(Draft Version)
Planning Commission, Public Meeting Minutes
October 20, 2005, 7 p.m.

Commissioners present: Elaine Roundy, Connie Reid, Eric Feiler, Tim Clarke; Peg Smith, secretary
Public present: Sergio Femenias, Randy Ripplinger, Christopher Robinson, Brock LeBaron, Michelle LeBaron, Scott Hacking, Don Montoya, Lisa Varga, Keith Watts, Cynthia Law, Eric Scott, Bill Muse, Tom Barlow (Garfield County Planner), Curtis Oberhansly, Clifford Fuller, John Pratt, John “Loch” Wade

Eric brought the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The agenda for the public meeting was:
• Approve minutes for August 18 and September 15 meetings and September 2 public hearing
• Discuss new sub-division drinking water requirements, presented by Scott Hacking, District Engineer for Utah Department of Environmental Quality
• Hear concept plan for Coombs property
• Hear concept plan for Robinson/LeBaron sub-division
• Discuss revisions to General Plan, chapters 7 through 9

Connie moved for approval of August 18 minutes, with Elaine seconding; approval was unanimous; Connie moved that the September 2 hearing minutes be approved, with Tim seconding; Elaine moved to approve the September 15 meeting minutes, with Connie seconding. Approval of all minutes passed unanimously.

Discuss New Drinking Water Requirements
Connie had invited Scott Hacking to attend the meeting to discuss new water requirements brought about through Utah Senate Bill 60. These requirements, affecting cities and counties equally, stipulate that each sub-division lot must be buildable, that a perc test be performed on each lot, that developers bear the burden of proof on sub-divisions over eight lots that they are not a public water system; and that letters of feasibility of both culinary water systems and waste systems be obtained from a public health entity such as Southwest Public Health. These requirements also should be addressed in the Boulder sub-division ordinance; Iron County’s ordinance could be used as an example.

Hear Concept Plan on Anthony Coombs’s Property
Eric read the memo which Cathy Bagley, of Boulder Mountain Realty, had faxed with a hand-drawn map of Anthony Coombs’s two 10-acres lots for sale north of Boulder. Prior to sale of these lots, Anthony needs to legally sub-divide his property. Cathy asked for guidance on how to proceed with the sub-division. Connie made a motion that the Commission send a letter to Bagley, (copying Anthony) with the Boulder sub-division ordinance attached. Tim seconded the motion, and the Commission unanimously approved the motion.

Hear Plan for Robinson/LeBaron Sub-Division
Although the meeting agenda stated that Robinson/LeBaron were presenting additional information to their conceptual plan, in fact, they were appearing before the Commission with materials prepared for their preliminary application for sub-division. The posting and notification requirements for this stage apparently were waived because they had taken those actions previously (and unnecessarily) for the public hearing of their conceptual plan for the 12-lot sub-division.
Chris and Brock delivered a packet of the following items: preliminary plat, detail title report, tax clearance letter, list of addresses, and a statement regarding evidence of availability of necessary services.
A lengthy discussion followed, focusing on two main areas on concern: water and roads. Their plan includes connection to Boulder Farmstead water, rather than planning for 12 separate wells (per discussion from Sept 2 hearing). Connie told them that the Farmstead board had turned down their request to reserve the connections without paying the monthly assessments. Chris thought the financial outlay that Boulder Farmsteads was requiring would be “a high hurdle for any developer,” while Connie said Farmsteads didn’t want to be in the position of promising water shares several years in the future. Chris asked, “Do we need to have an approved water system before the town can approve the sub-division plan?” Scott Hacking responded that from the standpoint of the new water requirements, a sub-division plan would have to be able to show that water rights would be available for prospective buyers, although buyers would have to apply for and prove on their individual water rights. In addition, a legal entity would have to stipulate feasibility of the culinary system. He noted the state would prefer a single source, rather than multiple wells, as each hole represents an additional threat to the water source. Chris would like to re-approach Boulder Farmsteads to work out a solution. For Farmsteads to be an option of water source, Chris said he would need from them a “will serve” letter for the sub-division.
Regarding waste water, Chris said that perc tests were conducted in 1998, on 22 locations across the property. Those locations do not correspond with all the currently designated lots; each lot must have its own test results.
Curtis stated his objections to the process that was unfolding. First, the legal recording of the original sub-division from Roundy’s parcel can be expedited, but is a necessary, preliminary step. Second, the necessity of specifying details in a 12-lot sub-division is different in scope from a one- or two-lot sub-division; the ramifications and duties to the town and to the public are magnified. Road engineering to guarantee proper road width, depth, and durability should be required in this situation given the prospective traffic volume and required fire protection access in and out of the sub-division, he said.
Chris expressed some frustration at the process. “We tried our best to meet the requirements and submit completed materials as we were previously requested.” Don Montoya asked why there seemed to be a sense of urgency. “I may actually be a prospective buyer of one of your lots, and I want to know you are doing the right thing,” he said. Brock said the intent of completing the plan now was to avoid the piecemeal approach to development that the Commission has previously discouraged. Curtis replied that the Boulder is admittedly trying to play catch up with the necessary ordinances to meet state requirements and other needs.
The issues that need to be addressed and resolved by Robinson/LeBaron are:
1. Need two more perc tests
2. Submit all test documentation to Southwest Public Health for evaluation and to obtain the feasibility letter.
3. Conduct engineering assessment of the road
4. Submit an engineering plat that details the necessary roadwork along with locations and allowances for the other necessary services
5. Obtain culinary water feasibility letter from the state water engineer
6. Complete any other submittals required by Town Ordinance or State Law

Chris agreed to address these issues. However, he asked the Commission to provide him with road engineering standards that he is expected to meet. Eric volunteered Mike Nelson to provide him with that information by November 1. He also requested that the town’s engineer review the submitted drawings and make recommendations on their deficiencies.

Connie moved as follows: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the town will employ an independent engineer to review all drawings and other submittals, and identify any deficiencies in them. Tim seconded the motion, and the Commission approved unanimously.
Tim then moved as follows: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the commission will provide the applicants with Boulder’s road specifications by the end of the month. Connie seconded the motion, and the Commission approved unanimously.
John Wade suggested that even with the details of the plan ironed out and approved by the Planning Commission, the view shed issues and other “political” topics have yet to be addressed, and they will be within the Town Council forum. Curtis added that if the CC&Rs were filed with the application, the town would have a better understanding that the Highway 12 view shed is protected.

Discuss Chapters 7-9 Revisions to General Plan
Eric recognized Tom Barlow, who, unfortunately, had driven from Panguitch to attend the meeting. He had incorporated the previous meeting’s changes and distributed copies of those changes. However, as it was already past 9:30, Eric requested that we table discussion on the General Plan.
Right now, the Planning Commission and Tom Barlow will plan a special meeting Tuesday, November 8 (Election Day) to discuss only the General Plan.
At 9:35, Eric asked for a motion to adjourn. Connie made the motion, and Elaine seconded. The next meeting will be Tuesday, November 8, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the General Plan; the next regular public meeting will be Thursday, November 17, at 7 p.m.
• Commissioners: Be ready to discuss General Plan specifics in Chapters 7 (Land Use), 8 (Housing) and 9 (Economic Development).