Minutes Teton County Planning & Zoning Commission December 12, 2017
Commissioners Present:
Sarah Johnston
Jack Haddox
David Breckenridge
Marlene Robson
Pete Moyer
Cleve Booker
Chris Larson
Staff Present
Gary Armstrong
Joshua Chase
Sharon Fox
1. Approval of Minutes
· Tuesday November 14, 2017
RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Breckenridge
SECONDER: Chris Larson, Vice Chair
AYES: Sarah Johnston, Jack Haddox, David Breckenridge, Marlene Robson, Pete Moyer, Cleve Booker, Chairman, Chris Larson, Vice Chair
2. Chairman Business
There was no Chairman business.
3. Administrator Business
Mr. Chase provided an update on the Cutthroat Creek preliminary plat review, which was continued at the September 12th meeting until receipt of updated studies that meet the requirements of Title 8 & Title 9. He stated the applicant has submitted an updated wildlife study so they will be on the January 9th agenda. He also commented the BoCC approved a request for an extension for the subdivision on December 11th in order to accommodate the deadline for completing Final Plat review.
Item #1. – PUBLIC HEARING: Running Water Subdivision Concept Hearing The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision on 26.25 acres. The residential lots will meet the zoning requirements and be approximately 15 and 11 acres. The proposed subdivision is located south and west of the City of Victor at 9500 S., 2500 W. Applicants are also requesting a waiver from the Nutrient Pathogen study.
Legal Description: RP03N45E161400, TAX #6953 SEC 16 T3N R45E
Ms. Johnston recused herself because she is representing the applicant. Mr. Booker asked if any Planning Commission member has had any exparte communication or visited the site. No member had done either.
Mr. Chase explained the application request for a two lot subdivision and the location of the proposed building sites. Because Warm Creek crosses the proposed subdivision, which is a trigger for a Nutrient-Pathogen evaluation, the applicant is requesting an NP Waiver that will follow the concept review. Mr. Chase summarized the letter received from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the property contains waters of the US including wetlands and requires a 404 Permit to dredge or fill in the wetlands. He also stated the County Engineer wanted to see at Preliminary plat review an overlay of the proposed floodplain map before issuing an access permit. He explained the applicant has shown the existing floodplain and the proposed draft floodplain map boundaries on the concept plan plat.
Applicant Presentation:
Mr. Ben Hanner, representing the applicants, commented they would like to split the 26 acres and build two homes on the northern end of the property and rehab the degraded stream bank as well as clearing out the weeds. Ms. Robson asked about the proposed access going through the Southern Skies subdivision and wanted to be sure there was written permission. Mr. Hanner commented they had talked to the Southern Skies HOA representative and they had agreed on a 2/13th snow removal cost sharing for the road. Mr. Breckenridge asked if there is an agreement for shared maintenance. Ms. Johnston with Arrowleaf Engineering commented they had not put that in writing yet but the access easement does exist to ensure access to the parcel.
Mr. Booker asked about building envelopes in relation to the floodplain and the septic systems. Ms. Johnston commented on the current floodplain location, the proposed new floodplain designation, and the 300' requirement from Warm Creek. She stated the setbacks shown on the plat are for above ground improvements and the applicant will work with EIPH when they apply for the septic permit. The plat will reflect language defining the buildable area showing the existing floodplain and the draft floodplain boundaries, as well as the 300' setback from Warm Creek.
Public Comment:
Mr. & Mrs. Laughlin, adjacent property owner to the subdivision, asked about the intended use of the property south of the Warm Creek because they breed and raise horses, and would also like to use the majority of their lot for farming. Mr. Hanner commented they intend to keep the south portion in agriculture, probably hay, and eventually have livestock as well.
Planning Commission Deliberation:
It was the consensus of the Commission the concept criteria has been met satisfactorily.
MOTION: Having concluded that the Criteria for Approval of a Subdivision Concept Plan found in Title 9-3-2(B-4) can be satisfied with the inclusion of the following conditions of approval:
1. Identify building envelopes for both lots, outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area, on the plat.
2. Identify the Special Flood Hazard Area on the plat.
3. Begin working with Eastern Idaho Public Health for approval.
4. Conduct required studies/plans for Preliminary Review: Landscape Plan, Natural Resource Analysis, and Nutrient Pathogen Evaluation (if not waived).
§ and having found that the proposal is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the 2012-2030 Teton County Comprehensive Plan,
§ I move to APPROVE the Concept Plan for Running Water Subdivision as described in the application materials submitted October 26, 2017 and as supplemented with additional applicant information attached to this staff report.
RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 0]
MOVER: Chris Larson, Vice Chair
SECONDER: David Breckenridge
AYES: Jack Haddox, David Breckenridge, Marlene Robson, Pete Moyer, Cleve Booker, Chairman, Chris Larson, Vice Chair
RECUSED: Sarah Johnston
Item #2. – PUBLIC HEARING: Running Water Subdivision NP Waiver Request Snake Farm LLC is proposing a two lot subdivision on approximately 26.25 acres. The residential lots will meet the zoning requirements. The proposed subdivision is adjacent to Warm Creek and within the Wetlands Waterways Overlay
Legal Description: RP03N45E161400, TAX #6953 SEC 16 T3N R45E
Mr. Armstrong explained that the stream crossing the property triggered a NP study requirement to determine the impact the septic systems would have on the ground water. The applicant has requested to waive the requirement based on the natural resource study provided by the applicant that included drilling test holes. The results were the holes were dry down to 10' in one hole and 11' in the second hole. Harmony Design, consultant for review of NP waiver requests, commented on the material submitted by the applicant as well. They identified the conditions present that would require the NP study.
Ms. Johnston with Arrowleaf Engineering, representing the applicant, commented she was not sure which wells were referred to in the Harmony Design report because they were not identified. She stated she researched wells in the area through recorded well logs for the depth to static water and they vary from 30' at the shallow end to almost 70', with the vast majority falling in the 50' range. She also talked about the A-2 soil type with a relatively high percolation rate and pointed out that is why EIPH requires a 300' setback from a stream to a drainfield regardless of whether or not an NP study is required. She felt the real question of the NP study is what additional information is the study going to provide and is it going to change whether or not the proposal for two large residential lots are approved for the property.
Mr. Moyer asked if the test holes were dug in the area where the drainfields would be located. Ms. Johnston confirmed they were. Mr. Haddox asked if the surface water had nitrate. Ms. Johnston commented it did not register on the date of the test samples. Mr. Booker asked if EIPH had expressed any concerns or requested an advanced septic system. Ms. Johnston commented they don't require NP studies or advanced systems on this site and their only concerns are setbacks and shallow ground water. This site has no shallow groundwater.
Mr. Larson commented Harmony Design reached a different conclusion than the applicant based on the depth of the wells. Ms. Johnston stated she only saw one well log that was at 30' and the majority were in the 50' range so she was not sure why the review mentioned shallow ground water.
Public Comment:
There was no public comment.
Commission Deliberation:
Mr. Larson commented this request was consistent with requests in the pasts that were granted and he did not have an issue with supporting the NP waiver. Mr. Moyer did not have a problem with the waiver because of the depth of the water as stated in the well logs and because they are proposing large lots.
MOTION: Having concluded that the considerations for approval of the Nutrient-Pathogen Evaluation Waiver found in Title 9-3-2-(C-3-vi.) can be satisfied with the inclusion of any conditions of approval,
§ And having found that the considerations for granting the Nutrient Pathogen Evaluation Waiver to Snake Farm LLC. can be justified and have been presented in the application materials, technical reviewer’s report, and presentations to the Planning & Zoning Commission,
§ I RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the Nutrient-Pathogen Evaluation Waiver for Running Water subdivision as described in the application materials submitted August 24, 2017 and additional information attached to this staff report and forward a recommendation to the BoCC for approval.
RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 0]
MOVER: Chris Larson, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Pete Moyer
AYES: Jack Haddox, David Breckenridge, Marlene Robson, Pete Moyer, Cleve Booker, Chairman, Chris Larson, Vice Chair
RECUSED: Sarah Johnston
Item #3. – Public Hearing: Building Rights Policy/Ordinance Amendment The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing to take comment on five proposed alternatives to clarify the process to determine building rights for existing parcels. Four of the alternatives are new ordinances. The fifth alternative is a resolution regarding existing policy. A full report of these alternatives is available on the Teton County Website.
Mr. Chase commented the proposed ordinance amendment was discussed in November by the Planning & Zoning Commission and this meeting is to hear from the public regarding the alternatives proposed by the County Attorney. The proposed alternatives were not yet modified based on the input from the Planning Commission members from the previous hearing.
Public Comment:
Mr. Arnold Woolstenhulme, AW Engineering, commented all of the lot splits he had done in the past were done based on the laws in place at the time of the split. He felt that the right to have a home on your property was an inherent right based on the Constitution and questioned when that right had changed. He also felt that any survey that was signed off by a staff person should be upheld.
Ms. Joanne LaBelle, Victor resident, commented that she appreciated the Commission working on this issue. She wanted to see past approvals honored and a new policy moving forward that was easy for the public to understand.
Mr. Sean Hill, Director of VARD, commented he is speaking in a neutral position because he did not feel there was enough information to come up with a new policy at this time. He felt more research should be done to find out how many lots are affected before making a decision to amend the ordinance. He commented that VARD would potentially support an amnesty policy if the lot was not located in a sensitive area. Mr. Hill also wanted to support the concept that if a plat was signed off by a county staff person, it should be upheld. Mr. Hill read into the record an email from Mr. & Mrs. Van Siclen, Tetonia residents. They were not in favor of amnesty for lots created illegally and felt that the owners should be notified if it is determined that they do not have a building right so they can do whatever is necessary to obtain the right to build a home.
Mr. Tom Hill, a valley resident, stated he was in favor of personal property rights but had not had a chance to read the proposed policy changes. He commented he wanted to see lots that were purchased separately at different times by one owner considered individual lots with separate building rights rather than have them considered one large lot with only one building right simply because they were purchased by the same person.
Mr. Roger Brink, Tetonia resident, thanked Mr. Chase for his efforts on this issue that has been a concern for some time now. He was in support of amnesty and he believed that there were very few lots that were split illegally and then sold. He did not want the staff spending time and taxpayer money to determine building rights, and he did not want to see a fee charged to the public to find out if they can build on the property they have purchased.
Ms. Lesli Kelly McCracken, a local land owner, commented she purchased land over 20 years ago and any changes made to her property were done through the Planning Department based on the laws at that time. She was in favor of the amnesty approach for parcels created in the past and was in favor of a solid policy going forward so there will not be lots created without building rights.
Staff Rebuttal/Questions:
Mr. Booker asked when the determination was made by the state of Idaho regarding building rights. Mr. Chase commented the state of Idaho has tasked counties with overseeing the division of land and, by extension, the creation of additional building rights. Regarding the fees charged, he explained that when the current policy was adopted in 2016 the BoCC established a fee of $150 to cover the staff time to research how the lot was created. The new policies would not have a review fee unless it was determined that the lot did not have building rights. Then there would be a fee charge to rectify the situation.