Jump to content
Scott, the opposite is true of my interest in "future water". Simply put - water is required for growth, there is increasing competition for water and of course we will need water for later annexations too. The city once held that annexations had to bring their own water. That was a philosophy allowing for MORE growth, not less.
Please educate us on the "future water source". Is it via senior water rights we can purchase today? Would these be junior water rights? What is that cost? Etc...
I still find this hard to believe. Trying to imagine, if I were elected to city council, the conversation wherein city staff tells me, "we want to write that you said x, y, and z. It's more convincing when x, y, and z are coming from you, an elected official, Cool?"
Who says yes to that?
Fake city councilors? I never voted for Mike Lane.
In the past City Council had helium balloons placed to so everyone could see the heights of a proposed building. That would be a good idea in this case, given the controversial nature of the project.
I have to take it the Pilot continues to print Melanie Sturm columns because her partisan scolds and pot stirring increase website traffic. Where is the value to readers? Does this piece educate?
The column is barely rational. One Sturm sentence acknowledges a grave issue, "the Russian influence in our democracy is an intolerable threat." But before and after that remark, the rest of her column consistently turns our focus away from that serious event to small minded jabs at Democrats: its sour grapes, Obama was weak, Clinton's flaws, mis-guided punditry.
The Pilot is obligated to pass on similar writing from local readers, and I like reading what neighboring conservatives feel. Thank you for doing that. But when it comes to choices of syndicated columnists, please do better.
Some of the entry level products are likely finding their pro-formas no longer work amidst inflating costs and a shortage of skilled labor. This would be the part of the cycle where speculative luxury construction can afford to keep going. Their market is price elastic, following another reality.
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.
Last login: Saturday, February 25, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |