Jump to content
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"That vision may be outdated, it may not be. The only way to adequately determine if the RCMP and RCZRs are outdated is to initiate a new community-based planning process in which community stakeholders engage each other...."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.
Perhaps. If the past has shown us anything, it is the purchasing power of second home buyers in our market. So yes, 1125 Lincoln as "workforce housing" is eventually a myth. We will see its units merging into luxury second homes.
But I doubt "affordable" or "workforce housing" will matter much going forward. In this part of the cycle, square foot value is all that matters. Just watch the next approvals.
I'll be curious to see the size of River View. They vacated their streets years ago, so those FAR calcs may be inflated on larger parcel areas.
That is the correct analogy. What is it about this town, no boom is big enough? Lowering standards to squeeze more construction into an already heated economy is the dumbest kind of growth. Reading Suiter's comments, I sympathize with a city planner who agrees with the unanimous public commentary that we should adhere to our codes.
"... there are people on the city staff who are anti-development.”
I disagree with the city manager. Can anyone recall when this city has said no to a development application?
His concern is that multiple high level people have complained to him about planning obstacles? I am only able to see a lawsuit and regular letters published with complaints that planning is allowing too many excessive size and other variances to our city code. Might these high level people come forward and make their case to the public? That would be the true meaning of "community engagement".
Last login: Thursday, February 16, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |