Moffat County Commissioners

Moffat County Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting

11/18/2003

Moffat County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 18, 2003

The Moffat County Planning Commission met at the Courthouse Annex on November 18, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. Roy McAnally called the meeting to order. The following were present:

Members Guests
Roy McAnally Terry Wattles
Joe Ence Cliff Hutton
Terry Carwile Roy Mason
Sheila Brennise Chris Nichols
Mile Rieser
Staff Lynn Barclay
Sue Graler Audrey Amaday/K27
Marianna Raftopoulos, ex-officio Ann Franklin
Bob Grubb

Approval of Minutes – November 4, 2003
McAnally made two clarifications and Brennise made one spelling correction. Ence motioned to accept minutes as corrected. Brennise seconded. Motion carried.

Old Business: none New Business: none

Discussion Items:
Fencing – Graler presented the revision to the fencing information that will be added to the Design Standards Section. The PC agreed this would be acceptable.

Fire Protection – Graler explained: this also would be an appropriate item to put in the Design Standards Section and a draft outline has been handed out to start discussion of this topic. The fire department has mentioned issues in the past and the Natural Resources department is beginning work on implementation of the Fire Plan. Ann Franklin clarified that the plan will be evaluating existing subdivisions that have been identified as at risk. Chris Nichols asked about road design, he stated concerns about reaching some locations on some of the roads, specifically subdivisions north of Yampa Valley Electric. Graler explained that is a subdivision with over 35 acre lots and it was not required to go through the planning process. Nichols stated the Fire District is looking for some kind of sign-off for approval of subdivisions, to make sure they’re in the District or if not, then they need to apply. Graler read the draft (see attachment ‘A’) and asked if item A. and B. would be what the District is looking for. Nichols responded that if the roads were not acceptable they wouldn’t want to sign-off. Roy Mason restated the fire trucks and emergency vehicles cannot go in on roads that are not maintained, and it looks like we don’t have a say on roads built in areas with over 35 acres. Marianna agreed, but explained that now a developer would have to go the Road & Bridge Department to get a driveway permit to access the county road so there is some control. Franklin asked if this is only for new development. Graler confirmed this, but explained when the Zoning Resolution is revised that fire protection overlay zone could be created that would show where extra requirements are necessary. Also with this overlay zone existing structures could be considered non-conforming uses and given a time period to mitigate the fire risks and bring the property into compliance. Nichols questioned that Item C. would give any developer the opportunity to opt out of getting in the district, taking the teeth out of the ordinance. Graler stated that this is county wide – so we need a way to address those areas that are too far away to be included in a district, such as Wilderness Ranch. Nichols commented that the example plan of Alachua is good. Franklin asked Mason if they have a concern about signage. Mason stated that good signage helps in emergency situations. Ence mentioned the discussion of a master sign for a subdivision that was held at a previous meeting regarding long-term maintenance of a master sign. Graler asked Mason if signage was a requirement to be accepted into the fire district. Mason responded that currently there is not a check-off list. Graler suggested that if the Fire district had qualifications then those issues could be addressed when a subdivision tries to petition into the district. Mason said that wouldn’t work for land being developed that is already in the district. Other discussion occurred regarding a check-off with the fire district being developed. Ann Franklin explained the Fire Plan only addresses existing development it doesn’t address future development. Discussion was held on developing a “fire protection” over lay zone that would indicate fire precautions required for development in specific areas. If these overlay zones are developed then existing properties could be considered “non-conforming” uses and be required to meet the standards within a 5 – 10 year time frame depending upon the severity of the situation. It was also mentioned that the Home Ignition Zone is traditionally called “defensible space” in Colorado. It was noted that we can change that language to make it more compatible with existing documents. This item will be researched further, Graler will meet with Franklin to work on this, and it will be brought back to the Planning Commission meeting on January 20th at 6:30pm. Those present will be sent a reminder about that meeting.

Planned Unit Development – PC reviewed and agreed with the edits from last meeting.

Fee Structure has not been researched completely yet.

Graler mentioned the information page that was inserted into the subdivision regulations at some time. The building inspector has reviewed this and stated that the information is governed by the building codes. PC agreed this could be removed from the subdivision regulations during the revision process.

Mobile Home & Travel Trailer Parks –Bob Grubb suggested information about the water supply should be required. Graler stated that through mobile home zoning community water and sewer is required. McAnally suggested the zoning resolution be referenced. Discussion was held regarding the radio and TV antenna requirement. PC decided to leave it in and if anyone develops a mobile home park this issue could be handled on a case-by-case basis. For 6(f), it was decided to remove “in areas subject to gusty winds” and add “at time of development” after ‘shall be provided’. Item #4 Fire Fighting and Prevention will be sent to the Fire District for comments. Discussion was held regarding item (i) storage sheds; it was decided that if the developer had an issue with this they could ask for a waiver.

The County Attorney suggested that a fee waiver for non-profits should not be listed, but handled on a case-by-case basis if requested.

Announcements - The other items for the agenda will be moved to the next meeting.
The next Planning Commission meeting will be December 2, 2003 at 6:30 pm at the Annex.

Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.

Back to where you came from.