RIDGWAY – Over 130 residents packed into the Ouray County 4-H Event Center Thursday evening to hear about controversial changes proposed for Section 9 of the County Land Use Code, which sets visual impact standards for development.
Reviews were mixed.
And while Ouray County Planning Commission members, Ouray County commissioners and staff as well as involved citizens spent eight months (and 26 work sessions) on the presentation, the process of approving an updated version of Section 9 is only in the beginning stages, should the commissioners decide to go forward with the lengthy approval process that includes a public process at the planning commission level and then ultimately at the commissioner for final approval.
Commissioner Lynn Padgett, who hosted the evening’s presentation, told the crowd that the county already has visual impact regulations in Section 9, but that it’s broken.
“It is very difficult for staff to interpret and citizens to understand,” Padgett said of what now exists, “and it doesn’t get consistent results.” Furthermore, Padgett said, an effective set of visual impact codes is needed because the county’s Master Plan, adopted in 1999, mandates the importance of protecting and preserving the “visually significant and sensitive areas of Ouray County that provide the scenic backdrops and vistas that all residents and visitors of Ouray County enjoy.”
Under the current form of Section 9, blending (using natural colors on structures) and screening (berms, vegetation, landscaping) are not assured when new residences are built; consensus is that the language of the code is vague, unclear and subjective. In addition, the current form uses a “complicated and ineffective” point system with such inherent deficiencies as allowing the parcel size to trump all other blending and/or screening requirements.
With that in mind, Padgett said the proposed revision of Section 9 aims to balance right-to-build and private property rights while maintaining the scenic values, countywide. In the proposed changes, only buildings visible from view corridors will be required to comply with regulations concerning the visual impact corridor, which includes locations 1.5 miles on either side of all numbered county roads, U.S. Forest Service roads and Bureau of Land Management roads. Only buildings visible in those view corridors are subject to the visual impact regulations.
Developers of buildings visible from view corridors, under the proposed regulations, will undergo a new and relatively simple tier system. Under Tier 1, builders will have to comply with objective criteria – but get, in return, a streamlined process delivering a predictable outcome. Criteria for Tier 1 includes a maximum of 2,350 square feet in total size and a 20 feet height limit.
“Tier 1 is intended to be simpler and easier for those who want a modest house,” Padgett said. “This is actually easier, we think, if you are building a smaller more modest house than the current regulations are.”
If a builder wants more flexibility and a larger size, Tier 2 offers a combination of techniques mitigating visual impacts may be used; including the use of natural materials, varying roof lines, integration of the structure with the natural environment and repeating natural elements (form, line, color, texture, and scale).
Under Tier 2, “there is no limit on square footage,” Padgett said. “The only thing these regulations say, is if it is visible from one of those roads, is that it blend and not break the skyline on the escarpment.”
Through new regulations, Padgett said, the county hopes to minimize setting any possible silhouette against the skyline on the escarpment, while at the same time working to “help define this better and make it consistent and fair.” Padgett suggested that near the edge of Log Hill Mesa, new developments be only allowed approximately 200 feet back from the edge to accomplish this, allowing, however, that more work on this section of the proposed code changes is needed.
Finally, if a development doesn’t meet the Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards, staff decisions can be appealed through the Board of Visual Appeals and the commissioners with a final decision.
A number of questions remain to be answered on the proposed regulations including remodels, non-conforming parcels, historically accurate buildings, structures other than buildings (communication towers, alternative energy installments), and the definition of ridgeline and escarpment.
Overall, the crowd had a mixed reaction, during the public comment portion of the meeting. Some residents had concerns about specific points of the proposal, while others simply don’t like the notion of changing regulations.
Attorney Andy Mueller, speaking for resident Todd Gray, voiced concerns about setback regulations from the edge of Log Hill Mesa.
“Todd is very concerned about the 200 foot setback,” Mueller said. “When you take 200 feet off the edge of the escarpment, it will take away [the building area of] a significant portion of his property.”
“I am very concerned with the proposed regulations,” resident Mac Fellin said. “I think they are too onerous,” and it is very difficult “to keep the subjectivity out” of the decision-making process.
“What blends or not is in the eye of the beholder.”
But Randy Parker told the commissioners that they were on the right track with their proposal.
“Thank you for all the hard work you have put in,” Parker said. “It is pretty clear that you have tried to stay within the goals of the master plan. I appreciate that. I think you have the concept right and I really do appreciate it.”
Resident and developer Rick Weaver suggested that the new version of the code in Tier 1 should consider allowing larger homes, when a portion is built underground.
“If a builder or owner is willing to put a portion of that home under ground where the visual impact is zero, consider enabling them to build a bigger home in that case,” Weaver said. “I think you have done a nice job with this, especially getting rid of the point system. I think that it is a good improvement.”
The commissioners will take written comments from the public on a survey that was available, assimilate that with public input from the meeting and make a decision to officially direct the planning commission, by resolution, to move forward and work on the proposal. From there, a planning commission recommendation will go to the commissioners for a final approval.
“We had a great turnout of citizens who offered great input on the concepts of the proposed revisions,” Padgett said on Friday. “I appreciate the opportunity to work for our actively involved and passionate citizens. The BOCC, PC and staff received really useful comments at the meeting and we received very detailed and thoughtful responses to the citizen survey we handed out at the meeting.
“I do wish we didn't have to have a time limit for verbal comments, but we wanted to give everyone the chance to be heard, and we thought if we went past 9 p.m., people would leave without hearing everyone's comments. I hope people will understand that the two-page survey is a chance to give very specific and helpful feedback to the BOCC, and these will go into the public record.”
Surveys can be found at the county’s website ouraycountyco.gov.
Post a Comment