LEMHI COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
July 17, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Roy Barrett, Tony Fiori, Ed Tolman Barbara Miller, Brett Barsalou & Vinn Strupp
STAFF PRESENT: Teresa Morton
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: Minutes of June 19, 2013 were approved unanimously moved by Barbara and seconded by Tony
Roy informs the board that they each have a copy of two letters that were submitted for review by members of the public concerning zoning in the Smedley area of the City of Salmon.
Matt McKeegan: My name is Matt McKeegan I am a professional land surveyor I own a business here in town, McKeegan Associates on Main Street and I have been surveying for this project and basically what it is, Dan Rufe has property, have you seen the plat?
Roy: Yes we have
Matt: It is on Panther Creek Road about three miles, 4.5 miles from Salmon River Road and kind of along the creek is where Dan has his house and some structures and just a little homestead there. On the other side of the creek we are thinking about putting a couple of small lots on the other side of the road, not the creek the road. The upland side away from the creek with the primary lot being Dan’s and being
his home where he manages his land. The smaller secondary lots would be for potential small home site type of thing. So with the creation of these lots that are on the plat we are thinking that the impact would be minimal. As far as the creation of lots themselves it is basically a three way lot split and the positioning of the lots are well away from the creek so that any potential home sites could be put on there. Do you have anything to add Dan?
Dan Rufe: Wait for questions.
Roy: Well I guess as we go through these in the past we have actually had the applicant go through Chapter 6 as you sent out to us and the reason we want to do that is so that it is a matter of public record and you have read it and again I have encouraged the board to ask questions and pay attention. I don’t want anyone to come back and do this more than once and I know it is a little time consuming and sometimes redundant but it is the way to make sure that whatever decision is made has to pass test. I think you have that information because I have it in my packet.
Matt: I have that in the binder that I sent out.
Teresa: That email that I sent you today?
Matt: I got back from the airport about an hour ago
Teresa: I will give you this one but I need it back
July 17, 2013- Page 1
Roy: The purpose of that so you don’t feel that you are being beat up, sometimes these hearings are controversial, sometimes they are not and unfortunately the law says we treat everybody equally under the same light and so everybody has to go through this process so that we aren’t showing any bias or
Matt: 6.1 basically I have read the code and went through it and acknowledged all the terms. For this particular project, was it because if I remember right, it couldn’t be a lot split because?
Teresa: Correct, he wanted to do more lots than was allowed
Matt: Right so that is why we are here basically for the large scale development because we were out of lot splits. 6.3.2 Basically the parent parcel is Dan’s place, his home, private residence. Proposed lots in
the similar nature, let me back up. The parent parcel is the big parcel and the next size the 14.21 is lot 1 for Dan’s private residence and then Lot 2 and Lot 3 are the smaller ones that we were wondering if we could put some home sites on there, possibly. Fence pastures surroundings, the mountains to the east and creek to the west. The creek borders Dan’s private residence. Water quality, compliance with State and Federal water quality regulations will be adhered to by maintaining proper setbacks for septic systems from wells and creeks. There is an existing approved well and septic system on lot 1. This is actually lots 2 and 3, 4 should not be in there. Lots 2 and 3 are on the upland side on average of several hundred feet east of Panther Creek. Runoff and erosion control, the existing conditions on lot 1, the private residence there is already appropriate measures in place, there is lawn and pasture. No development or earth work is anticipated for this.
Dan: Lot 1 is remaining as it is
Matt: Drainage, approximate ????? Of lot 1 daylights out into the pasture, that actually is the swale that we were discussing with the Corps. That is just basically when there is significant flow down in the….
Dan: The gulch area, it just stays in the pasture.
Roy: That is a man made structure?
Dan: Yes, it was installed after the 2003 micro bursts that came down, filled the pasture up, I just diverted a little bit to the south with this swale to keep it within the pasture instead coming across and taking out my irrigation system and pump house again. That should stay within the pasture.
Matt: Lot 2 area suitable for a building site, minimal earth work to establish a building pad, approximate slope between toe and fence on the east side of Panther Creek is between 2-3% in the potential building areas. Additional there is a drainage culvert, I believe I show that on the plat, yes I do, that is near lot 2 there and that drains down into the horse pasture the southern end of the horse pasture there. Lot 3 has an area suitable for a home site with slopes ranging from 7-9% at the toe east slope to the east side of the road.
Roy: For the record, I think you said this and I will make sure that it gets through part of the record that under 6.4 Water Quality, there is no Lot 4, that is a typo, is that correct?
Matt: Yes I acknowledge that yes. In 6.5.1 erosion hazards from proposed limited grading in actually there is no proposed grading at this point there is only proposed lots so hazards are minimal at this point. If there is construction it would adhere to the contours of the site. Natural east, west runoff from the swale, approximate eastern center of lot 1 spreads evenly, fans out, that’s evidence that looking at the sediment in the horse pasture that it kind of just fans out there and soaks into the ground. Additional runoff is channeled through the existing culvert on the northerly half of lot 2 and that culvert goes under the Panther Creek Rd. Slopes are general into the existing pasture, soil is porous, groundwater collection and storage and existing natural vegetation is the surrounding pastures also serve as a natural erosion control. 6.5.2 Existing structure, all the existing structures are in lot 1, Dan’s residence, and are surrounded by basically landscape and features that are found in a private residence. July 17, 2012 Page 2
Dan: Lawn and trees
Matt: Buffers for erosion hazards. The drainage trend is from the swale on lot 1 to the culvert on lot 2 southerly portion of lot 1 characterized by the horse pasture. No structures exist within this drainage trend. That is well away from lots 2 & 3. If there are home sites in 2 and 3 they can be in areas at the toe of the slope to the east and away from the drainage trend as they occupy the higher portions of the property. 6.5.3 Existing vegetation on lot 1 is robust, tree cover natural dirt, vegetation, horse pasture, landscape improvement, irrigation for vegetation enhancement throughout the site and has been in operation, potential home sites would be enhanced with landscaping and minimizes potential erosion hazards. 6.5.4 No existing trees will be affected. Do you have an aerial? You can see where the trees are, there are some trees at the toe kind of in lot 1 and 2 and all the real trees are down by the private residence. 6.5.5 Construction if it were to occur would likely be limited to building pads and suitable flatter areas. 6.5.6 Disturbed areas would likely be limited to suitable home sites as mentioned above. New structures should they occur will be built in compliance with Lemhi County code. Erosion control measures will be incidental should construction occur. 6.5.7 Runoff velocity are minimized by natural existing conditions throughout the site. Any new structures would be located outside the natural drainage trend already in place. 6.5.8 The nature of the site contains soil types capable of absorbing and evenly dispersing runoff. Building areas and minimal earth work should be located to compliant the natural drainage trends. 6.5.9 No areas close to the creek are prone to any construction. That is again the primary residence that is already in place. Natural drainage as it exists disperses sediments evenly in the horse pastures. 6.5.10 existing vegetation, landscaped areas and irrigated pastures are in place to create the necessary natural filter for maintaining water quality. 6.6 wetlands, no wetlands will be disturbed, not applicable.
Dan: We don’t have any wetlands
Matt: There are no wetlands on the site. Stream Corridors, minimum development setbacks will adhered to, I think we are pretty far away from the creek for that. 6.7.1 N/A 6.7.2 N/A 6.7.3 Stream buffer corridors will not be altered excepted for selective vegetation.
Dan: Let it stay natural
Matt: Let it stay natural. 6.7.4 Final site plan pending approval of initial application acceptance, final site plan will be drawn to reflect compliance with setback rules. The final site plan will be the lot locations because obviously we don’t know if anything is ever going to happen on them. Not in the Floodplain, I
actually documented that FEMA/Firm. 6.9 Slopes, no development is proposed on slopes of 30% or more. Area closest for a potential home site at the base of the slope near 30% is lot 3. Any home site there will comply with 6.9. 6.10 Expansive Soils, area is not prone to expansive soils, if there is a need to test the soil for home sites then it will be done. 6.11.1 Defensible space will be maintained. Vegetation will be managed and irrigated to minimize fire hazards. Existing structures are near the creek and are maintained by defensible spaces, tree cover for the rest of the site is nearly absent. Surrounding property, you can see that by the aerial. Surrounding properties are of natural vegetation and characterized by sagebrush and growing irrigated pastures. 6.11.2 Tree cover throughout the site is minimum the entire parent parcel is within or nearby an existing irrigation system. Vegetation near the structures are irrigated and adequately maintained. Air quality, all federal air quality regulations are to be complied with. Fugitive emissions are not being generated by this activity. 6.13 The nature of the property being a rural homestead surrounded by horse pastures, Panther Creek and the National Forest Land is not prone to nuisances. 6.13.1 The nature and intent of this subdivision prohibits excessive levels of noise and vibrations. 6.13.2 The nature and intent of this subdivision prohibits excessive levels of light and heat. Lighting will be subdued and limited to local areas around structures and safety related access areas. Lighting should be hooded and placed in a manner that will not cause glare or indirectly shine onto neighboring properties. Light glare is limited to localized use. 6.13.3 The nature and intent of the subdivision prohibits adverse electrical interference. 6.13.4 Waste management is designated to adequate storage containers for the existing home site. Any additional home sites will reflect such principals. 184.108.40.206 Adequate storage containers are in place for the existing residence and additional home sites July 17, 2012 Page 3
will reflect such principals. Same with the next one.
Dan: What are you talking about, adequate storage containers?
Matt: For waste management, garbage, any garbage you have you throw it in your garbage can. 220.127.116.11 Same answer. 6.13.5 not applicable there are no handling or storage areas for industrial and commercial waste, nor are there any sources for generating such materials. 6.13.6 No drainage will be altered adversely, potential site improvements will benefit the runoff. 6.13.7 Weed management plan, yes I submitted that, I wrote a letter and I spoke to Daniel. He said that essentially because it is a lot split he had no concerns. Hazardous substances, not applicable. 6.15 Livestock on residential lots, not applicable. Horses or corrals, the whole area is fenced. 6.16 Protecting irrigation systems, only existing diversion is owned by the property owner and no change will be made. 6.16.1 Through 6.16.3 is not applicable
Barbara: Excuse me, none of that water will go to the lots, the other two lots we are assuming?
Dan: None of my irrigation is going to those other two lots
Barbara: Okay, thank you.
Matt: 6.17 proposed use for the site is the same for the use of the neighboring property to the north and then it is surrounded by Salmon National Forest to the south, east and west. Our proposed use is compatible. 6.17.2 Existing structures are compatible and also virtually out of site from main roads. The proposed structures if any will be compatible. 6.17.3 Proposed building bulk is compatible. 6.17.4 Proposed activity level is compatible. The level of activity and noise will reflect the intent of the site which is to enhance the esthetic value of the natural land. 6.17.5 Potential development areas do not block scenic views, existing structures do not hinder scenic views or esthetic integrity of the region. 6.17.6 There are existing buffers from the road, there is no landscape to be maintained. Potential areas for development will adhere to buffering requirements. 6.17.7 All developments will comply. Again any potential development will improve the esthetic quality of the site. 6.18 All proposed lots are designed to connect to Panther Creek Road. 6.19 Existing signs are in are in place and will be upgraded as needed in compliance. 6.2…..
Dan: Excuse me, existing signs are in place and will be upgraded? What are we talking about there?
Matt: That is just for mailbox basically
Matt: Salvage and junkyards, not applicable. 6.20.1 through 6.20.6 not applicable. 6.21 There is safe access, existing on site for all proposed lots. 6.21.1 Existing approach meets these standards any future approaches will meet these standards. 6.21.2 Grade on the existing approach is approximately 5% from the home site to Panther Creek Rd on Lot 1. This approach has been in place for years, any future approaches will comply with code requirements. 6.21.3 There is clear vision triangle from Panther Creek Road to the existing approach. Again that whole area you can see well to the south of the road if anyone is approaching and well to the north so. 6.21.4 Existing approach is the sole approach on the parent property. There is a gate directly across the road for access for pasture on the east side of the road. There is sufficient site line distance at these approaches. All other approaches will meet stipulations as defined by this code, this area is prone to low volume of traffic in this area. How many cars a day do you think?
Dan: Right now maybe six
Matt: 6.21.5 through 6.21.6 not applicable. 6.21.7 Acknowledged. 6.22 there is one access as described. 6.23 Lot 1 has access to Panther Creek Road in place, 2 & 3 proposed are bounded on their west edges by the center of the road. Access for potential development will be from this road with minimal driveway lengths directly from the road. These driveways if constructed will comply with the provisions of this chapter. Driveways on site exist for very low speed and are to be used for direct access to Panther Creek July 17, 2012 Page 4
Road. 6.25 Off street parking and loading areas will be provided on site. 6.26 Utilities, not applicable, no power available from Idaho Power, telephone is the only utility that exists.
Dan: That is correct.
Matt: I did show some of the underground telephone lines on the plat there. 6.27 Individual water supply, an adequate amount of water quantity and quality is available for the proposed development. 6.28 Onsite sewage disposal, existing onsite sewage disposal systems are designed to comply with state standards that have been approved. Potential development for new home sites will be designed per state requirements. 6.29 Private utilities, there is evidence of telephone cable is being along Panther Creek Road. Proposed lots 2 & 3 are bound by the center of the road on which an easement for the Forest Service and the public exists. Additional access to this utility will comply. 6.30 acknowledged. 6.31 Historic public access to the trail heads will not be affected. 6.32 Site is in no fire district unless it is by Forest Service. A petition to be added to a fire district will be drafted should it be necessary. 6.33.1 Facilities needs are met by existing site conditions. Lot 1 is self contained. Lots 2 & 3 hold similar potential in their proximity to Panther Creek Road. Existing utilities and sufficient area for septic systems and wells. The need for addressing additional facility availability to suit the purpose of the development is acknowledged. 6.33.2 through 6.33.3 N/A 6.5 N/A 6.33.6 The proposed development is intended to blend in and possible enhance the environmental capacity of the area in that the current nature is a single rustic natured home site. The separate lots may enhance sagebrush, empty land with small, simple rustic home sites that are complementary to the theme of the area. 6.33.7 Phased development, potential development on lots 2 & 3 in phases due to any pending sales. Such development will comply with county code accordingly. Did you say chapter 7 goes through as well?
Matt: read and acknowledged, 7.2 read and acknowledged. 7.3 Irrigation systems in place and maintained. 7.4.1 Pastures are fenced as is. Any new lots created will be upgraded to fence livestock in or out on a development as needed basis. 7.4.2 There is a fence on either side of Panther Creek Road that keeps livestock off of the road. 7.4.3 Any potential development will comply. The already in place trails will be maintained. 7.4.4 Fences will not be built in the right of way, actually that fence that exists is pretty close to the right of way. In fact you can see the fence on the plat. 7.5 Protecting productive lands, the subdivision will not result in irrigation alterations for lot 1. Lots 2 & 3 on the fringe of the irrigated areas and will not affect existing irrigation. 7.6.1 No impact on mining operations. 7.6.2 Not applicable. 7.7.1 No impact on logging operations. 7.8.1 Not applicable. 7.9 buffer requirements are and will be adhered to. 7.10 Not applicable. 7.11 Not applicable. 7.10.2 through 7.15 not applicable. 7.16 Salmon river mountain reserved zoned here. Developments will adhere to zoning requirements within. 7.17 through 7.20 not applicable. Chapter 10 read and acknowledged. 10.2 a plat has been generated based on a property survey that meets the requirements of title 50 chapter 13 of Idaho Code. The lots will be appropriately monumented and the plat will be recorded. 10.3 Lot split plat follows all additional recording requirements. Legal descriptions are shown on page 1 of the plat as well as separate properties. I also want to say that Rick Schroder the surveyor for the Forest Service followed my work on this so he basically checked all my calculations and all my legal descriptions, he said it all looks pretty good. 10.3.2 Restrictive covenants, deeds will refer to restrictive covenants instrument number. 10.3.4 Parent parcel being split has been surveyor in its entirety and put on the plat. Legal descriptions have been generated for the parent parcel and every lot within. 10.3.5 No remaining splits exists and will be noted on the final plat. 10.3.6 acknowledged. 10.4 not applicable. 10.4.1 through 10.4.3 not applicable. 10.5 Solar access within the subdivision will not be altered, potential home sites will address solar access issues as needed. The proposed lots are situated where open sky east, west, and south is maximized as much as possible. 10.5.1 acknowledged. 10.5.2 acknowledged. 10.5.3 acknowledged. 10.6 There is no known irrigation entity assigned to the area where the subject property is located. I called around, I called water masters and nobody knew. 10.6.1 Water rights are specific to each lot and will be altered. 10.6.2 Not applicable 10.6.3 acknowledged. 10.7 acknowledged. 10.8.1 Area is not serviced by Idaho Power there is a phone line in Panther Creek Road easement that will be available to lots 2 & 3. Lot 1 is already serviced. 10.8.2 All lots have immediate access to Panther Creek Road, lot 1 has an existing driveway in place and lots 2 & 3 will have drained and graded gravel driveways to Panther Creek Road should the need arise for July 17, 2012 Page 5
future home sites. 10.8.3 acknowledged. Simplicity of the lot split is inherent in that it is limited by the existing conditions of the land, its location, etc. 10.9 not applicable. 10.10 through 10.13.2.7.3 not applicable. 10.13.2.8.1 Pending fire district assignment, the site will comply with fire district regulations. 10.13.2.9.1 not applicable. Appendix D & E, the project area is serviced by Panther Creek Road which is a forest service road and is subject to forest service jurisdiction. The road within the project is actually privately owned and is subject to public use and forest service use by recorded easement. No new proposed roads are involved with this subdivision. At the maximum, should development for home sites on either lot 2 and/or 3 occur, access driveways directly from Panther Creek would be put in place and will comply with the requirements as described in this code.
Roy: Board, questions, comments?
Brett: One question Matt, go to the roads I think it was 18.104.22.168 existing approach is the sole approach on the parent property and if you go to the plat it shows that road that goes into Dan’s number 1 there that goes into his residence, is that the same driveway that services the property to the north, is that the Bennett property or is that.
Dan: No they have a separate driveway
Brett: Okay because when I look at the aerial I can only see the one but it must be.
Dan: If you look at the aerial, just about a hundred feet from the north boundary of the property you will see a white bump out on Panther Creek Road. That is where they have a gate and their fence to get into their property.
Brett: Okay thank you.
Roy: Any other questions from the board?
Tony: The health department has given their okay?
Dan: Our letters from Steve Adams, he has been out and done soil test and approved the lots for an on lot septic system.
Tony: And they have agreed to that?
Dan: The letter is in there.
Tony: I must have missed it
Matt: Are those letters in that binder?
Roy: Yes they are
Tony: I do remember seeing that
Roy: Do you guys want to have a seat and we will go on to the next piece which is basically staff notes. My first, Gary left us a little information before he left and I will read it to the board. This application was submitted under the development code adopted October of 2009 and amended October 19, 2012. Notices to government agencies and property owners were sent out on June 18, 2013. Notices were rdposted in the newspaper of record on June 27 and July 3 2013. Property was posted on July 9, 2013. I
didn’t make these folks go through the LESA system all though I appreciate that they did, I think it is a useful tool. Gary’s comment was, the LESA system was done and this development scored 55 and mitigated to 35. The model used to help determine areas of concern does not include this portion of Lemhi County so the score is based on the owner’s knowledge of the property. That is why I am not sure
we want to beat that one to death. I think what I am hearing from Gary that we did everything and these July 17, 2012 Page 6
folks did everything by law as far as postings and letters. With that I will refer to the letters that we did get. I will give you a brief run down on what we did get from the agencies. First off, the signature sheet was sent out and every agency and district had an opportunity to be alerted that this application was in the process. We received a few letters in return or comments. The first one was from the Fish and Game; Greg Painter has concern about how close potential septic will be from the river- (please note that no formal letter was submitted but you will find his comments on the signature sheet labeled 25) Department of the Army; has submitted numerous letters and emails concerning this matter, I am sure everybody has read them. The last email received dated May 29, 2013 indicates that there may be jurisdictional water on the property and without additional information a determination can’t be made but they did not follow up on that. National Marine Fisheries; Indicates that the location of the new development along with the distance from the stream greatly limits the potential to affect Endangered Species Act listed species or their critical habitats. Lemhi County Treasurer; Indicates that taxes will need to paid prior to filing plat. Eastern Idaho Public Health; Indicates that Lot 1 has an existing septic. Lot 2 will need groundwater monitoring for seasonal and high groundwater levels will be necessary and may meet the definition of groundwater vulnerable. Lot 3 did not show indications of limiting layer or setback concerns. The Forest Service; Surveyor found discrepancy in the legal description for Panther Creek Rd. The Forest Service and surveyor have been working together to make a determination on a correct legal description. Email dated March 1, 2013 from Rich Schroeder indicated that the Forest Service agrees that Matt McKeegan description of the road is correct. Lemhi County Weed Control; approves the applicants weed control plan. Since those letters that have come in that are in your packet that I am sure you have all read. One came in that was new that did not come in time for your packet so I will read it. It is from Charles Mark, Forest Supervisor, USDA; Dear Mr. Goodman, in response to your June 18 , 2013 correspondence R.E. Dan Rufe’s petition to subdivision of 445 Panther Creek Rd Shoup
Idaho. The Forest Service has no concerns with this proposal. Let me know if I can answer any questions or assist you in any way. To my knowledge that is all the written correspondence that we got, is that right? I know this is a bit redundant but at this time we would ask for testimony by those supporting the applicant, would you guys like to add anything new? Since there is nobody here, I will ask if there is anybody uncommitted to the application? Since there is nobody here I am assuming none. Testimony by those opposed to the application, again since there is nobody here that conversation is pretty nute. Rebuttal by the applicant, since you have nothing to rebut I am going to assume that you are comfortable in your chair.
Dan: I think that we have followed all of the proper procedures and answered all questions regarding regulations that are in place when we first entered the application and we have received no notice that anything has changed so I firmly believe we have met all the requirements.
Roy: Anything from the board?
Barbara: Are we assuming with the groundwater vulnerable when he said that it is not ground water vulnerable generally just at high water, is that what I take from that?
Roy: Well as….
Dan: May I answer something in regards to that?
Dan: He said it is possible at high water and we would have to design the system to keep our dispersal area above that level. We found water at 9 feet in the spring it was high water then. He said when we did design the system we should keep the dispersal area above that level so we would have to go back to him when we do an actual design for that lot.
Roy: That is the point, for them to get a permit they are going to have to pass mustard again basically for the septic
Teresa: When they record their subdivision plat those sanitary restrictions will be recorded with the plat July 17, 2012 Page 7
so any potential owner should look at those and be aware of that when they purchase the property.
Barbara: But it is not the same as out on the Lemhi and other places where the water is right under the ground and we have to do the 2 ? acres.
Barbara: That is what I was getting at
Roy: Any other questions from the board at this point? Going once, going twice if not I guess you can enter a motion to close the public hearing.
Ed Tolman moves and Vinn Strupp seconds to close the hearing. Hearing is closed unanimously.
The board reviews the application brought before them and goes through the Attorney General Checklist prior to deliberating any decision and going through the decision making checklists.
The board reviews the Comprehensive Plan Checklist and unanimously agreed that the application is in conformance with the elements within the Comprehensive plan.
The board then reviews the Development Code Checklist and unanimously agreed that the application complies with all pertinent sections of the Lemhi County Development Code.
The board develops the following facts;
; Proper legal requirements were followed regarding the application and public hearing
; Applicant adequately addressed Chapter 6 and the decision making checklists
; The proposed use is stated to be the same as current use
; The signature sheet shows that all appropriate agencies were notified of this application
; The board has read and weighed the agencies comments
; The board was read a letter by United States Department of Agricultural that was received after
the packets were sent out.
; None of the agencies denied permits or opposed the application
; The application is compatible with the Lemhi County Comprehensive Plan & Development Code.
; There is no lot number 4 as mentioned in the performance standards the applicant submitted.
; The applicant must meet all federal, local and state regulations.
Roy then asks the board for any additions or changes to the facts.
Brett motions and Barbara seconds that the application be approved. The application is unanimously approved.
Roy informs the board that they will hold off on discussing the Area of Impact until next month. He also reminds them to review the letters they received concerning zoning within the City and possible zoning within the proposed Area of Impact.
Tony moves to adjourn and Brett seconds. Meeting adjourned
Teresa L. Morton
July 17, 2012 Page 8