Meeting Minutes
Boulder Town Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
February 8, 2007, 7:00 p.m.

Commissioners present: Elaine Roundy, Brian Dick, Eric Feiler, Mike Nelson; and Planning Coordinator Curtis Obershansly. Ray Gardner was absent. Commission Clerk, Peg Smith, took minutes.
Members of the public included Sergio Femenias, Bill Muse, Cookie and Pete Schaus, Blake Spalding, John Wolfer and Kathy McCance, Lee Franson, Sean Hayes, Tonya Crawford, Don Montoya, Colleen Thompson, Joe Parker, Robert Owen, Ashley Coombs, Gladys LeFevre, and Judi Davis.

Meeting Agenda
¬ Approve January 11 minutes
¬ Update on Schaus’ s plan for construction
¬ Discussion on employee housing and Bruce Parker’s response to re-zoning and other alternatives
¬ Potential subdivision of Lovato property and clustering
¬ Plan for Housing Forum and potluck on Feb 15
¬ Update on progress of Boulder General Plan
¬ Announcement of LUDMA (Land Use, Development, and Management Act) workshop in St. George on March 6th taught by Sydney Fonnesbeck
¬ Boulder Farmstead water issue and the effect on future subdivision applications

Brian called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The Commissioners reviewed the January 11 minutes, which Mike moved to approve, Eric seconded, and all approved.

Update on Schaus Building Plan
Pete presented the Schaus’s plan for building this spring. Their previously approved plan (from 2000) included three houses plus a bunkhouse; the plan now includes two houses plus the bunkhouse. The 33-acre property is not being sub-divided. No one had any questions or comments.

Discussion on Employee Housing and Response to Re-Zoning
Julie Ketchum’s house was purchased to provide employee housing for Hell’s Backbone Grill employees. Currently, Lower Boulder road is zoned for low density, residential dwellings. The town has asked their planning consultant, Bruce Parker, for recommendations on how to handle this type of new usage. Nothing official has happened yet; the Planning Commission is trying to seek out options and ideas before any applications or zoning requests are submitted, if they were to be.

Bruce strongly recommended an amendment to the General Plan and then to Boulder’s zoning ordinance, specifically to avoid unintended consequences. As currently stated, the ordinance would allow any single-family home anywhere in Boulder to be turned into a facility for employee housing. He recommended a more deliberate, decision-making process by which the town considers dwelling usage and locations than simply to allow things to occur.

Comments
• Eric said this area is actually zoned as “greenbelt multiple use,” which still specifies single-family dwelling.
• Curtis: Boulder’s definition of family from Ordinance 46, page 66 says only “one or more persons occupying a dwelling and living as a single housekeeping unit.” This current definition does not disqualify anyone in terms of numbers of persons occupying a home, numbers of bedrooms, fire safety, etc. At this moment, anyone could move any number of people into any house in Boulder, and the definition would fit. “One thing I don’t know is the grandfathering issue. This should be clarified down the line by redrafting the ordinance. I don’t know the law on this; Sidney Fonnesbeck would say that is not a legal term and offers no legal standing.” Curtis said he doesn’t know what might happen in the future, if Boulder does clarify its zoning ordinance or develops a new zoning map. He told Blake that he just doesn’t know what that might mean for her, and she should consider all possibilities if she is buying the house strictly to house her employees.
• Bill: My partner and I would like Blake to buy and we don’t want to take Blake’s money and then have her get in trouble. Let’s determine what the rules are now and not take it away from her.
• Blake: After talking to Judi, there is no conditional use permit that applies to this usage. I want to be in compliance and do things the right way. I thought this would be a good solution after last year’s problems with yurts and tents, etc. It is not a lodging house or a boarding house, but a rental, not much different from what other people are currently doing. These are people who are committed to full-time employment with us, and will include full-time residents, including my sister. Bill is helping us; he could get more money for this house, but he’s working with us on our financing. … Bill has also attached water to the property for greening it up …We’ve hired everyone in town who is able and willing to work. We have to hire from outside to meet our needs, but we’ve never had trouble finding people to work, only trouble finding places for them to stay. One of the considerations for hiring is how well they will be able to integrate with community. …I’ve spoken with several people, and most of our neighbors are supportive. We intend to be good neighbors, keeping good care of the place and being respectful.
• Eric: In greenbelt, multiple use, the table of uses calls out “accessory dwelling.” The intent of this is to allow farmers to house their employees; why not allow this usage too?
• Don: This does need to be addressed in the General Plan and in ordinances. I don’t see any protection for renters. Renters are entitled to some standard that one holds landlords to some standards on roads, sanitation, fire protection, etc. At this point, they can legally rent out anything, in any condition, safe or not. We need adequate, safe, and affordable housing.
• Blake: I have been working with state agencies to get some grants for low-income housing. There is more money out there, and I would be interested in talking with the town about helping secure some of this funding.

Potential Subdivision of Lovato Property and Clustering
The Lovato property has not been sold, but, according to Brian, an interested party has expressed interest in clustering, say 10 houses on one acre each, sharing a well and septic system and a common area, and saving as much green space as possible. They are wondering about town ordinances and whether they could buy with a guarantee of that usage being acceptable.
Eric mentioned the requirement for a road upgrade for a sub-division. Curtis gave a global overview of some of the considerations:
• Under current ordinances, the streets and easements are subtracted from the total acreage, in this case, 80 acres. On the face of it, the parcel could be sub-divided into approximately fourteen or so 5- acre parcels, subtracting the area needed for streets, etc..
• The buyer could request that the town pass a clustering ordinance with two or three different site-specific design templates. The Planning Commission would look at their conceptual plan and approve it, at which they buyer could sub-divide into 5-acre parcels with the remainder in common, or some other template that meets the basic density requirement.
• The buyer could not, as of this moment, be guaranteed of allowed clustering, but could buy with the intention of sub-dividing 5-acre parcels, assuming sufficient easements, etc.
• The property now has two lots of record (legally recorded plats) and a water right for each of those two. Those two lots could hook onto Boulder Farmstead water. However, those lots cannot be sub-divided dry, with no access to water. A private well can remain as a private system having seven hookups, but the owner must have a water right to put into that point of diversion.
Joe Parker expressed support for the Planning Commission trying to work with property owners, as long as health and safety requirements are met. Mike thought there could be an issue with available amperage from Garkane, as he has had some problems in that area; it would need to be researched. Blake said that clustering and co-housing are the way of the future, and we ought to think about developing those things here.

Plan for Housing Forum and Potluck , 6:30 p.m. on Feb 15
Brian reminded the group that the forum is not a decision-making meeting, but a discussion meeting. Broad-based community input is needed to help keep Boulder a place where all ages and income levels can live, and not become a haven only for second-home owners and rich people. He compared Boulder to his family: he had “over-protective parents” who tried to hold him back. Likewise, Boulder has its laws and ordinances that might be perceived as over-protective. “We need to follow our ordinances, but we can try to work with people, and not use rules against them.

Update on General Plan Progress
Bruce Parker has included only the LUDMA compliance so far. The Planning Commission needs to get back to including the new content. Curtis will work with Tom Barlow and Tim Clarke for the April meeting, and try to ship the new content draft back to Bruce.

Announcement of LUDMA Workshop
Brian announced a workshop on the Land Use Development and Management Act (LUDMA), March 6, Tuesday, conducted by Sydney Fonnesbeck. The town will pay the $40 registration fee.

Town Water Issue and Effect on Future Subdivision Applications
The Boulder Farmstead water meeting is Feb 10, at 7 p.m. for shareholders to vote on a proposal to open a discussion with the town on the town becoming a municipal water company, rather than a private company. Utah is allotted a finite amount of water; the state has given away more water rights than there is available water. Boulder Farmstead is faced with having to prove up on their 300 acre feet allotment by March 7, 2007, or lose their allotment. As a municipal company, an extension may be granted to prove up on the water. Only stockholders can participate in the discussion, but all can come listen.
This situation is not unique. All private water companies are facing the same realities. Gladys said the school district is also needing to prove up on water that could be lost.
Bill said the Town will pay the water company’s attorney to “do what needs to legally happen.”

The next scheduled meeting is March 8. Mike moved to adjourn the meeting, and Eric seconded the motion. Brian adjourned the meeting at 8 p.m.

Margaret Smith, Planning Commission Clerk Date

Approved:_________________________________ Date:______________________________________