Meeting Minutes
Boulder Town Planning Commission
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
December 14, 2006, 7:00 p.m.

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

Meeting Agenda
¬ Approve November 9 minutes
¬ Discuss input to Land Use section (Chapter 7) in the General Plan.
¬ Determine 2007 meeting schedule

Mike called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. The Commissioners reviewed the November 9 minutes. Eric moved to approve the minutes, Connie seconded the motion, and all approved. Mike’s two years as chair ends January 1. Brian agreed informally to serve as chair, with Mike as co-chair. Eric nominated Brian as chair and Mike as co-chair, Connie seconded the nomination, and all approved.

Discussion of General Plan Revisions
Mike turned over the discussion of section 7 revisions to Curtis. The biggest areas of input were to sections 7.5 and 7.1. Section 7.5 contains new descriptions of zoning categories and land use patterns for the town to consider. These changes and the Commission comments are summarized as follows:

7.5 Land Use Zoning Categories and Patterns
A complete revamping of the zoning process is being considered, and the Town’s paid consultant, Bruce Parker, will be expected to provide major input.
Part 1---Public Lands—a huge part of Boulder is owned by Forest Service, BLM (some of which likely will be parceled out for sale within next 5 years) or SITLA. Probably the best way for the town to handle the zoning of these lands would be as “Open Space-Not for Development.” This provides a way to potentially bind these governmental agencies to town ordinances. If a parcel so designated went up for sale, a buyer would have to apply for a rezoning, which would give the town more control over the outcome of that parcel.
Part 2 --- Add municipal, educational, utility, and other public uses to designation
Part 3 --- Critical, sensitive, and agricultural lands. The current plan does discuss sensitive lands, but doesn’t specify agricultural land. Revisions will add better definition of acceptable slopes and a definition of ag land capable of production. The town could allow some differential in perimeter development, and a little more favorable treatment in density credits, providing incentives to landowners/developers to do something other than indiscriminate slicing.
The term “greenbelt” will be removed as it defines as a tax treatment, not ‘open space’ as often thought.
Part 4 --- Commercial zoning. The previous plan zoned commercial land according to its existing use. Is it possible to proceed into the future not specifically zoning a “commercial district,” but basing usage on conditional use applications and deciding on a case-by-case basic? However, there may be some language in state law that prohibits using conditional use in this way. The real discussion will happen when the Town starts working on actual ordinances.

Don asked how the town is looking at franchise applications. The first step is to consider a general policy toward them. The legal description comes at the ordinance stage.
Part 5 --- Residential zoning. Now Low, Medium, and High, and Special are defined. Revisions would add “minor subdivision” in order to mitigate some of the infrastructure requirements for smaller parcel owners. However, this idea isn’t agreeable to all and will need to be discussed more.

“Low density” is the current 5 acre minimum now in effect. Medium density is defined as 1 to 4.8 acres. This definition would be the real point of divergence from the current plan. The current area of so-called “Village Center” and along Hwy 12 is already a medium density area ranging from ½ acre to more. The town may want to discuss consolidating usage to make walkable hub. It may want to preserve the Highway 12 corridor as a mixed use zone, and not develop it strictly as a commercial zone. Also, an official Village Center could be defined.

High density is anything less than an acre, but this usage would have to be strictly regulated by conditional use due to state septic requirements.

Eric said that one usage that should be added is the ability of owners to have an apartment on their property, treated as a commercial venture. Curtis said this idea could have huge ramifications: How do you balance any designation that results in high-density housing and still preserve the rural character of the town? Eric suggested that conditional use could be applied, enabling an owner to alleviate a short-term housing need by allowing a rental, but not redefining the zoning as such.

Brian asked about “takings.” Curtis said that the only time this applies with a down zoning where a town is taking away rights. However, whenever a piece of land is sold, current zoning applies.
Eric mentioned the American Farmland Trust, which has a template to help create documents for towns. Their services specially mention developing ordinances with density credits, etc. Curtis thinks the town may get additional grant funding to add to $20K now. He suggested looking at the AFT website to consider their templates. Also, Larimer County, CO has language developed.

7.1 Introduction Tom Barlow as made an initial pass, with some minor edits by Tim. We need to keep Right-to-Farm language intact where it is appropriate and get its official definition. In other places the term “sustainable agriculture” may be better substituted.
7.3 Affordable housing. About best we can do is make smaller lots available and potentially change to conditional use to allow for some rentals. What about the millionaire who wants to buy up these smaller parcels spots for their condo? The answer is that there is no way to prevent that; market prices prevail.

Tim had information from Chad Reeder on septic systems and allowable lot sizes: ½ acre is the smallest reasonable size for a lot in Boulder, and a full acre would be safer, given perc problems in certain locations.
Proceeding with draft: Mike thought the current draft is in good enough shape to forward to Bruce Parker. Eric said the major question would be the whole concept of a Village Center, which is a new idea. He said he would hate to invest time and money having Bruce Parker draft the language when a town discussion hasn’t happened. Curtis agreed but said the plan can be advertised, posted on the web, copies made available, etc. for people to see. If we put the package together and explain it properly, people can vote it up or down. Tom Jerome said that “people can’t form opinions out of thin air. They need something to react to.”
Eric said we should request that the town forward the draft as it exists for consideration in Bruce Parker’s scope of work. Connie made a motion for this, Eric seconded and all approved.

2007 Meeting Schedule
The Commission agreed to continue regular business meetings on the second Thursday of every month, with special meetings to be posted as needed. Brian so moved, with Connie seconding the motion, and all approved.

The Commission cancelled their Dec 28 meeting. The next Commission meeting will be Jan 11, 2007, at which time a new member will replace Connie Reid.

Elaine moved to adjourn the meeting, and Connie seconded the motion. Mike adjourned the meeting at 8:38.

Margaret Smith, Planning Commission Clerk Date

Approved:_________________________________ Date:______________________________________