Jump to content
Since 1970s there has been a discussion about a lack of parking. For years there was no problem unless one defined it as one could not park within one block of their destination. Now with the TOTAL lack of required parking for new construction, there is a lack. Thank you Planning commission and cohorts City Commission. This is and was a total avoidable problem but our public officials have always lacked the guts to stand up for the public. If I remember, Cari and the gang paid $400,00 for a study to reduce parking on Lincoln Ave and increase safety hazards by allowing dangerous bump outs. The bump outs also make right turns hazardous and reduce parking spots. - YES, you got it right - reduce- plus do not help the handicapped. They made it hell to wheel my wife in a wheelchair. Our newest approved structure has GROSSLY inadequate parking but was still approved. In Sept 1977, it was discussed as to whether SBoat should have parking meters to help with "parking" problem and it was not approved Chamber meeting. If downtown employees would simply walk three blocks to work, Lincoln and its side streets are more open. What a concept - those that pay to exercise at SB HEALTH & REC and ski- are you ready for this? actually walk three blocks to work,
And forget reasonable parking requirements, which are now a joke because there aren't any.
$543,000 plus all salaries and expenses divided by the number of children cared for equals how much per child ? And yes the "one-time" expense can be stretched over the estimated life of the new building. What is the revenue per child compared to the cost per child ?
Thank you Steve and Scott. WOW! Scott, it isn't 1 spot deducted for being near transit , it is 11.4, 2 for creating new parking ??, and 2 can be waived. The required parking is 91 spots as follows : 3.66 for com'l, 82.5 renters, and 5 for employees. Where are the requirements for handicapped and guests both inside and outside of this complex ? Non-existent ??? Hmmmm? Looks like this project is 17% short of needed spots regardless of the "generosity" of the Planning Commission. Again and still the public is being harmed. The question is WHY?
There will be three Com'l spots plus the apartments. Their customers will only take a bus or walk to visit the com'l spots ? Right. It is sad for our community that this project might be approved as presented. Again, greed overcomes need. Again and again.
So if there'll be 60 units and 90 parking spots are the minimal norm (required is most City codes including SB ), then there should be at least 90 but I read above that 76 is an OK number because of "deductions". What the hell are deductions ? Cars that don't need parking spots ? Invisible cars ?
I recently read that most Colorado cities have a 1.5 parking spot requirement for each apartment and I remember Mark writing that is the standard his developments use so why is a deviation of this requirement even being considered. Each time adequate parking is omitted from a project the public suffers but the developers profit escalates. STOP IT NOW. Adequate parking must be a priority. Residents will not use o n l y public transportation. Will not and, in many cases, cannot. Build an apartment building with totally inadequate parking and then expect the public to fund a public downtown parking garage - yeah right !! Prevent the gouging now Imagine telling your children or grandchildren about the time when citizens could actually park on the streets they own in the good old days of 2015..
Scott, I wasn't clear. My thought is that a local developer (anyone) should take the lead in developing a mobile park or parks I do not think the County should pick one developer. Zoning changes should be requested. The affordable land is only within the County. One developer suggested the elimination of water/sewer tap fees. some sales taxes, and reduced property taxes would allow the building of affordable units -or that is what I read into it. If correct, the project would have to have restricted rents to provide affordable housing. Otherwise,a developer would end up with even higher profits as rents would quickly be at market rates. I am against any public $$$ being used. Zero. A mobile park (s) will stand on its own and need no public assistance but a zoning change is required. If lower cost ownership is a goal, mobile homes are part of the answer.
It appears to me that ,for a variety of reasons, land within the City limits of SS will not be zoned for mobile homes or mobile home parks. Accepting the reality of this, and to keep affordability it appears the best locations are in the County or OC/Hayden. Perhaps Scott Ford and Cari could take the lead to support a local developer ? Or even better a local developer could, and should, take the lead, which hasn't been done to my knowledge.. It appears a large mobile home park or several smaller ones can be constructed in a much shorter time span than a large apartment building and residents can own their units. By eliminating tap fees, sales taxes, and lowering or eliminating property taxes on apartment buildings of any size all that is being done is that the profits to the developer are increased as rents will be at or quickly rise to market conditions since there are no rent restrictions. If there are strict conditions, these moves could aid a developer but would anyone actually build with strict rent limits ?
It's interesting that there has been almost no serious mention of building a new mobile home park, which could include modular homes as Fisk Cr park does, and this could be done at both OC and Hayden. Requirements could be set in place to keep up these parks and public monies need not be part of these projects. Let us dispel the idea that these will be "trashy' soon after completion. West End village is over 30 yrs old and is pleasant. This is a quick and affordable solution but zoning must be changed to accomodate these projests. Also, Park models (mobile homes under 400 sq ft) could be considered. Whatcha think ?
Scott, a bond is not insurance and County Bonds usually have no deductible. Each County elected official is required to be bonded (no deductible ) and employees are also covered. A claim wouldn't affect premium. It could affect the renewal of a bond but Routt County has an excellent claim experience on its bonds so a renewal problem would probably not be any problem. Bottom line is that it is a win-win situation for the County.
Last login: Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |