Jump to content
I believe "caretaker units" in town have to be detached, i.e. separated by at least 4 feet. Not sure what the county's rules are but I think you have it right.
Your argument seems to be rural secondary dwellings have the same or less impact than guests in larger rural homes. Until you have some data for your belief, I believe the opposite, there is a larger impact from the secondary units. But it doesn't really matter - the secondary dwellings are an additional impact that did not exist before, or did so illegally. Of course we can expect a surge of new units now that they are approved. The simple statements from many residents wanting these secondary units speaks to the added density we are about to welcome.
Again, we are going from allowing one dwelling unit per 35 acres to allowing two dwelling units per 35 acres. That is a big deal.
This is much more impact than guests or additions in large homes. For one, the guests have always been there and the additions have always been legal, while secondary units are a new up-zoning of allowed dwelling units. For two, guests are temporary, dwellings will be rented for longer terms, likely year round.
People live in the country because they value that space so much. Obviously from public comments made some portion of county residents will object to having more neighbors in their meadow the same way we in town might object to taller buildings. My point is this new vision is a significantly different rural density and should be vested into area plans before it appears in area regulations.
Scott, how many homes do you know of where 2 or more families share the home? I can't think of one. Overall I don't follow your logic. If your examples of "why secondary units are moot" were viable on any serious scale, there would be no need to allow secondary units.
I believe the BCC letter omits some ground covered in their process that would help those new to this issue.
The standard in question is also the state's standard: one dwelling unit allowed per 35 acres. This is fundamental to Colorado's current rural character. Allowing two dwelling units per 35 acres, even if one dwelling is limited to a small caretaker unit, will increase rural density. Surely that is the thrust of what the BCC is trying to do. Indeed there was a rationale expressed about adding housing inventory, and potential affordable housing in these extra units.
Not sure why the BCC argues this change amounts to allowing home additions? It is not. If it were, why bother allowing second units?
Having a large listserve willing to reply to an email prompt is great. I'll just hope those supporting emails were published in the hearing materials. Ben Beall's letter suggests they were not. Yes it takes effort to show up.
I don't have a strong opinion about the merits, but two dwelling units per 35 acres is a big deal. In my view the master plan should be updated in a comprehensive plan discussion and have denser zoning become our vision before the regulations go there. The BCC is rendering the master plan meaningless.
"That vision may be outdated, it may not be. The only way to adequately determine if the RCMP and RCZRs are outdated is to initiate a new community-based planning process in which community stakeholders engage each other...."
Completely agree. Let the people lead.
The last master plan update fell on its face. Poorly attended and poorly presented, it was basically an offering of "where do you want the condos to go".
Now, after their failure to update our plans, we see the county and the city allowing significant aberrations few citizens of either jurisdiction like. Ben is right, lacking real effort at plan updates, there is no mandate for these far reaching actions by our current governments.
We have no idea if these changes reflect the vision of the residents of Routt County. BCC, if you don't like the existing plans, don't walk away from them. Rather, make the effort necessary to change them into the guiding document they were meant to be. That is your job, my friends, no?
The city clearly feels this is a benefit to everyone. So everyone should pay for it - out of the city budget. The city saw fit to fund these lights for many years and I see no reason why that should change.
Another attempt at a new BID property tax to pay for things the city wants is going to meet the same failure.
You need $50,000 to run for County Commissioner?
Thanks Janet. An enjoyable read indeed.
Scott, I don't see much use in criticizing developers. With good city decisions bad development doesn't happen. Maximizing return on investment is understandable. Developers typically push for more. Its understandable. I might do the same. Bad development requires the blessing of the city.
The city manager wants city staff to be more accommodating to development. He obviously has no interest in citizens' recent complaints about the variance goodies these developers are getting from the city. This new "community engagement" falls short even in the article announcing it.
River View is removed a bit from the downtown character. Not on Lincoln and also a good bit lower than Lincoln. In my view the approvals on Lincoln and the west end of Yampa have more impact on downtown character.
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |