At Home
Advertisement
Steamboat Springs — Steamboat Springs City Council President Susan Dellinger said Monday that the city’s governing body is doing too much, too fast.
Tonight, the City Council is scheduled to discuss a temporary ban on demolition permit applications for historic structures, an issue that rose to prominence during a meeting with the city’s Historic Preservation Advisory Commission last week. A temporary ban, or moratorium, would last for 90 days and could be implemented at tonight’s meeting. Supporters such as Councilman Towny Anderson say a moratorium would allow city staff and council members to discuss historic preservation issues and decide whether to change city codes, and how to manage widespread growth in Steamboat Springs without further demolition of historic structures in the interim.
But Dellinger said the City Council is taking a reactionary role by addressing the issue so abruptly.
“I think we are in danger of elevating this to a priority that we have not yet assigned it,” Dellinger said of the historic preservation debate. “We’re kind of running and gunning, and I don’t think the community can benefit that way.”
If approved, the moratorium would be the second implemented by the council this year.
In February, the council implemented a 90-day moratorium on vacation home rental permits, in order to address public debate about homes that are rented to short-term vacationers in residential neighborhoods. The council extended that moratorium in April before approving a revised vacation home rental ordinance in late July.
Anderson said the vacation rental moratorium led to a positive result.
“The one thing we did do is put an enforcement mechanism in place — and the process, as contentious as it may have gotten, allowed people to be heard,” Anderson said. “If the moratorium helps bring voices to the table, then that’s great. That’s what democracy is all about.”
Also tonight, the City Council will decide whether to create an Employee Housing Fund in the city’s budget, and discuss funding options for a proposed, $34 million recreation center that will appear on the ballot for Steamboat voters Nov. 6.
RSS
Community comments
Note: The Steamboat Pilot & Today doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
another_local (anonymous)
August 21, 2007 at 6:51 a.m.
› Suggest removal
How about a moratorium on rec centers
beentheredonethat
August 21, 2007 at 8:34 a.m.
› Suggest removal
How about a moratorium on anything related to employee or affordable housing?
Look instead to solve the traffic problem.
mfishon1 (anonymous)
August 21, 2007 at 9:15 a.m.
› Suggest removal
If you are of the opinion that the voters of this city should be the ones to utimately decide if we want this rec center then you need to communicate that message to the city council. Remember the quote in last weeks paper, “Strong and Lanning acknowledged that if the funding was done without a tax increase, approving the recreation center could occur without a vote.”
Even if you don't have an opinion on this rec center yet you need to let the council know that at a minimum we, the voters, should be allowed to decide if this center is wanted by the residents here.
If you can't make it to the meeting tonight then at least email the council…see link below.
http://www.steamboatsprings.net/index.ph…
rodcarew (anonymous)
August 21, 2007 at 11:53 a.m.
› Suggest removal
The traffic problem and the affordable housing problem are, to a certain degree, related. People commuting here from far flung places for jobs contributes to the traffic problem. Aff. housing located on transit routes or within biking distance of things, within city boundaries, would actually help ease the traffic problem, especially during peak times.
beentheredonethat
August 21, 2007 at 3:15 p.m.
› Suggest removal
please explain how affordable housing would impact the commercial and industrial traffic that flows uninterrupted through steamboat everyday.
rodcarew (anonymous)
August 22, 2007 at 9:58 a.m.
› Suggest removal
You're right, it wouldn't impact the commercial/industrial traffic, because those folks have to drive for their jobs, but it could impact those commuting to their jobs or running an errand or visiting a friend or whatever by using an alternative mode of transportation. If they are forced to live in outlying communities because of no AH, then they are forced to drive. My point is that AH and traffic are both big problems and we should not focus on one to the detriment of the other, because they are inter-related.
beentheredonethat
August 22, 2007 at 1:27 p.m.
› Suggest removal
to date there has been NO focus on the traffic issue and way too much on affordable housing. there is no balance.
do you recall any official discussion by this or previous city councils on designing and implementing a traffic plan for the present and future?
rodcarew (anonymous)
August 22, 2007 at 4:59 p.m.
› Suggest removal
I agree that there should be more focus on traffic issues. Now that they've taken the first step in addressing affordable housing, I predict the community will now turn it's sights to traffic-something everyone has to deal with. The City has a Mobility and Circulation Plan, adopted in the late 90s that looked at a bypass and, ultimately, they decided against it on the grounds it was too damaging to Howelsen Hill. Instead, they agreed to focus on alternative transportation, which we all know went practically nowhere. The time is now to resurrect the bypass discussion along with increased transit and pedestrian .
ColoradoNative (anonymous)
August 22, 2007 at 7 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Downtown traffic. Can't imagine a more pressing issue for city council to address. Steamboat is still a small little town but those few blocks downtown are becoming a nightmare. Time to bite the bullet now! Steamboat citizens speak up!
beentheredonethat
August 22, 2007 at 7:54 p.m.
› Suggest removal
suggestions:
divert west bound traffic, into steamboat, onto Curve Drive, 13th street through a tunnel onto Howelsen Hill Drive continuing on River Road.
no west bound traffic on Lincoln Ave at all
one way east bound in the middle of Lincoln Ave, using freed up space to develop pedestrian and bike friendly areas adjacent to current sidewalks.
parking facility built on the current rodeo grounds where commuters and tourists park and walk into town or are provided with park and shuttle services by the city.
Comments anyone?
bubba
August 22, 2007 at 8:37 p.m.
› Suggest removal
I don't think that is a bad idea; there really isn't room for a main route through town, the idea of bypassing town entirely would be too costly and ineffective, as a lot of the traffic is coming to town, not through it.
I'm not sure how effective the parking facility would be, as people can park at Stockbridge and ride the bus the rest of the way in, or in the Meadows lot (in summer) and do the same, but those are never full. Is the parking at the rodeo already at capacity on weekdays? Couldn't people already park there and walk to work? Does anyone? Seems like a structure there might be overkill, and you would be shocked at how much structured parking costs, per space.
bubba
August 22, 2007 at 8:39 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Of course, on re-reading your post, I think you may have your east and your west confused, but we knew what you meant.
rodcarew (anonymous)
August 23, 2007 at 8:43 a.m.
› Suggest removal
I like your idea, beentheredonethat, on increasing pedestrian areas downtown with diverted traffic, but I think that it is important to keep two way traffic downtown for two reasons: one, one way streets tend to turn into raceways and second, for the viability of downtown businesses. Your idea about the parking garage location has merit, but here's an alternative idea: build no more parking downtown, thus increasing the viability of transit use, thus reducing traffic in the area. I think a bypass needs to be discussed again and I think it ought to be diverted on both ends of downtown, avoid Brooklyn and its residents, be decked over through Howelsen Parkway (with greenspace over the top of it), tunneled through the hillside and then either down 13th or back to 40.
Post a comment (Requires free registration)
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.