with a 50-100 year calendar - to determine where the city COULD grow when it was necessary. The timing of that zoning acquisition should have been irrelevant. (When you're planning for your retirement, you don't turn down a savings account at the age of 25 because you're not ready to retire yet, do you?) The size of the acquisition should also be irrelevant, except however that we should take control of as much as we can within our UGB when we get the chance. Why would you ever want to use valuable resources taking small chunks at a time when you can get it all at once? Do the principles of Efficiency Fiduciary Responsibility mean anything to you folks who want to use city resources to go through this process one small parcel at a time - over and over and over?

The question posed to the city by the city should have been a simple one. Do you want control of what happens on this land or don't you? Period. That is all an annexation is. It is not a development. Development still must go through an arduous approvals process. Land is entitled to be developed because this is America and that's how we operate. The intensity at which it is allowed to develop depends on state laws & local zoning codes. This particular piece of land - the land that we have designated as our targeted future growth area - currently has the right to develop at 1 unit per 35 acres. We, the city, have no control over that. That rate does NOT further our community goals & is NOT beneficial to the future of the city. That density level is a HUGE waste of precious land and at that rate, ultimately causes more and more of our precious land to be used up for human habitation. That is the principle of sprawl. And THAT is what we had the chance to avoid if we had gained control of that land. Who knows what they will ultimately do with the land - it is currently out of our control. We threw away a perfectly good opportunity to bank land for our future needs.

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years ago on Ed and Cheri Trousil: Humble explanation

Thanks for the reference George & for posting as much info as you have.

I'm not taking sides on this one. However.... I must grin at the irony. In the city's haste to gobble up development rights & prevent development in favor of recreational land, it overlooked a very simple & straightforward clause that allows the LACK of development to prevent it from recreating on that land. (albeit the development is a small cabin - but still, it makes me laugh.)

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years ago on Ed and Cheri Trousil: Humble explanation

George - your map shows the trails in yellow, but does not depict the different sections. If I have read your uploads correctly, it appears that there are 2 easements & 1 of them is divided into 6 sections referred to as "Primitive Mountain Easements 1-6". Do you have a map that graphically breaks out the total of 7 sections of these easements? I would be interested in seeing that on your website if you have it or could quickly generate it. If I've missed it, please point me in the right direction. Thanks.

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years ago on Steamboat says ‘no’ to 700

studio & pit Your comments about Loui are slanderous and uncalled for. Public servants open themselves up as prime targets for such slander, unfortunately, but there is still no excuse for it. You should be ashamed. And just for the record, you should not be able to hide behind your blog names for such accusations. studionsl = Robert Nestora pitpoodle = Loretta Van Norstrand

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years, 1 month ago on Our View: The path from here

Scott Wedel, You are mistaken. The Grand was a development agreement. The 700 parcel was an annexation agreement. The 2 agreements have very different rights. Vesting for a particular project runs with the development agreement and is granted project by project.

A parcel within the city limits (whenever in time that it became part of the city - your parcel for instance) - has the right to EXPECT that it can be developed within the limits of it's legal zoning designation & it has the right to expect city services to be available (for a fee) when it is granted a development approval. (Critical point: Zoning can & does change over time as deemed necessary or desirable by the municipality.) Steamboat has rezoned parcels many times at it's own discretion, it has granted rezones for applicants requesting it, and it has denied rezones. Let's say you want to develop or redevelop your parcel into a multifamily condominium complex and the zoning allows it. You do not have the right to do that simply because you are in the city limits. You must first apply and be granted a development agreement through the city process. [Theoretically] you cannot be denied if you comply with the legally binding zoning standards - but you still must go through the process to ensure you comply. It is not until your application is approved that you have the right to develop it per that particular agreement as long as you start your project within a particular period of time. It is no different for your neighbor. And it would have been no different for any project on the 700 parcel.

0