Steve Lewis

Steve Lewis 2 days, 12 hours ago on Our view: What are we waiting for?

Speaking of housing units, SB700 is on council agenda tonight. A Colorado developer is interested in working with the 700 property. They will be making a presentation to City Council. This is only a presentation, no development plan yet.

http://docs.steamboatsprings.net/sirepub/cache/2/3pfw4z1gezhsjwmqm102b2vh/19940305032016093242494.PDF

http://docs.steamboatsprings.net/sirepub/cache/2/3pfw4z1gezhsjwmqm102b2vh/19940405032016093243774.PDF

For some reason City doc links seem to change, so you may need this link if those don't work :

http://docs.steamboatsprings.net/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=425&doctype=AGENDA

0

Steve Lewis 4 days, 9 hours ago on Our view: What are we waiting for?

In regard to the merits of the question, I am troubled to read the Pilot's willingness to wholly ignore sensible counter arguments. Doug's link offers several to choose from.

With Hayden having placed infrastructure for many available lots, does the Pilot not grasp that Hayden needs growth to occur within their tax district?

I respect that our County government has been well run. But Steamboat Springs is trying to recover from very poor city government in recent years. Our recent council election was all about RESTORING TRUST in government. The Pilot is not helping with its willingness to bypass correct process. A recent editorial supported, in one project alone, 8 variances to local city codes. Seeing the subsequent vote - Kathi Meyer stood alone in recognizing this was going too far, it remains obvious that Steamboat City government is unwilling to follow rules.

There is no substitute for good process. Expediency can be "uncomplicated", but that choice to bypass correct process has burned the city time after time. Truly disappointed that the Pilot suggests a housing committee offers an uncomplicated route to bypass Routt Planning Commission. A far better editorial would say the Pilot is ready to support and facilitate a county master plan update.

0

Steve Lewis 4 days, 10 hours ago on Do you support the idea of allowing rural property owners within 5 miles of Routt County cities and towns to create secondary housing units?

The Pilot's practice of increasingly one-sided editorials is concerning. One-sided editorials issued in tandem with Pilot polls will achieve a self-serving result that poorly serves public interest.

http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/2016/apr/30/our-view-what-are-we-waiting/

The Pilot editorial could easily homor the opposing arguments but does not. In the hearing, Commissioner Brookshire has a lot of support for these sentiments:

http://www.co.routt.co.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/04262016-650?packet=true

"Commissioner Brookshire stated that it is totally obvious that the regulations could not be relaxed without significant changes to the Master Plan. He said that he does not want rural Routt County to compete for growth with the municipalities that want it. He stated that growth should be directed to the municipalities and designated growth centers. Commissioner Brookshire also cited concerns with increased traffic on County Roads, as well as with increased demand for infrastructure, fire and emergency services and maintenance costs to the County. He said that he is not opposed to SDUs on properties like the Frisell subdivision which is served by a good road and other infrastructure and is adjacent to the City, but suggested that this example is the exception to the rule."

0

Steve Lewis 4 days, 13 hours ago on Our view: What are we waiting for?

Thanks Doug, is there also text or a link for the rationale given by County Planning Commission?

0

Steve Lewis 5 days, 4 hours ago on Our view: What are we waiting for?

Bypassing community and county plans is the WRONG way to go. A far better editorial would say the Pilot is ready to support and facilitate a county master plan update.

Didn't we just learn how much our governments need to follow better process in their actions?

0

Steve Lewis 5 days, 11 hours ago on City Council approves downtown apartment project

A public minded city honors its community's adopted rules.

Its called the Community Development Code for a reason.

0

Steve Lewis 6 days, 7 hours ago on City Council approves downtown apartment project

Really? Base area allowed heights are: RR1: 63 ft, RR2: 75 ft, G1: 75 ft, G2: 105 ft

It will be interesting to see public reaction when this building is built. And sad, as I think people will be upset. Unfortunately another 4 just like it will already have similar size approved at that point.

Sad indeed.

0

Steve Lewis 1 week ago on City Council approves downtown apartment project

I agree, John. Though I would say this is very much the city's intended consequence. City planning wrote as much in their arguments justifying the variances.

Too bad the vast majority of this coming downtown density and large size will be second home condos.

0

Prev