[{"_1":2,"_95":-5,"_96":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6523364,"mediaKeyId","5033719-e90d3a138d99bf100f907f7bdfea07d2","parentId",5033719,"title","Boulder planning commission debates pausing vague \"commercial\" entry in zoning table","audioSeconds",1495,"startMs",1779000,"endMs",3274000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5033719-e90d3a138d99bf100f907f7bdfea07d2&start=1779&end=3274","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6523364/Utah/Boulder-planning-commission-debates-pausing-vague-commercial-entry-in-zoning-table","mediaUrl","author","Boulder Planning Commission","date","2025-06-19T19:00:00Z","article","Boulder Planning Commission Chair Nick Tosta said the commission opened a public hearing June 19 to discuss a town-council request to address how the town treats “commercial” uses in its zoning table. The commission considered a staff memo recommending that the single, generic “commercial” row be removed from the table of uses as a short‑term step while the town revises its general plan and clarifies land‑use categories.

The recommendation responds to what staff and the town council say is a mismatch between the zoning map, the table of uses and the 2021 edits that removed explicit commercial zones from the zoning map while leaving a generic commercial entry in the table. Josh, the staff author of the memo, told commissioners his short‑term suggestion was to “put a stop to commercial use in our table of uses” so that applicants could not rely on the generic entry while the town works out clear definitions and zones.

Why it matters: commissioners and members of the public said the generic entry creates legal uncertainty and could allow wide latitude for conditional‑use applications in zones the town did not intend to be commercial. Town council liaison John Brad urged commissioners to study conditional‑use law and other jurisdictions’ language before deciding a permanent approach, and he emphasized that rezoning remains the standard legislative route to allow commercial activity outside designated commercial zones.

Commissioners discussed trade‑offs. Some supported a temporary removal of the generic commercial row as a “pause” to prevent unintended development while the general plan is updated. Others warned the move could be challenged as a moratorium or otherwise prompt legal pushback if it is interpreted as blocking economic opportunities. One commissioner suggested a time limit for any temporary change; another noted some statutory deadlines (e.g., 180‑day limitation concerns were raised in discussion) could constrain how long a temporary measure should last.

Public commenters urged caution and clarity. Mark Nelson said from his experience the issue will be “very difficult for you guys to come up with something that’s gonna work,” and urged thorough research. Resident Donna Owen said she was concerned that the public had little notice of the proposed change and asked the commission to consider fairness to landowners who may rely on home‑based or farm‑based businesses. Judith Dahl asked for a clearer definition of “commercial,” noting many residents already operate businesses from their homes.

John Brad, the town council liaison, outlined a path officials discussed in prior joint meetings: identify all alternatives, consider whether the town needs multiple commercial zone types (e.g., light industrial, neighborhood commercial, retail, hotel) rather than one generic category, and, if someone seeks commercial use outside existing commercial zones, require rezoning as a site‑specific legislative action. Brad cautioned the commission to ensure final ordinance language accomplishes the intended effect and not create unintended openings for conditional‑use applicants.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioners did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting. The commission agreed to report back to the town council with its understanding of the direction: that staff will prepare language to remove the generic “commercial” row from the table of uses as an interim measure and then work through a more comprehensive general plan and zoning revision. Several commissioners said the removal should be time‑bounded and vetted to reduce legal risk; one staff comment noted a suggestion to treat the removal as a temporary, definitional clarification rather than using the word “moratorium.” The commission scheduled further code work and additional hearings as part of the general plan process.

The commission also opened and closed a public hearing on the topic during the meeting; no formal ordinance vote was taken. Commissioners said they will send a recommendation and proposed language back to the town council for direction and continue refining the table of uses as part of the general plan update.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Planning Commission, June 19, 2025 Regular Meeting & Public Hearing - 2025 Jun 19 PC audio recording","oneSentenceSummary","Boulder Planning Commission Chair Nick Tosta said the commission opened a public hearing June 19 to discuss a town-council request to address how the town treats “commercial” uses in its zoning table.","taxTitle","Boulder, Garfield County, Utah","taxId",79935,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6523355,"Votes at a glance: Boulder Planning Commission procedural actions, June 19, 2025",2522,95000,2617000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5033719-e90d3a138d99bf100f907f7bdfea07d2&start=95&end=2617","/articles/6523355/Utah/Votes-at-a-glance-Boulder-Planning-Commission-procedural-actions-June-19-2025","At its June 19, 2025 meeting the Boulder Planning Commission recorded the following procedural motions and voice votes (all recorded as unanimous in the meeting audio and minutes):

- Move to approve the meeting agenda — approved (motion by Commissioner Elena; second by Commissioner Colleen; unanimous voice vote).

- Move to approve the May 15, 2025 meeting minutes — approved (mover: Daryl Fuller; second: Tina; unanimous voice vote).

- Move to approve the May 22, 2025 joint meeting minutes — approved (mover: Elena; second: Tina; unanimous voice vote).

- Motion to close the regular meeting and open the public hearing on commercial use — approved (mover: Elena; second: Colleen; unanimous voice vote).

- Motion to close the public hearing and reopen the regular meeting — approved (mover: Daryl; second: Colleen; unanimous voice vote).

- Motion to adjourn — approved (mover: Elena; second: Colleen; unanimous voice vote).

These actions were procedural and did not by themselves enact code changes; the commercial‑use discussion produced direction to staff but no ordinance adoption at this meeting.","The commission approved the agenda, approved minutes for May 15 and May 22, opened and closed a public hearing on commercial uses, and adjourned. All procedural votes recorded were unanimous voice votes.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6523360,"Boulder planning commission schedules community survey and forum to inform general plan update",1260,4696000,5956000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5033719-e90d3a138d99bf100f907f7bdfea07d2&start=4696&end=5956","/articles/6523360/Utah/Boulder-planning-commission-schedules-community-survey-and-forum-to-inform-general-plan-update","At the June 19 meeting the Boulder Planning Commission approved plans to launch a community survey and host a public forum to gather input for a coming general plan update.

The commission’s vision and goals work group recommended a new community survey to supplement past outreach (surveys in 1992, 2002/2004, and 2017). The group argued that a fresh survey will help the commission understand residents’ priorities and demographics ahead of a public forum. Commissioners discussed distributing the survey online and as paper copies at town events and local gathering places to reach residents who may not attend meetings.

Commissioners and staff agreed on a near‑term schedule: draft survey comments will be submitted to staff by June 23, and Planning Commissioner Elena and Commissioner Colleen (first names used in the meeting record) agreed to put the instrument into a survey platform for distribution. The commission set a target date of July 30 for the public forum (described informally as a community event with opportunities for attendees to add input to wall displays and small‑group conversations).

The forum will focus on five topic areas the commission identified for the general plan update: vision and goals, land use north of Town Hall, moderate‑income housing, capital projects, and the table of uses (commercial definitions). Commissioners discussed how to structure the forum to allow for both broad input and more specific follow‑up; several recommended gathering survey results before the forum so the event can focus on areas with the most community interest.

Commissioners also discussed logistics and outreach. Proposed distribution channels included online survey tools, hard copies at town events (including a local ice‑cream social and talent show), town hall, and outreach through community volunteers. Commissioners agreed to solicit edits and additions to the survey through the week and to finalize a draft for dissemination.

The commission did not adopt any code changes related to the general plan at the meeting; it set the survey and forum as next steps and will reconvene to review survey responses and public input at its July meeting. Commissioners emphasized that the forum and survey are intended to guide the general plan rewrite and to surface priorities that may become ordinance or capital‑project work items later.","The commission agreed to move forward with a public survey and a forum to gather input for the town’s general plan update; commissioners set a target forum date for July 30 and assigned staff and commissioners to produce and refine the survey instrument.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Boulder planning commission debates pausing vague "commercial" entry in zoning table

Votes at a glance: Boulder Planning Commission procedural actions, June 19, 2025

Boulder planning commission schedules community survey and forum to inform general plan update