Commissioners present: Elaine Roundy, Connie Reid, Brian Dick, and. Eric Feiler. Mike Nelson was absent. Also present were Commission Clerk, Peg Smith; and Planning Coordinator, Curtis Oberhansly.
Members of the public included Sergio Femenias and Tim Clarke.

Meeting Agenda
¬ Approve October 24 minutes
¬ Discuss Bruce Parker list of planning priorities
¬ Discuss General Plan revisions

Eric called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. The Commissioners reviewed the October 24 minutes. Connie moved to approve the minutes, Elaine seconded the motion, and all approved.

Discuss Bruce Parker List of Planning Priorities
Curtis passed out a checklist to help the town define the scoping notice for Bruce Parker who will be hired by the town to re-codify Boulder ordinances and documents. Brian asked how much money was available. The town now has approved acceptance of $16K in grant money (plus $4K budgeted by the town). Curtis said other money may be available from various sources. The town needs to decide its priorities. The checklist included the following items, and the bullets summarize the discussion of each:

Codification of all ordinances.
• Connie would like to eliminate the 4-lot exception to the current streets ordinance. Would prefer to look at sub-divisions in their entirety or as piecemeal developments.
• Brian wants specification on determining slopes: how do you measure them? From what point to what point? Current language says “average” slope, which is ambiguous. Tim thought the gradient needs to be defined for fire vehicles. Curtis thought two definitions are needed, one for buildable slopes and one for street slopes.
• Brian asked if an individual has the right to waive particular aspects of an ordinance, presumably to take on personal liability for a decision. Tim thought this isn’t possible because of overriding liability and safety issues.
• Tim said we should define basic engineering for any roadway. The ordinance should include a description and graphics, easy to use and understand.
• Minor sub-divisions? The intent of defining “minor” sub-divisions was to enable an owner to sell off one or two pieces of his or her property without incurring the infrastructure costs.
• Road dedications. Curtis thought some language is needed to establish when and how these occur.

Project approval
• What materials do you need to appear before the town board when you’re presenting a project for approval?. Eric thought a flowchart would be most useful to show what you need to produce and when.
• Agriculture buildings. It’s unclear if a permit is needed to build an agricultural structure costing under $1000. Connie thought the intent was to ensure that setbacks were proper, therefore requiring a permit for any structure. The Commission agreed the wording needs to be clarified.

Conditional Uses
• Connie asked about enforcement if a person exceeds the limits of a conditional use permit; can the Commission revoke a permit? Curtis said “yes” the town can take action, usually issuing a cease and desist on the offending use. Also, LUDMA (state law) says any use not explicitly permitted is not allowed. This could be handled through generic language, with the example being “medical clinics” as terminology that could include a vet clinic.
• Eric asked about using a conditional use permit to determine commercial development; maybe any zone could be potentially a commercial zone, with the Commission determining conditional use. As he said, most people agree that a continuous strip development is not what Boulder would want want. Maybe distributing commercial development throughout zones might work better. Tim will email Sidney Fonnesbeck to ask about some options of defining all commercial development as conditional use. “Spot zoning” was not an idea that was previously included in most town ordinances. Now, localities often deal with it, for example, as an owner of a duplex who wants to bump it to a 4-plex, or a house that the owner wants to convert to a gift shop, etc. The town can decide if the use is appropriate, given location, traffic, parking, neighbors, etc. Tim said the only way this would work would be for the conditions to be clearly defined.

Trailers and RVs
• Usage needs to be consolidated in Boulder ordinances.
• Application forms should be reviewed and revised if necessary.

Zoning
• Curtis: been working with Tom Barlow to incorporate some general language into the General Plan.
• Eric had two comments about zoning: (1) Ag land should be pulled out as its own category. Some areas in Boulder have great land ag land, and other places are more marginal for that usage. Once soil types and areas are identified and mapped, density credits could be defined for developers. Curtis said that everyone has the right to use their land as they wish, but the town could provide a package of incentives for land that is identified as special agricultural land. Transfer credits (TDR) Transfer of Development Rights* that could be sold to another landowner. State calls it “special land” and we should define as such too. Boulder could offer the opportunity for density or transfer credits if landowner has that type of land, adding to a landowner’s options, rather than diminishing them. But agricultural land would need to be defined. (*A TDR can transfer across the state. One developer pays another to not develop one area in exchange for another.).
• Affordable property zones should be established to define smaller lots. Tim had contacted Chad Reeder about minimum requirements (for lot size with a septic system and potentially a well). There is a sliding scale, depending on soil type and use of a private well. Curtis said that smaller lot size is dependent on a “public” water system, because a small lot can’t get the physical separation required between a septic system and a well. Eric said this is an important item to resolve in terms of offering density credits..
• Rezoning of state and federal lands. If the zoning is defined and public lands are sold, the developer is bound to local ordinance. If not, the land is considered unzoned, giving carte blanche to the developer.
Eric said the critical planning is for public discussion. Are we going to direct development around a town center? The first stage will be to clarify wording in the Land Use chapter of the General Plan.

Tim will forward the Commission’s recommendations to the town, and then formalize the comments in a scoping contract for the work.

Discussion of General Plan Revisions
Because of Thanksgiving, the Nov 23 meeting will be postponed until Nov 30. Nov 30 will be a normal business meeting. The next General Plan discussion meeting will be Dec 14, at which time a public workshop will be held to discuss the Land Use chapter revisions.

Elaine moved to adjourn the meeting, and Connie seconded the motion. Eric adjourned the meeting at 8:00.

Margaret Smith, Planning Commission Clerk Date

Approved:_________________________________ Date:______________________________________