(Draft version)
Planning Commission
Public Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2005 (7 p.m.)

Commissioners present: Mike Nelson, Elaine Roundy, Connie Reid, Eric Feiler, Tim Clarke
Peg Smith, secretary
Public present: Bill Muse, Tom Barlow (Garfield County Planner), Rodney Torgersen, Curtis Oberhansly, Clifford Fuller, Brian Dick, John Pratt, John “Loch” Wade
Mike brought the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m. The agenda for the public meeting was:
• Approve August 18 minutes
• Hear concept plan for road development on Gibbs Smith property
• Discuss revisions to General Plan, chapters 1 through 6
The previous month’s meeting minutes, as well as the minutes from the 9/2/05 public hearing, had not been reviewed by all commissioners, so Mike requested that official approvals be postponed until the next regular meeting.

Bill Muse, representing Charlie Flake, had met informally with commissioners before the meeting to display his sub-division maps and description completed since the Sept 2 public hearing. Connie moved to approve the plan for recommendation to Town Council, subject to changes requested of the Jones and DeMille drawing: to include ownership of the all easements and right-of-ways. Eric seconded the motion, and the commission unanimously approved the plan.

Hear Road Development Concept Plan on Gibbs Smith Property
Rodney Torgersen, of Torgersen Engineering, represented Gibbs Smith in presenting a conceptual plan for developing a road from the base to the top of Gibbs’ mesa. The plan called for re-grading the existing road and changing access to the mesa top, as previous access had been closed from the north. The known problem with the plan was that town ordinance prohibits development on average grades over 30%. On the concept plan, Rodney said approximately 250 feet of the road is across area with 30-35% grade. As Rodney presented the plan, Mike opened the session to question and comment.

Eric said the concept plan would also have to address section 2.3 of the Zoning ordinance that specifies mesa top development on sensitive lands. Mike said that the road would require re-grading for Gibbs to access it anyway, but that, he would have to comply with the requirements of the ordinance before the road concept plan could be approved.
Rodney posed a few questions left in doubt by the ordinance, such as the definition and start/end points of determining “average slope” and definition of “development.” Eric responded that the ordinance clearly states, “no development” on those excessive grades. Curtis suggested that steepness of the grade would not be allowed by most other towns. State code for fire protection alone would not allow emergency vehicle access on such a road.

Mike referred to previous contact he had had with Gibbs over a road easement across their properties and deferred to Eric, whose opinion was that the ordinance was clear on its face: it prohibits development on grades 30% and above. Rodney said Gibbs is merely trying to retain access that he’d previously had. Curtis said the ordinance is clear, but the decisions can be appealed through the Board of Adjustment.

Bill brought up the comparison to the road to Anselm’s and Peterson’s property. Currently, no contractor wants to jeopardize his safety by working on Anselm’s road, even to make minimal improvements, and that road presents the same grade issue as does Gibbs road. Rodney replied that the issue is different: Gibbs doesn’t have housing on top of his mesa. Connie said she had been on the original Planning Commission that wrote the ordinance. “We didn’t want any development on a 30 degree slope,” she said.

Eric moved to deny approval of the concept plan as presented by Rodney, with Tim seconding the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to deny approval of the plan.

Rodney asked if it would be inappropriate or premature to ask for a ruling on the decision. Curtis replied a legal reading would take time read the details and consider the context. Since no one builds a road to nowhere, if this plan were to precede a building permit or sub-division, additional considerations come into play. Rodney then asked about ATV use on the land. Curtis said the ordinance is concerned only with the building and road scars on sensitive lands, not general usage.

Finally, Tim requested that Rodney add a small-scale addition to his future drawings to show the area in context with the area.

Discuss Chapters 1-6 Revisions to General Plan
The first six chapters of the General Plan mostly provide context and overview of the community: Introduction, Historical Setting, Regional Setting, Relationship with Government Entities, General Community Goals, and Environmental Conditions. Tom Barlow had offered to facilitate the discussion and took notes on the suggested changes. He said state code requires communities to prepare and revise their General Plans every five years.
He also said the General Plans should include outlying areas beyond town boundaries since those areas are impacted by and cause impacts on the town itself.

Discussion touched upon the following points:
• 50% of survey respondents are second-home owners, which Brian Dick said is true countywide
• Despite the shift away from ranching as a livelihood in Boulder, residents still want to retain the ranching heritage in terms of being hospitable to agricultural use, maintaining open spaces, and preserving the sense of a small, rural community.
• State promotion of tourism ($14million this year) and ongoing visitation along Scenic Byway 12 and the monument continue to increase traffic and create other impacts on Boulder.
• The General Plan needs to address specific requirements it wants to make on Forest Service, BLM, and Monument, and needs to spell out water requirements for future culinary and irrigation use.
• The General Plan needs to address moderate income housing and the desire to maintain diversity in community structure.
• Under Environmental Conditions, the Plan needs to address Boulder’s unique topography, and consider the usage of pasture lands, pinyon/juniper slopes, creeks and wetlands, and mesas.
• Boulder residents strongly support, and the Plan needs to address the importance of maintaining dark night skies.
At 9:05, Mike asked for a motion to adjourn. Connie made the motion, and Elaine seconded. The next meeting will be October 20, at 7:00 p.m. Action items are:
• Commissioners: Be ready to discuss specifics in Chapters 7 (Land Use), 8 (Housing) and 9 (Economic Development).
• Tom Barlow: Wordsmith suggestions and revisions from this meeting.
Mike said since the General Plan lays out the vision and implementation strategies for Boulder for the next five years, public input is vital throughout this assessment period. He asked Peg to clarify the agenda so people know what is being discussed. Copies of the current General Plan are available through Judy Davis.