Boulder leaders prioritize zoning fixes and commercial rules; full general‑plan rewrite deferred

Boulder Town Council and the Planning Commission agreed Feb. 10 to focus immediate work on fixing the town’s zoning procedures and commercial rules, asking outside help for the procedural rewrite and handling commercial sections of the general plan and zoning concurrently rather than undertaking an immediate full general‑plan overhaul.

Kevin Smedley of the Five‑County Association of Governments opened the joint session by reviewing the town’s general plan — established in 1997 — and said communities must decide whether to revise incrementally or start over. He warned of pending state legislation that could “make all considerations under the current state code mandatory rather than optional,” which he said would impose a “significant burden on small towns.” Smedley offered to review Boulder’s documents and deliver recommendations.

Planning Commission Chair Nancy Tosta asked for clarity and tracking, urging that policies in the general plan be tied to particular committees or departments to ensure follow‑through. Tosta also noted a recent resignation from the commission and that the online zoning PDF is not fully up to date.

Councilmember John Veranth framed the debate around urgent problems in the zoning ordinance, calling the 2021 commercial changes “an ill‑considered change” that left Boulder without a usable regulatory structure for businesses. He said the code contains inconsistent definitions, language that does not reflect current state law, redundancies, confusing appeals procedures and excessive procedural material, and argued for a complete rewrite using model language from other Utah municipalities.

Councilmember Josh Ellis and others cautioned that a full general‑plan rewrite requires extensive public engagement. Ellis said the last rewrite involved working groups and months of review and suggested separating the long public process from immediate, high‑risk fixes in the zoning code. Planning commissioners and council members ultimately reached a working consensus to:

• update procedural portions of the zoning ordinance with consultant assistance;

• work on commercial sections of the general plan and zoning in tandem; and

• acknowledge that a comprehensive general‑plan rewrite will be necessary later but is not the immediate priority.

The group also agreed the Planning Commission will demonstrate parallel progress at its next meeting and report back to the Town Council at its March meeting so the council can formalize direction.

The meeting included several specific clarifying points: the town survey used in planning had 130 responses; the general plan’s original footprint dates to 1997; and implementation tasks such as annexation planning could take several months and require county cooperation. The Planning Commission is scheduled to meet Feb. 17 and the Town Council on March 3 to follow up.

The town did not take any legislative votes on zoning or land‑use changes during the session; the council’s actions at the meeting were administrative and procedural.