Mountain home-building compromise in the works
Committee offers suggestions on handling construction on Boulder County slopes
By Jason Gewirtz
Natural hazards, appearance and environmental surroundings should be considered in addition to slope when the county considers development of roughly 1,000 mountain parcels on steep slopes in Boulder County, according to a report discussed Tuesday.
That proposal — offered by the county's Steep Slope Advisory Committee — represents a compromise between the county's desire for broad mountain development regulations and landowners' desires to build dream homes in the mountains.
In addition to slope issues, the report offers suggestions on how to improve the county's site plan review process, which is used to approve mountain development proposals.
The committee's report will be the subject of a public hearing July 7 at 7 p.m. It then will be forwarded to the Boulder County Commissioners for a decision later this summer.
On Tuesday, the advisory group of seven mountain landowners and residents met to put the finishing touches on the report requested by the commissioners in March.
The slope advisory group was formed earlier this year after county land use officials presented a plan to limit development on steep slopes in the county. The original plan, which proposed building restrictions on land with slopes greater than 20 percent, met with disapproval from many mountain landowners who said the rules were too broad.
In Boulder County's mountains, there are roughly 1,000 undeveloped parcels of residential land with an average slope greater than 20 percent, according to Land Use Department statistics.
In its 26-page draft report, the advisory group outlined recommendations on five topics: natural hazards, natural values, aesthetics, visual impacts and communication.
The report states that the original county proposal to limit development on slopes greater than 20 percent was "worthwhile" but cast "too wide a net" in its effort to address growth issues in the mountains. In its recommendation, the group encourages the county to approach development issues on a site-by-site basis.
On the slope issue, the group offered several ideas including a "slope review hierarchy" where land on certain slopes might have to meet different review standards.
As a recommendation, the majority of the group favored a plan that would allow land with slopes less than 30 percent to undergo a "normal" review process. Land with slopes between 30 percent and 40 percent would undergo a "professional" review while land more than 40 percent would require an "engineering" review.
"None of these things forbid building," said committee member Sam Weaver. "They are all things that are going to trigger additional review."
The group also determined that slope of land should be measured using the area where a house would be located plus the area where a driveway would be located — as opposed to the overall average slope on an entire parcel of land.
As expected, the report goes beyond the slope issue to offer other ideas on improving the way mountain development proposals are considered.
Among other things, the report encourages changes in the county's site plan review process, which is used for development proposals in the mountains.
Under current rules, landowners do not meet with county planners when planners visit a site under consideration. The advisory group's recommendation is to allow landowners to be present so they can understand what the county is looking for and the county can learn why a landowner has decided on a specific location to build.
Members of the Land Use Coalition — a group of mountain landowners and residents who formed to protest the original slope restrictions — said they hope more work will be done on the document. Specifically, they prefer a section be added to help the county find ways to buy more mountain parcels as open space as a way to limit development.
"They haven't touched on the fact the county has $11 million to purchase property and none of that is designated for the mountains," said AJ Chamberlin, Land Use Coalition president.
Copies of the draft report are available at the Land Use Office by calling (303) 441-3930 or on the Internet at http://boco.co.gov/lu/.
June 23, 1999
Copyright © 1999 The Daily Camera.
Reprinted with permission.
For more information contact the Land Use Coalition at info@landusecoalition.org or call 303-666-7903.
Last updated January 24, 2002.
URL: http://landusecoalition.org/dc_slopes_article.htm
Page created by Patrick
and Patty Baker
http://home.earthlink.net/~patrickmbaker
Hosted by The Sugarloaf Internet Cooperative.
Slope Guidelines
The Boulder County Steep Slope Advisory Committee made recommendations about mountain development in five categories.
Natural Hazards
The county should perform a hazards assessment on properties to determine wildfire and floodplain risks; consider a slope review hierarchy where proposals on certain slopes receive different types of review.
Natural Values
Protection measures should include transferable development rights, General Improvement Districts and others, but they should be voluntary so landowners have a menu of options. All disturbance should be revegetated with native species when possible. Make distinctions between values to be preserved and those that can be disturbed, provided sound impact mitigation techniques are available.
Aesthetics
"Bigger" homes should not have "major" view impacts. Any area should be able to apply for a Rural Community District zoning designation, but there needs to be some identified unifying character to the area.
Visual Impacts
The county needs to determine impacts "from where" and "from how far away." Site plan review deals more with size than architecture when materials, location and compatibility should be primary concerns. To say steep slopes are categorically an aesthetics issue is too simplistic.
Communication
Work on developing clear definitions for site plan review criteria so landowners know what to expect. Landowners should be notified when county planners visit a location up for site plan review.