Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes
September 2, 2005 7 p.m.

Commissioners present: Mike Nelson, Connie Reid, Tim Clarke
Secretary: Peg Smith
Public present: Bill Muse (representing Charlie Flake), John Austin, Rochelle Robinson, Christopher Robinson, Michelle LeBaron, Brock LeBaron, A.J. Martinez, Brian Dick, Sergio Femenias, and Curtis Oberhansly.
Mike brought the public hearing to order at 7:15 p.m. The purpose of the hearing was twofold: first, to hear comments on the Charlie Flake application for sub-division, and second, to hear the presentation of the conceptual plan for Boulder Creek Partners, presented by Brock LeBaron and Chris Robinson.
Charlie Flake Sub-Division
Notices of the intended sub-division were sent to adjacent property owners. Bill Muse, representing Flake, has received no adverse comment on the preliminary plan. Neither the Commission nor the public participants had questions or comments, and the formal application will be presented at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting on Sept 15.
Boulder Creek Partners Sub-Division
A conceptual plan was originally submitted to the Commission December 2004, but since then, the partners, Chris Robinson and Brock LeBaron, have restructured the lots in their proposed 108-acres sub-division. The original concept plan covered Lots 1-7. Their revised plan describes the total acreage, which comprises 12 lots, including one 50+-acre lot on which they would like to apply for a conservation easement
This meeting constituted a re-hearing of the Concept Plan and a means of informally discussing the pertinent points required in the application for sub-division. Mike proceeded through the plat requirements to discuss points and help determine the plan readiness.
1. Application and fee submitted—to be completed
2. Preliminary sub-division plat---presented
a. All proposed easements and rights-of-ways documented---partners have documents that reference the easements with Cliff Fuller and Lot 11 and Lot 12.
b. Legal description---yes, in title report
c. Description of common or open space; delineation of wetlands and slopes, etc.---Chris said they intend a no-build area on the slope of Lot 12. Discussion followed on the need for a separate application process if engineers determined “sensitive lands” with slope between 15-30%

Curtis asked about designated building envelopes. Chris stated that a no-build line would be established at the rear of the lots and called out on the plat map along with setbacks. He is also planning to include some CC&Rs regarding native vegetation.

Brock stated that a perc test had been performed several years ago and that that documentation exists in Loa or Bicknell. Curtis said the application needs to include the documentation of actual access to water as well as perc test results and septic system. This comment led to the longest discussion: water access for the sub-division.
Chris said the plan calls for each lot owner to make his/her own application to the state water engineer for the 1.015 cfs domestic water right and drill his/her own well; the Partners were not planning to apply to Boulder Farmstead for water. The sub-division does not currently own or plan to apply for water rights as the state engineer will not speculate with water rights assigned to unsold lots. Curtis expressed concern about state requirements for sub-division developers to provide certain minimal essential services.
Connie said that Boulder Farmstead does have room for more residential hookups: about $4K for hookup to a residence and one share (30 gal/month) for $22 per household. She said current cost for 8-inch pipe is about $925/ft. It would be possible for the sub-division to pay an initial hookup fee to hold rather than pay the monthly assessment on 12 unsold lots.
Curtis said that applying for water through Boulder Farmstead would help solve the water rights and fire protection issues that could otherwise be prohibitive. Alternatively, the Partners could just provide legal notice to prospective buyers that water rights are not guaranteed with the property.
The Partners wanted the minutes to record that if wetlands delineation is not needed that an uplands building envelope is not a problem, and the Commission agreed.
Proposed power lines, existing fence lines, access easements, and roads were discussed. Curtis said a road engineer would be required once the sub-division is legally filed.
A.J. expressed “concerns to be discussed privately” regarding roads and water. He also asked if Boulder has a strategic plan for developing a municipal water or sewer system.
No other public comments or questions were raised. Connie moved to adjourn the meeting, Tim seconded the motion, and Mike adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.