Jump to content
Seems to me that the market for tiny houses etc suggests that there should be a market for nice cute modest condos for tourists. That there are plenty of options of big luxury condos, but the baby boomer couple taking a trip doesn't need or even often want some large condo.
The design of the not "workforce" units sharing a private courtyard is similar to that of luxury hotels.
That the courtyard was needed for "ventilation" is such a lie. Any number of buildings manage ventilation of large floors. No, it was a way to create luxury after already maxing out their parking.
The discussion by city council was primarily focused on the topic that Connell should have disclosed, prior to considering the application, his issues with the landlord. It appears that if he had disclosed those issues then city council would have been inclined to allow him to hear the issue.
And the city council discussion on allowing the variance would probably have been different because the portion that discussed odors would been seen as a complaint for Connell's office, not for the retail store where everything, by law, is sealed.
I think any conspiracy is that this will soon enough become more of a hotel. Developer says that their lender will force it to be built as condominiums, but developer says they have no intent to sell any. But why should we trust developer to be stupid?
Developer says that "teachers and nurses" would be interested in the apartments, but I think most teachers and nurses make less than $50,000 to $100,000 per year. There are a limited number of people willing to pay $2,000 a month to live in a small apartment even if downtown. But there are far more tourists willing to pay $100+ per night for downtown lodging.
Seems to me that there isn't an issue of a LACK of housing for people making $50,000 to $100,000 per year. The issue in attracting people in that salary range to SB is not that they cannot find a place to live, but that their salary and current location allows them to have a nice house with acreage and they are looking at a small condo or apt if relocating to Steamboat. And if they want to live in a tiny place in order to live downtown in a city then it makes more sense to do that in a big city where there are a dozen places with live music every night and so on.
I find it interesting that Durango is held up as a version of success. They still have many relocations and many bear kills of relocated bears returning. From the point of view of not killing bears then Durango's bear policies are a disaster. And if you go to their website then you'll see that they say that bird feeders, fruit trees and so on are also sources of food for bears.
The only plan that I have found that successfully deals with bears in terms of minimizing relocations which generally results in the bears returning and being killed is an active program of denying bears access to the city. Where they first remove all bears from the area and then deny bears access to the area. That is not done with a massive fence, but by having people shoot bears with nonlethal weapons to drive them away. Also, they commonly put radio collars on bears so that they can track bears seeking to enter the city and then drive them away.
It should be absolutely essential that we remove the urbanized bears that have learned how to find food in the city.
Durango newspaper has stories of bears attacking campers, bear ripping apart a garage door and so on. Yes, they can say that they have fewer incidents of bears getting into trash, but that doesn't mean their bear program has done any good in not killing nearly 100 bears a year.
Meanwhile, the County Commissioners refuse to consider what other counties have done to allow septic systems on less than 5 acres so that the designated growth area known as Stagecoach could accept growth.
Planning staff worked with the applicant for 18 months during which time they never informed planning board or city council that these a project with these sort of variances may be on it's way. And thus planning staff never informed planing board or city council that they may wish to review the community code performance standards prior to a project requesting sweeping variances.
Instead, Planning Staff maintains what amounts to a secret set of performance standards of variances that have been approved.and evaluates new projects more so against those variances than the actual performance code.
An example of the irrelevance of the written performance is that features such as parapets and towers representing part of the roof area are exempt from the height requirements. So the "tower" at Olympian is taller than code as a claimed interesting architectural feature. And so then 1125 Lincoln has the audacity to claim they aren't as tall as the Olympian's tower, but they are allowed to compare apples with oranges because they are comparing their general roof height against another building's tower. The stupid hunk of roof sticking way up in the air is viewed as a tower and not counted.
Thus, their building is one story taller than previous buildings via secret performance standards that will then allow the next development to be one story taller than this project.
"Always more artistic than athletic, Kramer, 17, ...."
A statement showing the major bias in this community and newspaper for athletics. It shows the level of expectation to participate in athletics that an article on musicians feels forced to explain why a musician isn't participating in athletics.
BTW, it would appear that these two musicians have received more in college scholarships than any local athletes this year.
I think it is clear that you implied Democrats started it by pointing to Democrats as being the comparable example. That implies the Democrats started it.
It is clearly misleading to refer to Democrats handling of Judge Owen's delayed confirmation when they were retaliating in kind for what Republicans had done to Clinton's nominations for the same open seat.
I think worse than the ethical complaints is that they are supposed to act as if judges and decide whether the applicant meets the community development code. They are not supposed to say that the code is wrong.
It is like someone adamantly opposed to alcohol voting whether to approve a liquor license. The liquor license is supposed to be considered on whether it is following the law, not whether SB should ban alcohol.
Heather Sloop's statements on the issue are not based in the community code. There is no provision stating the retail mj stores may not be near a hardware store. She should disqualify herself because she has stated an unwillingness to follow the community code when considering this application.
Likewise, Tony Connell refused to consider the community code when considering this application.
Meanwhile, Scott Ford abdicated the responsibility of hearing the issue because he was being asked to resolve an ambiguity in the code and not say no because of the ambiguity. He should have stated whether he thinks line of sight or travel distance is the right way to measure distance from the park.
So why bring up Judge Owen nomination and mention only Democratic delays when their inactions were intentionally at the time payback for similar Republican inactions?
From a legal perspective, there isn't a legal requirement that Senate does has to do anything on anything. The Senate only has a public service duty and even that apparently no longer applies in election years.
Last login: Sunday, April 24, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |