Meeting Minutes
Boulder Town Planning Commission
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
May 11, 2006, 8:00 p.m.

Commissioners present: Elaine Roundy, Connie Reid, Eric Feiler, and Mike Nelson. Brian Dick was absent. Also present were secretary, Peg Smith; and Planning Coordinator, Curtis Oberhansly.
At least 42 other people were present for the majority of the meeting, specifically for the yurt discussion: Don and Tia Montoya, Sergio Femenias, Cookie and Pete Schaus, Walt Gove, Breck and Becky Crystal, Lisa Varga, Tim Clarke, Eric Bresselsmith, Cynthia Low, Anselm Spring, Kristen and Wulf Barsch, Clifford Fuller, Meredith Ruiz, Kathy McCance, Bob and Naomi Brems, Susan Heaton, Carrie and Mike Ryan, Bill Muse, Blake Spalding, Ray Gardner, Kay Ripplinger, Wendell Roundy, Jeff and Ana Sanders, Judi Davis, Susan and Mike Richards, Pearl Low, and David (from BOSS).(A few other individuals were present but not signed in.)
Mike called the meeting to order at 8:05. Eric moved to approve the agenda for the meeting, Elaine seconded the motion, and all approved. The commission reviewed the April 13 minutes. With a correction previously noted by Judi Davis, the minutes were approved, with Connie making that motion and Eric seconding.
Meeting Agenda
• Hear Mike Nelson's request for conditional use permit
• View presentation on alternative housing and yurt living, then conduct discussion
• Conduct Public Hearing on proposed revisions to Ordinance 46D regarding use of RVs on personal property
Mike Nelson’s Conditional Use Request
Mike removed himself from the commission chair position; Eric Feiler took his place. Mike is applying for a conditional use permit under Ordinance 46B for temporary use of an RV during construction. He submitted papers demonstrating that his septic system is in place and approved by SW Public Health; his well is in, he has running water. None of the commissioners had additional questions after Eric read 46B aloud. Connie moved to approve the permit, Elaine seconded the motion, and all approved.
Discussion on Alternative Housing
Mike reassumed the chair and introduced the topic. Becky and Don will do a lead-in Powerpoint presentation, followed by open discussion. (These minutes attempt to capture the basic flow and content of the discussion that ensued.)
Don addressed various types of alternative housing, including yurts, Earth Ship homes; straw bale homes; homes built from cord word, tires, adobe; earth bag and dome houses, hogans, kivas, and others. His photos depicted traditional versions of these, as well as modern interpretations. His main points were that diversity within Boulder is a core strength of the community; preferences for different types of dwellings merely reflect that diversity. And housing affordability is a problem for many Boulderites that could be remedied in creative ways that allow for different housing styles and could continue to foster Boulder’s diversity.

Becky’s presentation dealt specifically with yurt living. She and Breck (and others) want yurts to become accepted as permanent dwelling options in Boulder, assuming septic availability. >From an engineering perspective, yurts can withstand high winds (100mph+) and heavy snow loads, as well as being cool and comfortable in summer heat. They can be assembled by the owner, and can contain as many amenities as any modern, framed house. They are not “camping tents,” Yurt dwellers love them because they are “as comfortable as any home” but one can still feel closer to nature in them, and not have to endure the toxicity of normal building materials .Their drawback at present is that they do not meet insulation standards set forth in most building codes. However, other communities, including Castle Valley, Utah, do allow them. Leda Vaughn, the housing authority in Castle Valley says yurts are now classified as temporary structures, in that building permits aren’t issued for housing that can’t be insured, but they do include a stipulation that yurts can be lived in as permanent dwellings. Boulder currently allows yurts as storage units. Becky wants yurts to be allowable for permanent, full-time living quarters, provided state sanitation guidelines are met. Three families now live in yurts. They all would like to remain in Boulder, in their yurts. (Becky can provide anyone interested with the specifics she referenced in the presentation.)

Mike opened the topic for discussion. Naomi objected to yurts on four points:: 1) there must be a reason they’re not allowed as housing in Garfield County now, 2) the rest of us have to have our buildings inspected for health and safety---why are yurts allowed a pass? 3) Becky’s presentation included beautiful pictures of classy, well-landscaped yurt dwellings, but she doesn’t see that as a reality in the Boulder yurts, and, 4) she expressed concern that a large community of yurts would generally decrease property values in Boulder.
Blake expressed confusion about information she was told years ago by town officials that yurts were OK. Mike said most of those that are now allowed in town were may have been allowed under conditional use permits or were built as storage units. Breck countered that a copy of minutes from those meetings showed that the BOSS request didn’t specify the nature of their use.

Bill acknowledged some conflicting information. Originally, he had issued Breck a permit, but the Garfield County building inspector has since objected. As mayor, he is looking to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Town Council on what Boulder should do. Any housing must meet minimum state sanitation requirements, but Boulder can override Garfield County restrictions if it decides so. Boulder would have to specifically mention yurts as allowable housing, given their fundamental differences from traditional structures, and it was a misconception before that they were legal.

Blake disagreed with Naomi’s concern about lowering of property values. Yurts are becoming a vogue thing among many people, she said. Blake owns other property in Crestone, Colorado, which includes 14,000 sq.ft homes and yurts, both of which are covered in zoning ordinances. Her property value there has increased 20 times since she bought it. Personally, she doesn’t like trailers but wouldn’t try to say other people can’t live in them. Don agreed, saying that communities, such as Santa Fe, that include alternative housing in their codes have not been experiencing decreasing property values.
Breck wondered how any raw land that is improved with septic system and water could diminish in value. But he emphasized that his and Becky’s preference for yurt living is based on something more fundamental: “We don’t want the traditional house. We love our round house.” He even speculated that their felt-covered house may actually pass insulation codes. Then he stated that log houses were originally considered alternative housing because they didn’t meet the same building standards as stick frame houses. “Larry and Judi had to fight to be able to build their log house,” he said. They are willing to put in a septic system and a well, and they want to stay in their yurt, as do other families.

Anselm cited the Declaration of Independence (“pursuit of happiness”…) and Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution that would seem to protect one’s rights not specifically denied. He ridiculed the argument that the building inspector rejected the yurt because the conditions he would inspect for did not exist. Susan stated that living in Boulder, in a yurt made her very happy. She said she sold her North Carolina home for $500K, and could afford a traditional home here, but prefers yurt living.

Tim pointed out that diversity is a noble cause and we should try to sustain that in Boulder. Lot sizes and building styles are part of that, as well as being able to choose a house that doesn’t cost $200K. “It’s a good thing to keep the town diverse, and not become an Aspen where the ‘billionaires are buying out the millionaires.’” He said the General Plan does not reference aesthetic regulations in any type of dwelling and that singling out yurts because they are different is unfair. Property values will continue to rise because land is limited. Yurts just need to meet current sanitation requirements. Tim was also speaking on behalf of Scotty in favor of yurts. Again, the confusion arose about Jimmy Johnson (County Building Inspector) at some point indicating yurts were OK. Anselm said Martina had asked Jimmy specifically about her plan to put in yurts, and he said “fine.”

Wulf questioned why the mere lack of mentioning yurts in Boulder ordinances makes them illegal. “We don’t specifically mention any other building technique,” he said. He then delivered to the commission a copy of a letter written by David Holladay expressing his “impassioned plea” in favor of alternative housing. Wulf continued, “Alternative housing was the way of life originally in Boulder; why do things have to change now? The reason I’m in America is because I have freedom of choice of living here that I don’t have in any other area. In Boulder, all good things can be possible. What we don’t want to do is create laws and rules that infringe on our rights.”

Walt brought up the aspect of affordable housing and the fact that yurts enable people to have housing that is affordable for them. Blake said the most pressing problem facing their business is the inability of getting employees and that she has to turn away people who want to work here because, “we have nowhere to put anymore workers.”
Naomi asked why the discussion was being framed as “alternative housing.” Bill said many of the same issues would need to be resolved with other types of dwellings. For example, he said, “we built our house out of recycled garbage.”
Curtis listed several issues to consider:
1. Ownership of property and the designation of a single-family dwelling is one question, but another dwelling next to your own house (as a rental?) becomes a multiple-family zone.
2. Low income rentals is another issue, and how to handle them
3. Sanitation is a state that is unavoidable. It may be possible to have a separate bathhouse. (Breck commented that contrary to Chad Reader’s statement several weeks ago, that composting toilets are legal in Grand County.)
4. Requirement of some sort of approved waste facility.
5. Yurts don’t meet the building code, but localities can use conditional use permits, renewable every x years to provide a method for defining criteria that are otherwise hard to stipulate. For example, as with the RV ordinance 46D, adjacent landowners may need to be satisfied.
6. Issues raised by yurts are applicable to other housing. For example, conditional use permits could be used to include different criteria on septic systems, even landscaping. More research on Utah’s new “conservation law” needs to be done before recommending options.
Bill, speaking for Lisa, said she supports yurts provided an appropriate septic system is available. Research needs to be done too on whether hot and cold running water is a state requirement, along with the composting toilet question. He said we need to define criteria for inspection. Wulf said the inspector works for us. If we define the rules, he inspects to them.

Due to the time, Mike concluded that discussion. A public hearing will convene Thursday, May 25 at 8 p.m. to hear further comments on alternative housing. Clifford then asked about a 100-year-old log cabin on his property that needs to be moved. It has no plumbing or wiring, and never did. Where does it fall in the definition of acceptable structures on private land? “Good question,” said Curtis. “Where do you draw the line? Just because you don’t want to put it on a solid foundation or with plumbing, is it allowable?”

Bill asked that the Commission conduct its research as soon as possible to present recommendations to the Town for action. Tim asked if Jimmy Johnson shouldn’t be consulted on specific building code issues, such as fire exits, etc.
Public Hearing on Ordinance 46D
Mike asked for motion to open the public hearing. Eric so moved, with Connie seconding the motion. All approved moving into public hearing. Curtis presented the issues with 46D as currently written:
• Ordinance became too broad after trying to please all people and Marvin (city attorney) added his words.
• Despite intent, the ordinance leaves a loophole for sprouting up of trailer parks.
• There are no criteria about proximity to property lines or notifying adjacent property owners of plan, about maintaining certain condition of the land, etc.
• Spirit of ordinance was to accommodate landowners and their families/friends on a temporary basis, but was drafted so broadly that landowner scan store trailers there.
• Don’t put burden on Judi to issue and track permits.
• The intent is not a commercial relationship, not a rental, it is for temporary occupancy, and to accommodate a property owner.
Curtis would recommend replacing the 90 day permit in the ordinance with a Conditional Use hearing. The applicant would be required to come before the Commission to present a specific plan.

Wulf proposed a 90-day moratorium on the RV ordinance to give time for addressing. Connie said two trailers aren’t allowed to hook up to Farmstead water; doesn’t that restrict them from permanent usage?

Judi said the original intent of the ordinance was to allow family to visit and stay close to the host family. It wasn’t just for absentee landowners to stay for awhile. Curtis repeated his concern about the lack of criteria about consideration of neighbors, and thought it could be addressed with a time limitation. Wulf thought the stipulation in the ordinance that the RV could have a self-contained bathroom undermines the town’s concern with septic systems.

Curtis said that Garfield County itself addresses this exact issue through a conditional use permit. His county neighbor needed to obtain a building permit for installing his septic and water systems, and still needed to appear in Panguitch to obtain a conditional use permit for his trailer. “So we do have precedence within Garfield County on handling this topic.”
Tim said that whatever we do must be easily enforceable. Eric said Ray Gardner is the enforcer, as violations of ordinances are typically Class C misdemeanors. Curtis said neighbors themselves tend to provide automatic enforcement---they notice and complain.
Eric asked if it is appropriate for the Commission to re-address the issue if the original plan was to allow grandfathered uses of RVs. “If we now adopt a conditional use permit, can we re-address the permits already issued?” That was an open question.

With no additional comments or questions, Mike asked for a motion to close the public hearing, which Connie made and Eric seconded. The public hearing was closed.

Next meeting, May 25, will be another public hearing on alternative housing, as well as a discussion on a recommendation by the Commission on how to deal with Ordinance 46D. In the meantime, the General Plan has been reviewed and commented on, and is ready for “wordsmithing” before being re-introduced and reviewed by the Commission and the public.

Connie moved to adjourn the meeting, Eric seconded it, and Mike adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m.

Margaret Smith Date
Planning Commission Clerk

Approved:_________________________________ Date:______________________________________