Meeting Minutes
Boulder Town Planning Commission
Work Session/Regular Meeting
June 22, 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.
Members of the public present included Don Montoya, Sergio Femenias, Cookie Schaus, Tim Clarke, Mike Ryan, Kristen and Wulf Barsch, Susan Richards, Becky and Breck Crystal, Josh Bernstein, Ana Sanders, Jabe Beal, Bob and Chyleen Mackie, Dave (BOSS), Donna Owen, Wendy Lovato, Anselm Spring, Arum and Trina Barsch, Lisa Varga, and Judi Davis.

Meeting Agenda
• Preliminary work session
• Review and approve meeting agenda and June 8 minutes.
• Discuss recommendation to Town Council on alternative housing issue.
• Discuss revisions to Ordinance 46D on 90-day RV permit.
• Discuss street standards and master plan requirement in sub-division ordinance.
• Discuss schedule for completing General Plan.

Work Session
Mike convened the work meeting at 7:15 to discuss the alternative housing issue and the ordinance revisions. Peg was asked to copy all letters received regarding alternative housing and keep a set in the library for public perusal.

Mike thought it seemed fair to apply the same requirement of a conditional use permit for yurts as for trailers while people are building a house. Regarding permanent housing, he repeated Jimmy Johnson’s statement that the shape a building doesn’t matter, as long as it meets code. He didn’t want to get into an aesthetics debate over what a house should look like, and reminded the Commission of the 2004 town survey results which almost universally rejected architectural or design controls.

Curtis presented some information gathered since the last meeting. First, health and building codes generally arise out of actual dangers or incidents, and those codes generally aren’t changed without a good reason. However, he gave an example of how one might meet code requirements and still build a yurt-type structure with a foundation, fire resistance materials, an egress window, ventilation, bathhouse with water, insulation and use of a membrane (currently part of code), etc. Electrical connection is required, but that could be one electrical wire in for the smoke alarm. Boulder ordinance does not say one can’t build a yurt, it just has to pass inspection. He said, “You don’t even need a discussion with the planning commission, only Jimmy Johnson. If you give him a yurt-shaped home built to code, it would pass inspection”. The town can’t tell people they can’t live in yurts, but it also can’t tell people they can live in non-code-compliant housing.

Eric said he had talked to people who objected to the “house that looks like a yurt” idea. He then cited from the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) stating that if an alternative structure can meet the intent of the code---and the building official is the judge of that ---the structure could be approved. He thought the section on membrane structures could pertain to yurts. Curtis said again, the code issue is between IBC and Jimmy Johnson. The town is bound by the code. The code may stipulate standards for a type of structure, but doesn’t address matters that would be of concern to the town, such as location and use of structure. Is it in the midst of a residential area or by itself?. Is it a pool house or a home? The town has to follow statute or it falls into danger of liability.

Eric said that people have mentioned other areas of the country where yurts are legal, such as Ellensbury, WA, which has allowed yurts since 2003. They distinguish yurts for storage versus habitation, and the applications for each are reviewed. Their habitable yurts are required to contain a smoke detector, window of egress, etc. Curtis had spoken with the Garfield County attorney and said the previous yurt that was permitted (Ryan’s) would probably be OK under a non-conforming use permit, if the bathhouse were completed. (State health code is non-negotiable.)

Brian quoted from Don Montoya’s letter to the Commission, in which he concluded, “dare to be the unique place….” Brian said that as a real estate agent, he speaks with a dozen people a week, and 90 percent of those are persons wanting to build second homes. “They won’t be contributing to town, but they will raise prices. There is no affordable housing in Boulder without spending $200K. I support us doing something radical that will allow us to maintain the diversity of our community. I don’t know what that is yet. As Blake said, ‘we all come in here with special circumstances.’ Most people come here with money or are struggling here,” said Brian.

Eric seconded that opinion. He thought Boulder needs a way of encouraging people, especially young families. “Yurts happen to be one of the ways families are moving into town,” he said. Brian thought the IBC clearly noted that building officials have the ability to interpret the code, and intent to comply with the basic requirements could “cover us without jumping through all those bigger requirements.

Elaine said, “I thought this was to talk about all alternative housing, not just yurts. What about people who will want to move here in trailers? We haven’t addressed that. The whole time I’ve been here, there are all sorts of rules and regulations, like the width of roads, etc. Is this any different? There is an ordinance about housing. Can we skim over this and not over something else? We are talking about the 90 day permit for RVs---this is part of that. ..What is everyone going to do when a lot of people come in who want trailers?” Curtis agreed, saying “If you do authorize yurts, you have automatically authorized anything.” Elaine continued, saying, “I don’t want to be one who tells anyone what to put on their own property. But what about ownership?

Mike said again the bottom line is the code. Eric said he hasn’t been able to find out the actual requirements. Even talking to Jimmy Johnson, the information isn’t clear because “it depends.” “What is the intent of the code? Is it structural intent? We can’t move forward until we realize what the specific intent is.” Brian said that everyone seems in agreement over the septic and water requirement. The problem is the safety issue. Is the intent to protect us, and if so, are the protective standards only relevant in terms of large/heavy building structures?” he asked. “Probably Breck’s yurt won’t kill him even if it did fall down.” Elaine asked why there was so much argument about something that is already the law? Can anyone put their own interpretation on the law?” she asked.

In answer to Brian and Eric, Curtis said that places like Park City have even more specific codes than the IBC. The interpretation clause of the code may apply to those who want even more restriction, he said. “We don’t necessarily want to cherry pick the regulations because the (energy) code does save millions of BTUs in this country since it was adopted.

The next work session topic was Ordinance 49B revisions on streets and roads. Within the current ordinance, no standards are set at all for properties with four or fewer lots, and no standards at all given for developing streets---no drainage, width, borrow pit, etc. Curtis proposed the following definitions be adopted:
1) Private driveway---only the fire marshall needs to sign off on access
2) Private street for two or more lots--- town can vary width from 12-18 feet. (The Planning Commission may recommend some specific number to the town and town may recommend variations on width, number of lots served, length of street, number of turnouts, etc. to allow latitude on areas that are accessing few lots. If the landowner wants to sub-divide beyond that, the Commission can reconsider the new plan. Also, the town can require basic engineering specifications.
3) Public street/dedicated street. Complies with streets ordinance

In addition, a developer would be required to form a homeowner’s association, filed with the state, that would include provisions for maintenance. A development master plan would also be required when the developer approaches the Commission with the conceptual plan. If developers own adjacent pieces of property to the pieces mentioned in the conceptual plan, they have to address their plans about whole piece. The master plan can be changed and worked with, but it needs to present the big picture up front, rather than leaving the Commission to deal with piecemeal development.

Brian moved to start the regular meeting, with Eric seconding, and all approving. Mike closed the work session at 8:03 and opened the regular meeting.

Regular Meeting
Eric moved to approve the minutes with noted corrections, Elaine seconded, and all approved. A note from those minutes indicated the dumpster topic would be forwarded to the town to put on their agenda. Judi said if the mayor is interested in taking that recommendation, it will be on the agenda.

Recommendations on Alternative Housing
Brian said he didn’t feel comfortable forwarding a blanket recommendation saying to follow the codes. Eric suggested someone sit down in a work session with Jimmy Johnson to ask about specific interpretations of the code, and establish the intent of the code. Tim said the Jimmy merely fills in information regarding R value, window types and numbers, etc. to determine compliance with the energy efficiency code. Jimmy has worked with people on rock houses, straw bale houses, all of which have their unique elements. He is willing to accept any type of building material. Breck noted a clause in that code that allows a waiver if the heat source is a renewable source. Wulf concurred, saying the energy code is based on non-renewable energy, and if you want to heat with wood or hydro, you don’t have to pass any specific R value.

Don said it appears that there are workable alternatives. “We need to synthesize these different code elements and what meets the intent of the code. For example, structural integrity--- if we can provide the research that shows that the lattice structure of a yurt exceeds the strength of a conventional stick house, plug that into a computer model, I’d be willing to bet a yurt would come out with greater structural integrity. It behooves us to research those elements. Energy, structural efficiency, health and safety, we provide some direction to the interpretation of the law instead of enforcing the letter of the law.” He suggested a task force to codify this. “We have a General Plan that gives us the direction. Our ordinances are the implementation of the General Plan. If it were tasked and is OK with PC and with Jimmy, that each code requirement is being addressed, I don’t see anything wrong with it. Use case law as precedent to interpret the code. The Town Council and the Planning Commission have fiduciary responsibility to enforce the ordinances. …We should solicit support from the community to do the research and find supporting documentation for it.”

Mike did not like the idea of postponing a decision further, saying that he didn’t want to continue polarizing the community. He said, “It seems like there is a way to make anything meet code. Eric said there must be a way to meet intent of the code, and not necessarily follow the letter. Chyleen said, “Jimmy Johnson worked with the builders of a straw bale house, and it was OK. Another got redtagged because the builder did what he wanted without consulting Jimmy. He works with people very well, and he is not inclined to just turn something down without working with them.”

Curtis said that we have people interested in this issue, and if they can do the research to show Jimmy, he’ll probably agree. “I do believe is a way to meet requirements, especially with compromises on both sides,” he said. Susan offered her yurt-building as a test case. Wulf agreed, and suggested she apply for a building permit and see what hoops she really has to jump through. Curtis corrected that notion, saying the town only issues project approvals; the county issues the building permit.

Becky wanted to distinguish temporary from permanent dwellings. Mike said his opinion was that a yurt would be considered a temporary dwelling with building a house. A building permit must be obtained for a permanent dwelling. Breck asked if it would be OK to ask for a permit from the town. Eric said “yes” as soon as the moratorium expires. Breck also asked about using a portapotty while building the bathhouse for a yurt. Curtis said a septic system and drain field must still be installed. The portapotties in use are for construction workers only.

Breck thought the energy code was the main hold-up, and was going to check with the county to see if it would waive insulation requirements for using of renewable energy heating. Brian said that Jimmy Johnson seems to be the bottom line, and he seems willing to address issues on a case-by-case basis. Wulf suggested adopt a building stance and recommend to Jimmy, as he enforces what we tell him he needs to enforce. Susan stated her concern about starting, then finding out that her 18ft diameter won’t work because toilet is required inside. Sergio suggested that “if this is just a software thing, why not take her building plans and run it through his software, and see what works and what fails?

Eric moved to forward the following recommendation, using a statement from Section 104.11 of the 2003 IBC code, and adopt it as a stance toward alternative housing:
… “An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety.”
Brian seconded the motion, and all approved recommending this to the town.

46 E Proposed Revision (to Ordinance 46D)
Curtis said the current ordinance didn’t adequately cover waste dumping, and didn’t meet the intended needs of private, temporary use. He suggested following Garfield County’s own ordinance that requires a “Conditional Use Permit for Occasional RV use.” Clearly too, he said, this exempts people who have homes and need to store their RVs. It is intended for people who buy five acres and then haul in an old trailer and leave it there forever. Conditional use allows review on case-by-case basis.”

Brian expressed concern about blanket restrictions on RV storage, but was satisfied that the proposed revision does not do that. Mike asked if people who already have RVs on their property are “grandfathered” in. Curtis said the correct term would be “non-conforming use.” Also, he said the ordinance does not apply to mobile homes, and it is only dealing with the 90-day, temporary use, not full-time habitation. That is another issue. Mike asked if anyone had changes to the revised ordinance. No one did. Eric moved to forward the drafted revision 46E as written; Elaine seconded the motion, and all approved.

Sub-Division ordinance
Wulf expressed concern that the revision could give the town the right to take over a road across an owners’ property. Curtis agreed that there could be public policy reasons why the town may need to do such, but said that realistically, Boulder’s roads budget would preclude much of that. Elaine said the only way a road can be dedicated as a town road is for all parties on road to agree. Eric then suggested a wording change, “upon request of owner” to #1 of the revision.Curtis said the main intent of the changes was for landowners who want to sub-divider: they need to pay for the road; the infrastructure, and they need to ensure it will be maintained in some reasonable fashion for the long haul. The focus of the planners should not be on a single individual but the whole picture.

Wulf then brought up road widths accommodating farm equipment and a discussion ensured on the 40 ft easement now required in the ordinance. Although the easement width “covers a lot of land,” Curtis said the narrowing easements are causing problem all over town now. Breck asked roads that are not private, but moving from one person’s property to another, with different road widths. He said this could be a potential problem if the farthest landowner has several potential lots. Yes, that would be a problem, all agreed. Eric moved to table the 49B discussion for more review. Elaine seconded the motion, and all approved.

General Plan:

The Commission agreed to reconvene General Plan discussion on the second meeting of each month; the first meeting will be to discuss regular business,. (2nd Thursday is regular business; 4th Thursday is General Plan). Peg will call Tom Barlow to see about setting up a “wordsmithers” meeting before the July 27 General Plan discussion.

Elaine move to adjourn the meeting, Eric seconded the motion, and Mike adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m..

Margaret Smith Date
Planning Commission Clerk

Approved:_________________________________ Date:______________________________________