RiverSage the ‘Proper’ Way to Develop Land
by Gus JarvisAug 20, 2009
Posted by: Erin Eddy
www.ridgwayland.com
LAY OF THE LAND – Lot 3 in the first phase of the RiverSage sits next to cottonwoods that line the Uncompahgre River. It also has magnificent views of the Sneffels and Cimarron mountain ranges. (Photos by Gus Jarvis)
slideshow
slideshow Phase One Lots Now Available
RIDGWAY – Six years since the inception of the RiverSage subdivision, two miles north of Ridgway near the banks of the Uncompahgre River, seven two-acre home sites are now available for purchase. The sites represent the first phase of the development and provide future residents clear views of the Sneffels and Cimarron mountain ranges as well as access to over 100 acres of surrounding open space and the adjacent 60-acre Dennis Weaver Memorial Park.
The project’s developer Rick Weaver, who has been busy overseeing road paving at the subdivision, said that the process to create and annex the subdivision with the Town of Ridgway was a lengthy, but ultimately is a “win-win” development for potential lot owners as well as the those who will enjoy the 60-acre park. The development also encompasses the philosophy of Weaver’s late father, actor and environmentalist Dennis Weaver.
“We really wanted to preserve the river corridor, wetlands and wildlife habitat,” Weaver said in an interview last week. “We tried to keep his vision in approaching this project. The only way we could do this is donate land and develop just enough lots to make it financially feasible. The town got a 60-acre park and we got the lots we needed. Everybody wins with this project.”
Lots in the first phase of the subdivision are priced to sell from $289,000. With its location on the outskirts of Ridgway and within one hour’s drive of Telluride, the subdivision is perfect for those who want to be surrounded by San Juan Mountain beauty but not too far from the conveniences of town.
“What is really great about it is you get a rural country, private feel but you are only four minutes from town,” Weaver said. “You are also only four minutes from town if you want to ride your bike on the path. People can even go down to the [Ridgway] State Park without even getting into a car.”
The entire RiverSage subdivision is broken up into three phases and will, when it is complete, have just 20 lots on 115 acres of land.
“There is a lot of open space out there and a lot of great mountain views with no homes in front of another,” Weaver said.
In keeping with his father’s vision, Weaver said the subdivision will be environmentally sensitive and wildlife friendly. Guidelines in place ensure that each home is not only elegantly designed but energy efficient and economical.
“One of the things that we are excited to do is have a green development,” he said. “We have instituted voluntary green building codes that are based loosely on codes that are in effect in Telluride and in Gunnison. Most of it involves good building practices. We felt it is a worthwhile thing to do and we are proud of the fact we have taken those voluntary steps. I think it is absolutely necessary to worry about conservation.”
RiverSage is ideal for those who regularly get outside for recreation and exercise. For mountain bikers, the Eagle Hill loop is adjacent to the development, and for the angler, the fly-fishing on the nearby Uncompahgre River is “great,” according to Weaver.
“We have had a lot of compliments on the [Dennis Weaver Memorial] Park and its trail system,” he said. “This project is all about preserving the river corridor and open space while having a limited density and limited visual impact project that includes green building. It is something that is conscious of our environmental needs as well as conservation needs and we think it is the proper way to develop a piece of land.”
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Ridgway Ranch and Mining Issues
Commissioners to Address Mining Claim Issues With Current Regulations
by Gus Jarvis Aug 13, 2009
Posted by Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com and www.ridgwayland.com
OURAY – Instead of drafting an entire new section to the county’s Land Use Code to regulate residential development on patented mining claims, the Ouray Board of County Commissioners on Monday generally agreed that they would schedule series of work sessions that would be dedicated to specific concerns surrounding residential development on mining claims in hopes of better enforcing or tweaking existing codes.
Monday’s discussion was the first opportunity for the commissioners to formally discuss what they had heard at a July 27 forum held to discuss possible new regulations on the development of mining claims, attended by close to 200 county residents. It was apparent at the meeting that the community is sharply divided over the need for regulating residential development on mining claims.
While County Commissioner Keith Meinert said he thought that he and his fellow commissioners had clearly defined their concerns and objectives when they first started the process of drafting new regulations, he agreed that the commissioners should specifically outline why they are concerned about residential development on mining claims.
“I think the objectives and concerns still exist,” Meinert said. “I want to continue to pursue this to achieve clear cut objectives and address clear cut concerns and maybe we need to spend some time enumerating exactly what those concerns and objectives are.”
Meinert continued by saying that there is a possibility of addressing those concerns with existing site development permit regulations and visual impact regulations.
“The possibility of achieving those objectives and concerns by better enforcement and better tweaking of existing regulations is something we need to explore rather than the new section of code, which we had thrown out as a discussion vehicle for the planning commission.”
The commissioners set up a list of “bite sized” concerns that need to be addressed in future work sessions. First, they agreed to work with County Assessor Susie Mayfield to address the value that mining claims are assessed. Currently mining claims are generally valued by the assessor at $1,000 per acre, rather than the value assigned to other categories of vacant land in the county. “One issue that, to me, stood out is this taxation issue,” Commissioner Heidi Albritton said. “The valuation of mining clams is a touchy topic and a bit of a Pandora’s box. We need to have a discussion on how to deal with that.” Albritton added that she understood that it would be an expensive and lengthy process to reassess each mining claim.
Commissioner Lynn Padgett suggested that the first step the county could take is a mass appraisal system of mining clams and that the county look to the U.S. Forest Service as a partner in coming up with a means to survey the mining claims so the county can have “an accurate picture of where the parcels are.”
Albritton cautioned her fellow commissioners that if the valuations of those properties were to be changed, the board would first need to be completely educated on how the change would affect property owners.
“We also need to be cognizant of the impact to those people who have owned those properties and don’t plan to build on them,” Albritton said. “I don’t think we have a choice in the matter but there are going to be ramifications and it will affect people in a significant way. It could be the difference of people hanging on to [a mining claim] or putting it on the market.”
The commissioners also said they still had not heard concerns from residents about the visual impacts of unregulated residential development on mining claims and agreed that the current visual impact regulations need to be addresses so they can be better enforced and possibly broadened to more areas. Meinert said their were “obvious shortcomings” with the visual impact code and that it is currently “unworkable and is unenforceable.
“It allows a kind of discretion by staff that puts staff in a difficult position,” Meinert said. “I think we need to put a lot more thought into the visual impact code.”
Albritton agreed by suggesting that the commissioners schedule “a decent amount of time to workshop our visual impact regulations. We all know there are issues with that section of code and then also have simultaneous discussions about expanding the visual impact corridors.”
Continuing on, the commissioners agreed that road grade issue needs to be addressed as well. Meinert suggested that there be, in the LUC, a variance process to allow for road grades above 12 percent.
“I think there needs to be a variance process and it needs to recognize that some need to be more than 12 percent,” Meinert said. “The other issue is the need for a permitting process before any blade is put to the earth. That would potentially address some of the issues in getting the right kind of engineering.”
He added that the “biggest stumbling block” to development in mining claims areas is they are up private roads.
“Our regulations were intended in keeping those primitive,” he said. “I am not trying to resolve the issue here but it is another area to be addressed.”
Along with that, Meinert said the commissioners need to look into whether or not the county will require owners who develop off primitive roads to sign a waiver that would take away the county’s liability in providing emergency services.
“Something that clearly forces them to recognize that what they are doing in that location may have consequences to them,” Meinert said. Padgett added that she is concerned with what responsibility the county has in taking care of wildfires around those mining claims.
The commissioners directed County Attorney Mary Deganhart to draft a resolution that would specifically outline what the commissioners intend to work on in upcoming work sessions. It was unclear at Monday’s meeting what role the Ouray County Planning Commission would play in each of the work sessions, but the commission would be invited to all of them.
by Gus Jarvis Aug 13, 2009
Posted by Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com and www.ridgwayland.com
OURAY – Instead of drafting an entire new section to the county’s Land Use Code to regulate residential development on patented mining claims, the Ouray Board of County Commissioners on Monday generally agreed that they would schedule series of work sessions that would be dedicated to specific concerns surrounding residential development on mining claims in hopes of better enforcing or tweaking existing codes.
Monday’s discussion was the first opportunity for the commissioners to formally discuss what they had heard at a July 27 forum held to discuss possible new regulations on the development of mining claims, attended by close to 200 county residents. It was apparent at the meeting that the community is sharply divided over the need for regulating residential development on mining claims.
While County Commissioner Keith Meinert said he thought that he and his fellow commissioners had clearly defined their concerns and objectives when they first started the process of drafting new regulations, he agreed that the commissioners should specifically outline why they are concerned about residential development on mining claims.
“I think the objectives and concerns still exist,” Meinert said. “I want to continue to pursue this to achieve clear cut objectives and address clear cut concerns and maybe we need to spend some time enumerating exactly what those concerns and objectives are.”
Meinert continued by saying that there is a possibility of addressing those concerns with existing site development permit regulations and visual impact regulations.
“The possibility of achieving those objectives and concerns by better enforcement and better tweaking of existing regulations is something we need to explore rather than the new section of code, which we had thrown out as a discussion vehicle for the planning commission.”
The commissioners set up a list of “bite sized” concerns that need to be addressed in future work sessions. First, they agreed to work with County Assessor Susie Mayfield to address the value that mining claims are assessed. Currently mining claims are generally valued by the assessor at $1,000 per acre, rather than the value assigned to other categories of vacant land in the county. “One issue that, to me, stood out is this taxation issue,” Commissioner Heidi Albritton said. “The valuation of mining clams is a touchy topic and a bit of a Pandora’s box. We need to have a discussion on how to deal with that.” Albritton added that she understood that it would be an expensive and lengthy process to reassess each mining claim.
Commissioner Lynn Padgett suggested that the first step the county could take is a mass appraisal system of mining clams and that the county look to the U.S. Forest Service as a partner in coming up with a means to survey the mining claims so the county can have “an accurate picture of where the parcels are.”
Albritton cautioned her fellow commissioners that if the valuations of those properties were to be changed, the board would first need to be completely educated on how the change would affect property owners.
“We also need to be cognizant of the impact to those people who have owned those properties and don’t plan to build on them,” Albritton said. “I don’t think we have a choice in the matter but there are going to be ramifications and it will affect people in a significant way. It could be the difference of people hanging on to [a mining claim] or putting it on the market.”
The commissioners also said they still had not heard concerns from residents about the visual impacts of unregulated residential development on mining claims and agreed that the current visual impact regulations need to be addresses so they can be better enforced and possibly broadened to more areas. Meinert said their were “obvious shortcomings” with the visual impact code and that it is currently “unworkable and is unenforceable.
“It allows a kind of discretion by staff that puts staff in a difficult position,” Meinert said. “I think we need to put a lot more thought into the visual impact code.”
Albritton agreed by suggesting that the commissioners schedule “a decent amount of time to workshop our visual impact regulations. We all know there are issues with that section of code and then also have simultaneous discussions about expanding the visual impact corridors.”
Continuing on, the commissioners agreed that road grade issue needs to be addressed as well. Meinert suggested that there be, in the LUC, a variance process to allow for road grades above 12 percent.
“I think there needs to be a variance process and it needs to recognize that some need to be more than 12 percent,” Meinert said. “The other issue is the need for a permitting process before any blade is put to the earth. That would potentially address some of the issues in getting the right kind of engineering.”
He added that the “biggest stumbling block” to development in mining claims areas is they are up private roads.
“Our regulations were intended in keeping those primitive,” he said. “I am not trying to resolve the issue here but it is another area to be addressed.”
Along with that, Meinert said the commissioners need to look into whether or not the county will require owners who develop off primitive roads to sign a waiver that would take away the county’s liability in providing emergency services.
“Something that clearly forces them to recognize that what they are doing in that location may have consequences to them,” Meinert said. Padgett added that she is concerned with what responsibility the county has in taking care of wildfires around those mining claims.
The commissioners directed County Attorney Mary Deganhart to draft a resolution that would specifically outline what the commissioners intend to work on in upcoming work sessions. It was unclear at Monday’s meeting what role the Ouray County Planning Commission would play in each of the work sessions, but the commission would be invited to all of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
