Minutes from Public Hearing
Boulder Town Planning Commission
June 8, 2006, 8:00 p.m.

Commissioners present: Elaine Roundy, Eric Feiler, Mike Nelson, and Brian Dick. Connie Reid was absent. Also present were secretary, Peg Smith; and Planning Coordinator, Curtis Oberhansly. Jimmy Johnson, the Garfield County building inspector was present.

At least 34 other persons were present for the majority of the meeting. Those who signed in were: Fay and Fred Jepsen, Don and Tia Montoya, Dan S. Gardiner, Abbie Gardiner, Sergio Femenias, Cookie and Pete Schaus, Tim Clarke, Eric Scott Bresselsmith, Carrie and Mike Ryan, Blake Spalding, Kristen and Wulf Barsch, Kay and Larry Ripplinger, Susan Richards, Becky and Breck Crystal, Anselm Spring, Aram and Trina Barsch, Laura McKerracher, Mark and Katie Austin, Bob and Naomi Brems, Mike Ryan, Mark Nelson, Lisa Varga, Brynn Brodie, Dianne Oberhansly.

Mike called the meeting to order at 8:06. Eric moved to approve the agenda for the meeting, Brian seconded the motion, and all approved. The commission reviewed the May 25 minutes. With the corrections noted, Eric moved to approve them, with Elaine seconding. All approved.

Meeting Agenda
• PUBLIC HEARING –Alternative Housing
• PUBLIC HEARING –Recommend revisions to subdivision ordinance regarding for (a) master planning and (b) requirements for roads and streets.
• Discuss additional dumpsters.
• Plan agenda for June 22 public meeting.

Public Hearing: Alternative Housing
(The following comments are excerpts from the discussion and not a complete transcription. This meeting, along with all public meetings as of May 1, 2006, was tape recorded.)
Eric made a motion to open the public hearing, and Brian seconded the motion; all approved. Tim apologized on behalf of the mayor for his absence, and also thanked Jimmy Johnson for traveling from Panguitch to attend the meeting. Mike announced that the outcome of the public hearing will be a work session by the Planning Commission to discuss the issue (without additional public comment). He then acknowledged Naomi’s request that speakers stand and introduce themselves.

Aram read aloud the letter Dave Holladay had submitted several weeks ago. The letter was a plea that the town not alienate those who choose to live in their own types of housing. He also read Stacy Davis’s letter in support of allowing yurts. Mike then suggested that with Jimmy Johnson attending, time might be better spent directing specific questions to him.
Jimmy said that, conceptually, yurts and other types of housing are not a problem as long as they meet sanitation standards, have running water, and meet minimum building code requirements. However, he said, from what he has seen so far in Boulder, none of the yurts meet those requirements. If a bathhouse were in close proximity to a dwelling, he wouldn’t have a problem with that. He said, “I have a problem with people coming in and putting up whatever they want without checking on requirements.” He said bathhouse distance from a dwelling isn’t specified, but should be reasonable, “like the old outhouses.”

Blake said she uses her yurt as a bedroom because she can’t sleep inside her house due to a mold problem. She thought the “septic issue” isn’t one---“no one really wants no bathroom.” But she said that even after her new house is built her preference would be to continue sleeping in her yurt. Can she do so? Jimmy said he would have to look at the plat plan and consider such cases individually. He reiterated: “I don’t even look at alternative buildings [that can’t be inspected by code]. Only a conditional use permit could allow alternative structures, assuming they have health approval and water and septic in place.

Curtis reiterated that any type of dwelling over $1000 in value must conform to the Uniform Building Code (UBC). (Jimmy stated that the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) is actually the current standard; in 2007 the 2006 codes will be in effect) Jimmy is hired by Boulder to interpret this code, which covers everything except electrical.

Eric Feiler commented that the only code yurts don’t meet is energy efficiency. Jimmy said he doesn’t have any information to inspect against and was not aware of exceptions to the Energy Conservation Code. He uses a program that calculates results from the data he feeds in; those results indicate whether a building passes or doesn’t. He simply has no data available now that gives him a starting point for inspecting. He said this is no different from straw bale or rastra houses---if someone could give him the information that would satisfy the engineering requirements, as well as those for ventilation, sanitation, etc., he would have a place to start.
Mark Austin said that yurts fall under the tent category (any structure with fabric skin). He asked if it were possible that a standard of construction for yurts can be met that would differentiate them from tents. He commented that any structure could meet requirements, depending on its cost. Jimmy tended to agree and said that in order to meet current minimum requirements you would need a large yurt--- 120 sq.ft minimum, with room enough to contain required fixtures. He said paying for the engineering [inspections and tests] might cost a lot more money than it would for a stick house. Breck told Jimmy that he did have the engineering specs and could leave them with Jimmy. He said all yurt manufacturers have been providing this information since 2003.

Susan asked if Jimmy would red-tag a dwelling that has a bathhouse that meets standards. Jimmy replied that it depends on the size of lot and the number of people. He said that a single family dwelling means “single family,” and not a congregation of people. Also, he said that certain grades of lumber are required if the structure is a stick frame and repeated that sanitation and running water are the main point of opposition. Curtis wondered if it is even possible for a town to pass an ordinance allowing permanent dwellings that don’t meet IBC.

Naomi said, “Rules make us free. People may have lived in different types of houses in the 1800s, but not since I’ve been here. If you’re going to pass alternative housing, then I can live in a refrigerator box and live in my backyard.” She also said, “We state our opinions, and that doesn’t mean there is contention. But I don’t want Boulder to be known as a place where you can just throw up a tent….I gathered 22 signatures of people who feel as I do. ..Examine what you’re going to do and know what would happen if you open that door.” Jimmy then concurred with Naomi’s concern about opening the door to all types of alternatives. He said that amendments to state code usually make it more restrictive, not less.

Eric Scott said that people are trying to go through the process, “because we are here [in this meeting]. We are trying to find the data and provide engineering and do things correctly. If we are trying to jump through all the hoops, what’s wrong with it”? Curtis replied that the code is the key and that a dwelling, regardless of shape or material, needs to pass inspection requirements. And again Jimmy said he didn’t care how something was constructed, as long as it meets requirements.

Blake said, “Wanting to add a positive note, I’ve seen more acts of generosity and kindness toward neighbors than most people ever see anywhere.” She didn’t want to see this polarizing people. “No one is interested in a refrigerator box or living in their car. Most people who come here have some type of special circumstances to make life work. Everyone who has a house here has had to work hard.”

Don Montoya said, “We’ve lived in 17 houses in 30-some years. This is the first place that I’ve wanted to plant roots, and I feel this is at risk. I tried to demonstrate at the first meeting that alternative housing types can have specific engineering specs applied.” He added that the General Plan contains an item that stipulates equal housing opportunities for all persons. To abide by this goal, Boulder should take a pro-active role, including formulating comprehensive development standards and regulations. He then presented a proposal and submitted it to the Planning Commission:
Appoint a committee to draft those regulations and include buildings with flexible external composition, such as domes, yurts, composite materials, fabric, plastic or other; include smoke and CO detectors; include minimum approved structural foundation and/or anchor bolts. Pursue the community development grants that are available to help localities meet the Housing Act of 1974. Be proactive to meet the needs of Boulder residents. Be the leaders we need you to be.
Wulf and Mark exchanged some questions and answers on the yurt structures used as temporary dwellings at the Jordanelle Dam. Wulf thought that if there is a law that includes yurts and tent structures, “we should look at this.” He mentioned a legal yurt in downtown Provo, UT, downtown. Another exchange between Curtis and Mark dealt with perspectives on “temporary” and “permanent.”

Aram said “I’ve lived here almost 21 years. I want to second Blake’s opinion and don’t want to see polarization. I live in a house and went through problems getting it built. I’d rather look at the yurt than the trailer I can see from my porch.” He also liked Don’s proposal that we do something about this.
Fred Jepsen said that he runs property for Boy Scouts of America, and everything he’s been hearing was about temporary housing, and that none of this meets the standards for permanent housing. He said that the tipis, yurts, etc. they use for the Boy Scouts are approved and inspected, even though they are for temporary usage. However, the ranger’s home meets a whole different standard because he is living there permanently. “Our standards are the standards of the county and the state. Boulder can’t go below the state, and now there is also the EPA, not just the state.”
Mark Austin suggested eliminating the word “yurt” and instead describing dwelling materials. He noted the 2004 town survey that asked if residents would approve design criteria for buildings and said that 78% opposed that idea. Jimmy said although ordinances are under local jurisdiction, any time you go with an amended code, you become personally liable.

Blake said that with 37 employees, she needs a way to deal with housing. “We are in a desperate situation. “Is there a way to make yurts possible as seasonal structures? We are not able to staff our restaurant with local people and need to bring in people from outside of town, who, by the way, contribute to the economic base.” She said sustainability is the wave of the future, and that the 14000 sq.ft homes are dangerous. “Yurts leave a light footprint and won’t detract from land value. I’m afraid of the future of Boulder and a division between those who would be served and those who serve them. The diversity and strength of that diversity is what drew me to Boulder. We need to be gentle and generous with each other.”

Susan submitted a book to the Commission on yurt history and wondered if an individual could waive the town’s liability. Dianne asked who would check for sanitation if Boulder did approve alternative housing; Jimmy said he did that if the building is one he can inspect. Breck asked if a yurt built 12 years ago, passing inspection would be re-examined. Jimmy said the county would determine that on a case-by-case basis. Jimmy was also asked about the timeframe for bringing a structure into compliance. He said that if something is erected without permission, there is a 7-day requirement to meet code or remove the structure. However, he said, “Lots of factors enter in. Just keep in contact with me to try to work out issues.”

Anselm said that as a community, we need minimal requirements, but not more than that. “We are sacrificing freedom in the name of fear…” Brian responded that rules can be changed and adapted, and then interpreted by lawyers. “I feel we have the ability as a community to come up with rules that we feel comfortable with.” Jimmy said the laws and rules are there to protect everyone. “What is OK for you may be endangering your neighbor.”

Alfred and Connie Jepsen had submitted a letter they wanted read aloud. Their letter said that yurts create a campground-type atmosphere, that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to uphold Boulder codes. If the Commission decides to grandfather existing yurts they should be upgraded with running water and septic systems, and that a legally binding ordinance should direct the removal of non-legal yurts. Trina agreed that all dwellings need to meet sanitary requirements. She said, “I lived in a trailer while we were building and it was hideous. Regardless of whether I think they look good or don’t look good, we need to keep options open to help each other.”

Susan asked about accessory buildings, and Jimmy said anything that is to be occupied must be inspected and safe. After some more discussion on safety issues, Ray Gardner was asked if he would be the enforcing agent. Ray said that Boulder would first take the issue to the town attorney, who would write letter to the parties involved. Ray would serve papers, the thing would go to court, and it would be hassled out that way, he said. Jimmy added that if sanitation was the reason for a complaint, then the state would have jurisdiction. Curtis thought that having an enforcement officer would be beneficial for several reasons. Larry Ripplinger asked if the Commission would be attempting to describe a way for yurts to meet code. Curtis simply replied that anything can be brought up to code assuming time and money. Elaine then moved to close the public hearing, Brian seconded the motion, and all approved.

Public Hearing: Revisions to Sub-Division Ordinance

Following a short recess, Eric moved to open the public hearing at 9:57 p.m. Brian seconded, and all approved.

Curtis reviewed the discussion: The revisions under consideration deal with requiring a master plan for proposed sub-divisions and changing requirements for streets and roads within sub-divisions. The existing ordinance goes to the edge of requiring an overall plan or schematic, which most developers are required to submit in other municipalities. Given that some developers have large chunks of property but are sub-dividing it into small lots over time, it might make better sense to have the applicant provide a masterplan at the inception of a sub-division. The masterplan would identify total acreage, plans for continuing sub-division, long-range plan for streets, a view into potential easement issues, etc. “If we could sit down with a masterplan, we can plan out ingress, egress, transportation corridors, utility requirements and so on. What is being discussed now is the addition of a couple sentences to the ordinance regarding masterplans.

Wulf asked about properties sub-divided into four or fewer lots, with roads being less of an issue. Curtis said the concern is with the larger blocks of property. A masterplan wouldn’t be required if there are no plans to sub-divide. However, he said that if masterplans had been required in the past, they would have revealed recorded easements; and that roads dividing lot would never have been approved. This paperwork would require title search, tax clearance, and would generally try to protect end users to make sure their future access is ensured.

The second part of the discussion related specifically to roads. As soon as a property is divided into two lots, the potential for conflict exists. Curtis suggested the Commission consider three categories of usage:
1) Private driveway. Only the fire marshall would need to sign off on this type of road, the only concern being ability for emergency equipment to get in and out. Currently, this definition is lumped together the street definition.
2) Private street. A private street could be defined that serves two to four lots, as part of the infrastructure of a sub-division. The town would be given the latitude to consider distance to the lots, turnouts for passage, and could develop specifications dealing with deadends, gates and fences, easements, etc. A homeowners’ association would be the legal authority to maintain that type of road.
3) Steets. A property of 5 lots or more would have to comply with the current streets ordinance.

Tim said the ordinance should define specification criteria, such as pullouts, their location on curves, etc. Mark said that all exceptions must be clearly defined and can’t be arbitrarily applied. Curtis thought the Commission has the discretion to stipulate minimum and maximum widths, provisions for visibility and safety, and “those requirements can be interpreted to make them work on the ground.”
The discussion centered on conflicts over roads and easements that have existed in the past and how to avoid them in the future. Curtis said, “There are problems waiting to happen. Changes need to come at the sub-division level now to try to prevent problems before people build.” Mark Nelson asked about other problems between landowners and road easements. He mentioned the Reid’s problem of a 50 foot easement and would like to see options for smaller roads within small developments. Curtis said that the purpose is to eliminate the “dirt tracks” some developers leave as their “roads.” “Developers will take what you give them, and if we’re organized, they’ll do it that way,” he said.
With no more comments from the floor, Brian moved to close the public hearing, Eric seconded; all approved.
Discuss Additional Dumpsters
Anselm clarified his original suggestion of changing locations, not numbers of dumpsters. He preferred centralizing them, and getting rid of those in places where they pollute the area or are dangerous, as in the windblown dumpster contents in Lower Boulder or the dumpster location on the Burr Trail. Mark Nelson remarked that this subject had been discussed, and resolved by relocating dumpsters last year. However, several people had comments:

Don definitely sees the need for another dumpster on the west side of town; Ray objected to the way dumpsters are used, where household use is obstructed by dumped tree limbs. Mark Nelson suggested adding a container just for the stuff that would otherwise go to the dump, because the people who need to use the dump are often locked out at the moment of need.

Mark Austin had asked Garfield County about obtaining more or larger dumpsters for Boulder, and County engineer Brian Bremner said “no.” Mark agreed that dumping building material is a problem. “If the dump is only open on Saturdays, you’re stuck with a truckload of stuff.” He wondered if the dump can be open on a weekday. Eric Feiler suggested recommending to the town that the dump be open Wednesday and Saturday, and Mark Nelson suggested that the town could hire someone and could be on call.

Anselm thought that the issue isn’t just about convenience. He said that everyone could take their own stuff to the dump on Saturday and eliminate the dumpsters entirely. Tim thought the current location at the Boulder Exchange was only “temporary” and that the town probably should review the whole thing. Mike Nelson suggested recommending that the town review the case for centralizing dumpsters and/or opening the dump an additional day. Wulf thought that could work, especially if a front gate is always open to dumpsters, and the second gate locking the dump itself. Mike concluded the discussion by saying he would suggest that the topic be on the next town council agenda.
Discuss June 22 Agenda
It was agreed that a work meeting before the next regular meeting would provide the best forum for officially discussing the recommendations for the town council. Therefore, a work meeting will be convened at 6 p.m. on June 22 to discuss the alternative housing recommendations and the sub-division ordinance revisions. The regular meeting will follow the work meeting. If Clifford Fuller has his material prepared for his conceptual plan, he can present that then.
Brian moved to adjourn the meeting. Elaine seconded the motion, and Mike adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.

Margaret Smith Date
Planning Commission Clerk

Approved:_________________________________ Date:______________________________________