>Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2000
Present: Mike Davis, Bill Smith, Rich Zimmerman, Deb Coleman, Connie Otteson, Kerry Cottrell, Linda Crapo, Dirk Mace and Kurt Eidam
Other Attendees: Ivel Burrell – Fremont County Assessor, Jerry Woods – Sr. Environmental Health Specialist, Karen Lords – P & B Administrator, Cathy Winters – P & Z Secretary, Rick Byrem, Rick and Mitch Jacobs – Centennial Mountain Properties
Mike Davis called the meeting; he opened by welcoming everyone to the meeting. The subject to be covered will be Centennial Shores Final Plat.
The minutes were reviewed, Dirk Mace made a motion they be accepted as written, Rich Zimmerman made the second motion.
Karen Lords gave a report on the Centennial Shores Final Plat. Karen met with Rick Byrem, Mitch Jacobs, developer and Chuck Homer, Attorney for Centennial Mountain Properties, Thursday. There have been a few changes made since the project went to preliminary plat. Originally they offered 240 acres to be used for density. They are making changes to the final plat; they are now going to use 76.5 acres plus 41.4 acres of property that is a transfer of development rights. The new board has not dealt with transfer rights, so I would like to explain. They are taking property that is underwater and we like to see property that can’t be developed used in a transfer of development rights. We have to add that property into the density, I’m adding 76.5 acres plus 41.4 acres, they were minus one acre of meeting our density requirements, I had to go back through and re-score, and now they have the amount needed to meet density. They will enter into a development agreement and will do the project in phases because he will need time to do his community water, roads and he will have to come up with a time frame when they think the project can be completed. I have to ask for bids for the installation of the water system and the roads, the developer then has to give us a letter of credit. The letter of credit is kept until the project is completed, then if something happens and they can’t complete the project, the county then has the money on hand to be able to finish it. After meeting with them Thursday and going through and re-scoring, it still meets density requirements. I want the commission to understand the changes before you actually approve it.
Rick Byrem stated, regarding the density issue, this sets on a larger parcel and we’re talking about taking this 76 acres out of the larger parcel and we didn’t have it handled properly at the preliminary plat stage. We are required to do this formal dedication of transfer or development rights. As far as the number of lots that were approved at the preliminary plat the configuration and the size remain the same, nothing has changed.
Rich Zimmerman asked if there were more lots? Rick replied, no, same number of lots.
Rick went over the map, reminding the people that were at the on site inspection in May that this project is just north and east of that property. All the roads we drove on are the roads for this subdivision. The main reason we need the development agreement is the time factor involved to complete the water system. All lots will be served with central water and they will have individual septic. District 7 has done test holes and could not find any problem areas. There is a 75’ setback requirement from the reservoir and we are further back than the setback required by the county. We don’t want neighbors crowding each other out from the views. We will have a greenbelt that separates the lots from the reservoir. (Karen is this correct?) Karen stated this would help the buffering. Karen has to look at visually sensitive, because the project sets out in the middle of only sage brush, and people don’t want to see houses. Planting trees in the visually sensitive area are accommodating this.
Mike Davis asked the members if there were any questions for either Karen or Rick. No questions were asked. Rich Zimmerman made a motion to approve the final plat; Bill Smith made the second motion. The plat was unanimously approved.
Mike asked Karen Lords, if she would give the administrators report.
Karen stated the agenda sent out to the members last week included a code amendment change for Norm and Tanya Ellis. By the time they got their paperwork into the office I did not have time to give the legal notice to the paper for the code amendment change. This has been changed until August. For August, we currently have, two final plats, a sketch plan, a code amendment change for Norma and Tanya Ellis. The code amendment change affects where their real estate office is located. The other thing we didn’t discuss is the replacement of Ramon Luekenga. We need names of someone within the city of St. Anthony; the following names were brought up, Bill Butterfield, Kay Biorn, Lee Miller, Glenn Goff (former contractor originally from Montana) Barbara Hall, from Ashton, her father), Joe Thueson, and John Pierotti. We need to give the names to the county commissioners and get that position filled.
Kerry Cottrell asked, if we look at a code amendment change in August, that means we can’t look again at code amendment changes for six months, is that correct? Karen stated that they can come through and ask for a code amendment change. When it comes to the point were we can only look at it at a certain amount of time is when it actually goes to public hearing and the public gets to come in and make comments. The county commissioners have to hold public hearings and then the public is allowed to come in and give comments to the county commissioners. The county commissioners have the final say as to whether the code amendment is approved or not. We wait till we have several changes and then will do them all at one time. We will probably have to have a meeting where we do nothing but code amendment changes, because we will have several and it will be very time consuming. We already have one that needs to go to public hearing and that happened before most of you all joined the board. Fremont Telecom requested that subdivisions put in hard line phone systems. Scott Kamachi recommended, and it was passed by the P & Z board, small scale development, meaning lots under 60 should be encouraged to have hard lines installed, but not mandatory. Any development over 60 lots, which we consider large scale, would absolutely have to install hard lines. The concern was small developers don’t have the funds available like the larger developers have. We will need to have a public hearing and then go to the county commissioners.
Rich Zimmerman asked Karen about Norm and Tonja’s code change. Karen stated they are asking to make that particular property a commercial node. Rich asked, if we accept it then it goes to public hearing? Karen stated yes. Rich then asked the departments feelings on that issue. Karen stated from past history, the Hungry Bear went through a public hearing and the P&Z Board turned it down because all of the Flat is considered visually sensitive and that means it is a wide open space and the public did not want to see buildings out there that would be eye sores. It was appealed and went before the County Commissioners and the County Commissioners over road the P & Z decision and allowed it to go through. The business has been struggling since it was built, most of the people in Island Park boycotted it because they did not want it there and they were upset with the County Commissioners that they went ahead and allowed it to be put there. That particular group of County Commissioners swore they would never go against the P & Z boards decision again. When the Sawtelle sales building was put in, the small one was built first, they wanted to add more storage so the project was looked at being a minor change in use, they were allowed to build the huge building, that had a lot of public comment also. I think that turning that area into a commercial node is something you seriously want to look at, you will want to know public comment and you will have that at the public hearing. When the people read the notice in the paper, they will come forward and say what they think that night.
Kurt Eidam stated they should build according to a standard such as log or log siding, something that will blend in with the area. Karen said there is an Island Park Commercial Guide asking people to build in accordance to what is already out there, such as Pond’s Lodge which is log or you could use log siding, but to throw up a metal building especially where the Sawtelle sales building sets. Kurt wants to add to the guide that buildings have to be constructed of materials that blend with the area. Karen stated that the proposal that they are looking at for rebuilding the Sawtelle Sales building is use a log siding and they wanted to put a fake façade on top, but I discouraged them from that due to the amount of snow that is gets on the flats and a façade would catch all the snow and the potential of the roof collapsing again would be there. They decided to eliminate the façade. There proposal meets the Island Park guide. They can build the building back; the issue is what they want to put in the building. Rich Zimmerman stated the issue is do we want another commercial node in Island Park out in the middle of the flats?
Jerry Woods asked if there are commercial nodes in both the city of Island Park and in the county. Karen stated there are nodes in both areas. For example the Shotgun area is a commercial node and so is Pine Haven and Valley View. Dirk (I think) asked, isn’t there a mile strip on either side of the highway, Karen stated you are thinking of the impact area they are asking for; they have not completed their proposal yet. They are asking for a mile on either side of the new highway and the old highway to be in there impact area. Rich Zimmerman stated that 500 foot is on the old highway, which follows the power line and is not even close to the Hungry Bear or Sawtelle sales, so they are actually in the county as it stands right now; they are not in the city. Karen stated that they still have to follow the Island Park commercial guide and the commercial node that we have in place, because the city is following it and so are we. Kerry Cottrell asked, that is a commercial node for what it was and they want to change it to a commercial node to what they want, isn’t that in reality what we are talking about? Karen stated it has not been designated as such, I can’t hand you a map and say yes this is a commercial node. Kerry stated, it is a commercial business if they want to put snow machine rentals and four wheeler rentals, they can do it, but they want to put something different and so that can’t do that. Karen stated, right, there are three tents setting next to Hungry Bear Market, currently selling Mountain Man merchandise, I had to violate them and they have to leave within 30 days of receipt of the letter. I received another call from a gentleman that wanted to put woodcarvings there and I had to turn him down to. I told him if he set up there and I saw him, I had to site him because it is the same situation, Hungry Bear is not in a commercial node even though they are a commercial business, they can’t go and put different types of businesses there either.
An open discussion regarding future training and the educational needs of the P & Z Commission was held.
A meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 7, 7:00 PM for an on site inspection and a training class. We will meet at the Court House at 7:00 then proceed to Ashton to pick up Kurt and Kerry at approximately 7:15 we will then meet Rich and Bill at Island Park Village.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 PM, motion by Kerry Cottrell, second by Dirk Mace.