Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues geo‑hazard slope-definition amendment to May after technical debate and public concerns
Summary
Commission debated a proposed geo‑hazard code change that would define how average slope is calculated for buildable areas; commissioners asked for clearer language on whether the average applies to the buildable envelope and how access/driveways crossing steep slopes are handled, and continued the amendment to the second meeting in May for a work session.
The Morgan County Planning Commission continued consideration of a geo‑hazard text amendment that would clarify how the county calculates 'average slope' for purposes of determining buildable areas and the existing 25% slope prohibition.
John Beargard, the geotechnical presenter, explained contour-based average-slope calculations and said that calculating slope by contour better reflects the site than simply dividing high point by low point. Commissioners and members of the public raised concerns that the draft language could unintentionally render entire large parcels unbuildable if the average slope of the whole parcel were used rather than the average of a defined building envelope and access route.
Staff told commissioners the intent is to allow calculation of an average slope for the proposed building envelope (including access) so that property owners with bench areas could build while avoiding disturbance of slopes greater than 25 percent, and that mitigation measures such as retaining walls or geotechnical work could be required. Commissioners asked staff to clarify the draft language to explicitly state that the 'average slope' calculation applies to the building envelope (including necessary access) rather than the entire parcel.
Given the technical nature of the discussion and public requests for clearer drafting, staff proposed and the commission agreed to a work session with the county geologist and engineers to rework the language; the commission then moved to continue the public hearing and consider a revised draft at the second meeting in May (May 28).
