Fremont County Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 19, 2006

In attendance were: Evan Worrell (Chairman), Ron Kynaston, John Nedrow, Vance Derricott, Kip Martindale, Glen Pond, Cindy Roberson, Kirk Mackert (Vice Chairman) Absent and excused: Rod Dalling, Cindy Miller, Also in attendance were: Karen Lords (P&Z Administrator), Molly Knox (P&Z Secretary), Karl Lewies (Prosecuting Attorney), Jeff Patlovich (County Planner), Paul Romrell (County Commissioner), Owen McLaughlin (District 7 Health Dept.), Pat McCoy (County Treasurer), Weldon Reynolds ( Road & Bridge Supervisor), Keith Richey (Fremont County Emergency Coordinator), John Grube (Fire Department), Cornell Hansen ( Developer), Kim Lolo (Developer), Mitch Jacobs (Developer), Rick Byrem (Surveyor), Mike Vickers (Developer), Paul Hopperdietzel (Developer), Kevin Thompson (Surveyor), Randy Johnson (Forsgren & Associates)

Approval of May 19, 2006 Minutes –

Karen Lords - The meeting was called to order at 7:03 pm and Evan welcomed everyone to the Planning and Zoning Meeting. First I would like to turn the time over to Commissioner Romrell. Paul Romrell – Spoke about Karen turning in the letter of resignation for her and what a surprise it was to the commission. He presented a plaque to Karen for the 10 years of service in the Planning Building Office from Planning & Zoning Commission. Evan Worrell presented a bouquet of flowers to Karen from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Evan Worrell – Did the board have a chance to look over the minutes from our last meeting? Were there any corrections to be made? Cindy Roberson – I make a motion to approve the minutes as written. Kip Martindale – I second the motion. Evan Worrell - A motion was made and seconded, all in favor, motion carries.

Review of Draft for Large Scale Study for Fire and Roads –

Stephens Ranch Forsgren and Associates Randy Johnson

Evan Worrell – The next item on the agenda is the Review of the Draft for the Large Scale Study for Fire and Roads of Stephens Ranch from Forsgren and Associates, Randy Johnson will present.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 2 Randy Johnson – I intend to be brief. I spoke to Karen and she said I could go first if I was fast. I just have a summary of the methodology of how we are going through the study. And some of the preliminary findings, there were a few items added since our scoping meeting. We plan on having it completed for the next meeting. Regarding the project scoping on evaluating the facilities there were some basic principles to use as a guide. Karl, go ahead. Karl Lewies – I just have a question for clarification Randy, are you just presenting your preliminary draft? . Randy Johnson – My intent was to go over the method for used for evaluating the project. Karl Lewies – So you are not presenting final findings? Randy Johnson – No Karl Lewies – I just want to clarify to the board that no final findings are being discussed tonight, just methodology is being presented. I want to be sure that you don’t make any conclusions on the information that you are given tonight. There have not been many large scale development studies; we need to go through the process one step at a time. Randy Johnson – One thing that is important to do is because there are a number of impacts that needed to be looked at we had to define which impact fell into the preview of this study. It needed to be defined as a Fremont County facility. So if it was not defined as a Fremont County facility it would not be part of this study. We also looked at if the impact was evaluated or funded under different jurisdiction or source that was also outside of the scope. Also we looked at potential impacts that could have a potential cost share we looked at a precedent or guideline that could share that. I would like to go through some of the things that we looked at to give you an idea. Road improvements is one of the areas that we looked at as a County facility, it does need repaired, but that is not something that should be a cost share of the developer due to it is part of the maintaining the county road system. However we looked at existing to potential usage it needs a slightly thicker and wider roadway to maintain a level of service. Those were things that seemed to fit in scheme of cost shares for development. Fire protection, we looked at some items that the fire department brought up such as access and water source which are important for the fire department to do their job but they don’t come under or seem reasonable for the County to become the overseers for water sources for firefighting for the County. Those are things that could follow the ordinances. We did recommend the construction of a new fire station due to insurance ratings if there is a station near or in the development it will change that rating category. We also looked at potential cost for potential calls and full time staff. It looked like an issue for the over all system and not specifically this development.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 3 We have begun evaluating at the EMS situation, their concerns are being able to locate and address when they get a call. It assists in their golden hour for EMS to get to facilities. It is a county wide thing not something that is specific to the development. It is about 50 minutes from Stephens Ranch to the Rexburg hospital so that is within the majority of the golden hour. We are still pending evaluation on law enforcement, we have left a few messages but the Sheriff has not gotten back to us. We are going to evaluate the storm water impact as soon as we receive information from the developers. Concerning water supply we did not find any additional facility needs. This goes back to the basis of our evaluation of as long as the individual wells or community system is constructed to the standard of the Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Water Resources then it should not become a burden for Fremont County facilities. That is the status at this point. If there are any other questions please ask. Glen Pond – I have a question, where it talks about the road and your recommendations for the road which seems to be the main portion of what the study is all about. The cost of the reconstruction for Fish Creek Road primary costs are $755,000. Why are they not being required to pay for the primary costs or half? Randy Johnson – We are not recommending anything for primary. Glen Pond – Why not? Randy Johnson – The basis for that is that the road is at the end of its service life, regardless of development in the area the county is required to maintain the road. Glen Pond – I am not and have not been a commissioner, nor have I been. You would think that they would do a section at a time rather then all at once. Randy Johnson – That is part of your discussion and decision. What we are trying to lay out a methodology on the areas asked to be discussed that fit with in the large scale development. Glen Pond – I don’t want to dwell on it. Randy Johnson – That is something we can check on with Road & Bridge. Glen Pond – A road like that could not be taken care of in one year Evan Worrell – Are there any more questions? Karen do you have anything else. Karen Lords – No not at this time. Randy Johnson – When would you anticipate on having comments on this? Cindy Roberson – I think that we need time to look through it all and study it. I know that I have not had time. Randy Johnson – Within the month we anticipate to have the rest of the information on the EMS and Law Enforcement to go with this.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 4

Public Hearing – Sand Creek Ponderosa, Division #2 – 14.5 acres creating 30 Lots –

West of Ashton – Paul Hopperdietzel, Developer – Kevin Thompson, Surveyor

Evan Worrell – The next item on the agenda is the Public Hearing for Sand Creek Ponderosa Division #2 14.5 acres creating 30 Lots, West of Ashton, Paul Hopperdietzel, Developer – Kevin Thompson, Surveyor. Karen Lords – This is going to be Division #2, there is already an existing Division #1 called Sand Creek Ponderosa. This is actually 144 acres with 31 lots. They are looking at individual septic and wells except for lot three, up at the very top (of the map the board is looking at) there is a leach field because they have to pump to that because they have to be 200 feet away. There are already existing roads; the roads were built back in the mid 90’s for the whole subdivision. I have been on site and the roads are built to standard. You might want to discuss culverts for erosion issues. Evan Worrell - Have the proper notices been provided? Karen Lords – Yes, the property has been posted and the notices have gone out to the property owners. Evan Worrell – Are there any conflicts with board and this project? Karen will you please report on this? Karen Lords - Subject: Proposed Sand Creek Ponderosa, Division #2, Island Park Zoning District, Paul Hopperdietzel, Developer Nature of Application: Paul Hopperdietzel, 531 East Main, St. Anthony, ID 83445 has submitted an application for a Class II Permit application proposing to subdivide 143.92 acres into 31 lots with a common area tract containing 93 acres. A common area for leach field for Block 3 contains .98 acres. Location of Site: The proposed development is located Turn Left at the intersection of Hwy 20 and 1300 North in Ashton, traveling west on 1300 North approximately 4 miles turning right on 3125 East traveling approximately ¾ mile and turning left onto 1425 North traveling approximately one mile to intersection of 3000 East and Sarilda Rd. Turn onto Sarilda Rd traveling west on Sarilda Rd approximately 3 miles to the entrance of Sand Creek Ponderosa Subdivision #1 new subdivision parcel on the shore of Island Park Reservoir. The legal description follows as the SW ¼, Section 24, Township 13 North, Range 42 East of Boise Meridian, Fremont County, Idaho.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 5 Site Description: In accordance with the Fremont County Soil Survey, this site contains Fourme loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes. Soils that are similar to the Fourme soil but have less than 35 percent coarse fragments between depths of 5 and 25 inches (10 percent); soils that are similar to the Fourme soil but are poorly drained (5 percent). Natural Resource Maps for Island Park Zoning District: The proposed subdivision is not mapped as a wildlife corridor or mapped as visually sensitive. Common area will be provided along the southwest corner of the project. Building envelopes will be required on each lot to protect the shoreline, slopes and vegetation. Individual wells and septic systems will be placed on each lot. In accordance with the Island Park Zoning District Performance Standards, this proposed subdivision received a “0“ for relative performance standards and a “+5“ for absolute performance standards. I make the recommendation the project is approved for the following conditions: 1) VIII C. Runoff and Erosion Control – A professionally prepared runoff and erosion control plan be implemented by developments where a cumulative total of more than one acre of land with a slop of more than 8% will be disturbed, or where more than 20,000 square feet of contiguous impervious surfaces will be created. 2) VIII.D.1. – Wetlands: State and Federal Regs – All developments shall demonstrate compliance with state and federal wetlands protection requirements. 3) VIII.D.2. – Wetlands: Open Space Use – The open space use of wetlands and/or their enhancement to a higher functional value shall be encouraged. -2/+2(3). Positive points for wetlands enhancement shall be assigned only where the acreage of wetlands enhanced or restored is greater than the area disturbed. Wetlands may be modified for necessary utility lines, road, and trails without a negative point assignment, provided that the required state and federal permits are obtained. 4) VIII.E.1. Stream Corridors/Floodplain Setbacks - Minimum development setbacks shall be required along all streams and lakes, as shown in Table VIII.1. The use of buffers created by this requirement shall be compatible with the protection of stream corridor values. 5) VIII H. 3. Slopes: Engineer Certificate -No development shall be permitted on any slope exceeding 30% or identified as unstable except where a geotechnical engineer certifies that the proposed development will create no significant hazard of slope failure or accelerated soil erosion.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 6 6) VIII. I.2. - Wildfire Hazards - Subdivisions: thin timber on and remove dead fuel from the entire site, and provide appropriate perimeter and, in larger developments, internal fuel breaks. A fuel break is a strategically located strip of land in which the timber has been thinned and fuel removed to create an open “park-like” appearance. Fuelbreaks are generally at least 200’ in width, the width increasing on slopes over 10%. 7) VIII.L.1. – Irrigation Systems: State Law – All subdivisions shall demonstrate compliance with I.C. 31-3805, as amended, which provides for the approval of subdivisions by irrigation entities (I.C. 31-3805 appears in Appendix F). Compliance shall be attained by the transfer of water rights or the installation of a central irrigation system maintained by the transfer of water rights or installation of a central irrigation system maintained by a community association. Irrigation systems installed in subdivisions to achieve compliance with I.C. 31-3805 are subject to the requirements imposed on other subdivision improvements. 8) VIII.L.2. Irrigation System: Runoff – No development shall channel storm water or snowmelt runoff into any irrigation system without written consent of the responsible entity. 9) VIII.P.6. –Runoff – No development shall channel storm or melt water runoff in a way that adversely impacts neighboring properties or public ways. 10) VIII.B.B. - Signs – Signs shall comply with the detailed performance standards of Appendix A. 11) VIII.D.D. Fire Fighting Water Supply – Provision of properly spaced fire hydrants capable of delivering fire fighting pressures and flows throughout the development shall be encouraged. 0/+2(3). 12) VIII.E.E. Individual Water Supplies – Where reliance on individual water supplies is permitted by VIII. C.C., evidence shall be provided that an adequate quantity and quality of water is available for the proposed development. The required evidence may be in the form of documented experience with existing wells at geologically similar neighboring sites or records of on-site wells. 13) VIII.G.G. – On Site Sewage Disposal. All on-site sewage disposal systems shall be sited, designed, and constructed in compliance with state standards. Note that this requirement does include nonconforming uses applying for a Class II permit for a change in occupancy or replacement, as provided in I.F.3. and I.F.4. 14) VIII.H.H.1. Private Utilities: Access – Adequate rights-of-way or easements for service by proposed private utilities shall be provided. A written statement of compliance with this performance standard shall be obtained from each utility. 15) VIII.H.H.2. – Private Utilities: Capacity - Written certification that capacity to serve the proposed development is available shall also be obtained from proposed private utilities. 16) VIII.L.L. Roads – There shall be all-weather road access to all developments and all lots in all developments (the requirement for all-weather road construction does not imply

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 7 that roads must be maintained through out the year). The design and construction of roads shall be in compliance with the detailed performance standards of Appendix B. 17)VIII.N.N. – Fire Protection: FPD Comments 1. – Comments from the Island Park Fire Protection District shall be considered in determining the development’s compliance with VIII.I, VIII. C.C., VIII.D.D, VIII.K.K. and VIII.L.L. And when they completed Division 1 they signed a petition in North Fremont Fire District, so Island Park Fire will not play a role in this project. I attached my score sheet and in red are things that might need to be noted in the plat. Karen made sure all had the revised score sheet due to printing issues. Evan Worrell – Does the board have any questions for Karen? Paul or Kevin do you have any more to add? Kevin Thompson – January 9th of 2006 we presented the sketch plan. I would like to address the concerns that were brought up at that meeting. I will read from the facts and findings, a list was given that we need to address at public hearing, a roads end, access to the subdivision, fire system, fire protection, wildlife habitat, if Fish and Game had anything to say about it, concern with power lines, visually sensitive area. Karen hit on that this is not a visually sensitive area at this time, there is not a special wildlife habitat area, roads end (showing a map of the subdivision laid over an aerial) showing the current location of the roads of the subdivision. There are overhead power lines due to basalt cropping and the power company requested them. The poles are located in the middle of the lots where there are trees and foliage, they are not intrusive but they are there. Fire protection, quite frankly this road goes right down to the water on this far end of the subdivision and a pumper truck could get the water right there in site. The yellow on this map show the sewer setbacks. Some of the lots that are near the water will have to have their drain fields further up to meet the required setbacks. Test holes have been dug and they are sufficient. That addresses what concerns you had are there any more? Kirk Mackert – Are there any concerns with the roads and big trucks from the fire department getting the water and making those corners? Kevin Thompson – The roads are to county specs as far as the gravel with the width, they had to get a 404 permit. The road was engineered and installed by Depatco. Kirk Mackert – So will the trucks set right on the road and be able to pump water into them? Kevin Thompson – They will need 6 inch hoses roll out there, they can get water on either side. We could if need be put a four inch diameter perforated concrete barrel and the water is going to go right in there. If that is a concern, we could do that. Kirk Mackert – I would hate to see the trucks get all the way out there and not be able to have access to water when they get there. Cindy Roberson – That could change on a low water year. Kevin Thompson – It could, there is always, we could do something here. Ron Kynaston – I would make the recommendation that you talk to the fire district and see what would work for them. They would know what would work best.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 8 Karen Lords – We do have a representative from the fire district here if you have any questions. Paul Hopperdietzel – Kevin, the upper arcadia outlet goes over a rock ledge and it is impossible to drain it, you can not get it dry. Evan Worrell – Are there any other questions? John Nedrow – I have one, under the irrigation systems runoff, isn’t the arcadia reservoir owned by the arcadia canal company? Do you have any water rights? Paul Hopperdietzel – One share. John Nedrow – Do you plan to sue your one share to irrigate these lots? Paul Hopperdietzel – No, not really. The covenants say to keep thee area around your house clear and keep your garden hoses handy. The reservoir will not go dry and I do not wan to give any of my one shares, it would not go very far. Kevin Thompson – I think to answer your question, you are talking about lawns and this is not going to be a year round subdivision it is all going to be natural with the clean up of some dead trees and dead grass but the rest will be natural. There will not be a lawn with a sprinkler system out there. Karen Lords – Do they know that they are only allowed to water a half acre? Kevin Thompson – Paul have you had a problem with that? Paul Hopperdietzel – I do no think that there have been issues with that or specifications stating that, most of them just keep a small grassy spot around their house from their own well. Karen Lords – The Idaho Department of Water Resources will only allow a domestic well to water a half of an acre. Kevin Thompson – You have some contouring on your map the thick lines and grey areas are building envelopes. The steeper areas you are not going to irrigated any way. Some of that is rocky and some of it is very steep. I am not going to tell you that none of the lots have over half of an acre that could be irrigated. But for the most part it will be left natural if you factor out the steeper areas. We have tried to minimally impact with the services. It has not been an issue for the last 10 years, and I do not see it being an issue now. Kip Martindale – Do you have covenants with the home owners association? Are the yards addressed in that? Kevin Thompson – Paul, Do you have covenants with the home owners association? Are the yards addressed in that? Paul Hopperditzel – It says to keep a brush free area around the house and keep hoses out so there is water available. Kevin Thompson - Division One Covenants will be adopted for Division Two. Karen Lords – My only concern, and Weldon will like this part, will we have property owners meeting with the Commissioners asking to improve the road? Because what is it two times a year maybe that you grade the year. Weldon Reynolds – More or less.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 9 Kip Martindale – Could that be put in the Covenants to let them know up front that it is a low maintenance area? Kirk Mackert - It could be on plat and in the Covenants, so they know that the County is not responsible. Kevin Thompson – It could be put on the plat, most people do not read their Covenants, but if you put a map in front of them then they will notice. But we could put it on both the plat and in the Covenants that this is not a County maintained road. Glen Pond – It will not do any good putting them in the Covenants because the County can not enforce them. Kevin Thompson – That is correct and I think that is where it comes in that we should put it on the final plat. Kirk Mackert – Karen you mentioned areas with creeks or runoff Kevin can you identify those. Kevin Thompson – (showing on map and describing), what we have here is an aerial map of the area, this is what is called the Lilly Pond the water drains down and the overflow of this pond meanders out through there. I guess maybe two or three months per year that overflow is running. Paul Hopperdietzel – As long as there is high water. It keeps it from getting into the Upper or Lower Arcadia Reservoir, it is a safety factor on the damn itself it keeps the water around. Kevin Thompson - As far as runoff that is about it. Cindy Roberson – Is that what you consider wetlands then? Kevin Thompson – As far as wetlands this is all common area clear on the west side and if there are any wetlands they are in the common area. There may be a little right here but we obtained a 404 permit to build the road so we feel safe there. And with the building envelopes and none of the utilities will be located in here we think we are safe from the wetlands issue. The steep areas there are defiantly no wetlands due to the terrain and the steepness of the rocks. Evan Worrell - Are there any other questions? Since we have no questions we will now open the meeting to public comments is there anyone signed up? Molly Knox – No, there is not. Evan Worrell – No, are there any letters or comments? Karen Lords – Yes, I did receive three letters and they are in your packet, I will read them into the minutes,

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 10 June 6, 2006 RE: Public Hearing Notice for Class II Permit for Paul Hopperdietzel proposed development of Sections 34 & 35, Township 10 North, Range 41 East Boise Meridian, Fremont County, Idaho. To Whom it May Concern, The undersigned is in favor of approval of the Permit to develop the above mentioned property and subdivide approximately 144 acres into 31 lots. Signed, Kris Brunson 3965 N. Ammon Rd. Idaho Falls, ID. 83401 June 6, 2006 RE: Public Hearing Notice for Class II Permit for Paul Hopperdietzel proposed development of Sections 34 & 35, Township 10 North, Range 41 East Boise Meridian, Fremont County, Idaho. To Whom it May Concern, The undersigned is in favor of approval of the Permit to develop the above mentioned property and subdivide approximately 144 acres into 31 lots. Thomas E. Seamons 3965 N. Ammon Rd. Idaho Falls, ID. 83401 June 6, 2006 RE: Public Hearing Notice for Class II Permit for Paul Hopperdietzel proposed development of Sections 34 & 35, Township 10 North, Range 41 East Boise Meridian, Fremont County, Idaho. To Whom it May Concern, The undersigned is in favor of approval of the Permit to develop the above mentioned property and subdivide approximately 144 acres into 31 lots. Carol M. Niemeier 2254 Hensyanna Ave. Idaho Falls, ID. 83404 Then the handout given to you which is a letter from United States Department of the Interior dated June 13, 2006, it reads: Proposed Construction of the Sand Creek Ponderosa Subdivision in St. Anthony, Fremont County, Idaho. SL# 06-0715 The Fish and Wildlife Service is providing you with a list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and/or candidate species which may be present in the area of the proposed construction of the Sand Creek Ponderosa Subdivision in St. Anthony, Fremont County, Idaho. This list fulfills the requirements for a species list under section 7© of the

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 11 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. If the project decision is not made within180 days of this letter, regulations require that you request an updated list. Please refer to the SL number above in all correspondence and reports. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to assure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered to threatened species. Federal funding, permitting, or land use management decisions are considered to be Federal actions subject to section 7. If the proposed action may affect a listed species, consultation with the Service is required. Formal consultation must be initiated for any project that is likely to adversely affect a threatened or endangered species. If a project involves a major construction activity and may affect listed species, Federal agencies are required to prepare a Biological Assessment. If a proposed species is likely to be jeopardized by a Federal action, regulations require a conference between the Federal agency and the service. If you determine otherwise or require further assistance, please contact Deb Mignogno of this office at (208)237-6975. Thank you for your continued interest in endangered species conservation. Deb Mignogno Supervisor, Eastern Idaho Field Office LISTED SPECIES COMMENTS Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) XN – Experimental/Non- essential population Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) LT Ute ladies’-tresses LT And that is all the written letters that we have. Glen Pond – Can you explain the attachment the listed species, the grey wolf, bald eagle, and Ute ladies tresses? What are they trying to tell us? Karen Lords – They are concerned on if this project has effect on these species but in consulting with Jeff Patlovich the Counties Planner, he has indicated that there will not be any repercussions with the project. Cindy Roberson – Wouldn’t that be something that the Fish and Game would comment on or not? Karen Lords – This is from Federal, I have not received anything from the Idaho Fish and Game, which I find ironic since that they have property that is next to this project. John Nedrow – Who are the three people who wrote in the letters? The approval letters. Thomas Seamons - I am one of them, I own a piece of property in the first division. John Nedrow – I was wondering if you were a state official, are the other tow property owners as well? Thomas Seamons - Kris Brunson is a friend of mine and so is Carol. John Nedrow – Okay, I was wondering who they were. Evan Worrell – Owen have you had a chance to looked at this?

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 12 Owen McLaughlin – I have been out there and as far as sewage disposal it looks okay. I would like to see the plans on the pump system for the six lots before I approve the final plat. Evan Worrell – Weldon do you have any comments? Weldon Reynolds – Concerning all of these road improvements and our operating costs are going up much faster then we have been able to increase our budget. We are struggling to maintain what we have and so improvements are going to be a long time form now. Karen Lords – When they go to final plat there will be specific language placed on the plat that they will be private roads. Kirk Mackert – Should we clarify where the County road ends and the private road starts? Karen Lords – Yes, at the beginning of Division one there is a cattle guard and the county road ends right there and the private road goes from there on. Evan Worrell - Public hearing is closed. Now the board needs to discuss the proposal. Cindy Roberson – I feel that the Fish and Game need to have input. Ron Kynaston – Were they notified? Karen Lords – Yes, they are part of my hit-list of State and Federal agencies so a notification would have gone to them. They are usually really good at commenting so I am surprised that they have not responded. Glen Pond – This is just for preliminary plat. Karen Lords – This is where you are taking all kinds of comments from all kinds of agencies, private citizens for their input. I guess we need clarification as to weather you can Karl Lewies – I think Glens question goes to will he have a second opportunity to look at all other input from the public at final plat procedures? Karen Lords – The Final Plat procedures does not allow any additional comments. Karl Lewies - That is the response I was expecting. Glen there is no opportunity for public hearing at final plat. Glen Pond – But if there is something that came up that was not given to us in and was between preliminary plat and the approval of final plat that could change. Karen Lords - Once you closed public comment and someone wanted to provide you additional information you would by law have to reopen it to public comment. Kirk Mackert – I would like to make a motion to reopen it to public comment again. I would like to hear form the gentleman from the Fire Department. Evan Worrell - We have a motion, do I hear a second? John Nedrow – I second the motion. Evan Worrell – It has been moved and seconded that we reopen to public hearing all in favor none opposed. Motion carries and the public hearing is open again. Kirk Mackert – Mr. Grube.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 13 John Grube – I have never been to many of these meetings, I don’t know what I am doing. May I look at the map he was looking at? Group Discussion of where the developer plans on getting the water for fire fighting from. Kirk Mackert – I think it’s a good idea to have them go onsite and see what it is you are doing. Kevin Thompson – I do as well. John Grube – I have been down there, but that would be good. Vance Derricott – How close to that water can they get a truck? Kevin Thompson – It is 5 to 10 feet off of the road to water. But if it is a dry year it could recede down. Right now it is all the way up here (showing on map). We could work something out with the Fire Department with putting in a perforated barrel, water will penetrate into that. Vance Derricott – The lower the water table in a dry year the further you would have to draft it. Kevin Thompson – This is not very deep it is very shallow and flat, if the water dropped 10 foot, it would be to here. If we put a barrel right here it would be safe. Vance Derricott – How far can you draft that vertically? John Grube – It depends on the truck, but it can be drafted 20-30 feet. Kirk Mackert – I would like to see you meet with them on site to decide what it is you can do. John Grube – Currently they are not in our Fire District. Karen Lords – They actually petitioned to be in the North Fremont Fire District, but what you are saying is that they have not petitioned for the second division. Group Discussion of old petition and reasons as to why North Fremont and not Island Park. Also that BLM and Forrest Service goes in one mile either way. Kirk Mackert - We need to decide and have it in the minutes for who is going to respond in case of a fire. John Nedrow – Is there anything in the development code to require the subdivision to have fire fighting facilities? We can talk about it all night long but there is nothing that requires it. Karen Lords – Water supply is encouraged but it is not required. But you can request them to let you know who will be responding and petition for either St. Anthony or North Fremont Fire District. It is unrealistic to have Island Park respond. Kip Martindale – We need to talk about the lack of Fish and Game comment and since we are open to public comment I feel that we need that. Karen Lords – You might want to check with legal council and see if you can keep public comment open to let them respond. Karl Lewies – You can leave it open until the next meeting for public comment.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 14 Kip Martindale – That is a good idea, so that we can get the Fire District and the Fish and Game resolved. Kirk Mackert - Can we do that? Karl Lewies – What we are trying to so be to avoid re-advertising for public hearing. Cindy Roberson - If we leave it open then would you send a letter or call and ask for their comments? Karen Lords - I can call. Kirk Mackert – There is a discrepancy on the acreage also which is correct? Karen Lords – Actually what happened was when we started to view the map there is 20 or 30 acres under the reservoir, there is no documentation through county records of who owns the property. I called Kevin and told him that we did not a record of owners and that we could not use that as density. So we had to reduce down the number of acres to officially 143 acres. And Paul explained that he owns it but I have no documentation in county records of that ownership. Evan Worrell – Where are we at? Karen Lords – I believe that you are going to have to make a motion to keep the public hearing open until the next meeting. Cindy Roberson – I make a motion that we leave the public hearing of Sand Creek Ponderosa #2 open for public written comment until our next meeting. John Nedrow – I second the motion. Evan Worrell – We have a motion that has been seconded. All in favor, motion carries.

Public Hearing – Old West Apartments, North Fork RV & Storage – 2300 East

Cornell Hansen

Evan Worrell - Next item is the Public Hearing for Old West Apartments, North Fork RV & Storage, 2300 East, Cornell Hansen is the Developer. Karen Lords – This project is located on frontage road just off the freeway behind Hathaway’s this is located in city of St. Anthony Impact area and city states it is providing city sewer and water. The County adopted the City of St. Anthony’s zoning. What he is proposing is apartments, business shops and RV storage. There is an existing double wide trailer and shop that will be removed as these new projects come on board. In packet copy of cities zoning and all three are able to be in that area or zone of C1 so at this time, I will read you my report. SUBJECT: Zoning Approval for Commercial One (C-1) for Business Shops for Rent, RV Storage Units – City of St. Anthony Impact Area, Cornell Hansen, Developer

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 15 Nature of Application: Cornell Hansen, 1892 Salem Pines, Rexburg, Idaho has made application for four apartment complexes, containing two bedroom apartments in each complex, four rental business shops, with various sizes of 40’ X 60’ and 50’ X 100’. The project will propose 31 Storage units and RV Storage. Location of Project: The project will be located on a four-acre parcel in Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 40 E.B.M., Fremont County, Idaho. This property can be accessed by the frontage road, 2300 East. The property currently contains a manufactured home with out buildings. These would be removed as the project expands. Applicable Zoning Requirements: This parcel is within the City of St. Anthony’s impact area and will be required to adhere to the City of St. Anthony’s zoning regulations. This parcel will be required to meet the Commercial one (C-1), Section 17.24.010 through 17.24.040 of the City of St. Anthony Subdivision Ordinance. St. Anthony’s Commercial one (C-1) requirements are attached to this report. Mr. Hansen proposes to construct four business shops. Two structures would be 40 feet by 60 feet. The remaining two business shops will be constructed to 50 feet by 100 feet. Theses structures will be rented and Mr. Hansen will remain owner of the property. Off street parking and loading will need to be provided at each building. The City of St. Anthony has given written approval for water and sewer hookup as of March 7, 2006. The future business use will be required to meet City of St. Anthony’s Zoning Ordinance 17.24.020 for permitted uses, but will also require the City and County to approve the type of business. In addition to the rental business shops, Mr. Hansen also proposes 33 storage units with various sizes of 25 feet by 15 feet, 25 feet by 10 feet and 25 feet by 32 feet. A RV storage building of 50 feet by 100 feet is proposed. Security gates will be maintained at both entrances of the storage facility. Security lights will be installed on the storage buildings. The road accessing the property will be a private road approximately 20 feet wide. Off street parking shall meet the requirements of Section 17.24.040 – Special Provisions - The road shall be hard surfaced. Written letters from the utility companies shall be provided.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 16 I make the recommendation this project be approved in accordance with the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 17.24.010 – General Objective and Characteristics – B. 1. – To encourage the development and continued use of the land within the zone for commercial purposes; B. 2. – To promote the development of adequate and convenient retail and service facilities; B. 3. – To provide suitable areas for commercial development within the city and to prevent the scattering of commercial uses into surrounding zones; B. 4. – To prohibit industrial development within the zone and to discourage any other uses which tend to discourage the continued use and development of the land within the zone for its primary purpose. C. To accomplish the objectives and purposes of this title and to promote the characteristics of the C-1 light commercial zone, the regulations provided in this chapter shall apply. 17.24.020 - Permitted uses for the C-1 district – Attached list pf permitted uses. 17.24.030 – Area, width, location, height and size – There shall be no area, width, location, height and size requirements for commercial buildings and structures constructed in accordance with the building code of St. Anthony, except that setbacks from public streets shall be set back from major arterials at least seventy-five feet from the centerline, or at least fifty feet from the right-of-way of such roads, whichever is greater; except major arterials or adjacent to platted areas shall be set back thirty feet. Side yards are not required unless a lot adjoins any residential district in which case a minimum of ten feet of side yard shall be required. No rear yards are required except where vehicular access to or from an alley or required loading space requires the same in which case there shall be determined a necessary setback. Minimum open space shall be ten percent which will be landscaped. All utility connections shall be made in accordance with city standards and policies. 17.24.040 – Special Provisions – A. Off-street parking shall be provided as required in this title and shall be hard surfaced. B. All merchandise, equipment and other materials, except seasonal merchandise such as nursery stock, fruits and vegetables and vehicles in runner order, shall be stored within an enclosed building. C. No dust, odor, smoke, vibration or intermittent light, glare or noise which is discernible beyond the premises shall be permitted. I do have pictures of the property that I will pass around. Evan Worrell - Have the proper notices been provided? Karen Lords – Yes, and the property owners have been provided notices and the property has been posted.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 17 Evan Worrell – Do any of the board members have a conflict of interest with the proposed development? Are there any questions for Karen from the board? John Nedrow – Expressed concern about the setbacks from the roads. Karen Lords – They are all private roads on the inside so there will not a major arterial road. Karen showed the board things on the map as they discussed where the project was located and was able to get their bearings with map. Cindy Roberson – How far away is Highway 20 from this? Karen Lords – There is the frontage road then private property then the Highway. Kirk Mackert – Are the five foot setbacks on the side adequate? Karen Lords – It is okay due to there are no residential homes on this property the one that is there will be removed. Group discussion of the fact that there is a home located next to the project site. Evan Worrell – Cornell do you have anything you would like to add. Cornell Hansen – No. Evan Worrell – If there are no other questions we will open to public comment, is there anyone signed up? Molly Knox – No. Evan Worrell – No. Is there any written comment? Karen Lords – Did you note the open space here? There is some open space where he is going to place a park and there will be snow storage removal. Karen is showing board on map. Evan Worrell – Was there any written comment? Karen Lords – No, and no phone calls. Kirk Mackert – Is the parking going to be gravel or paved? Cornel Hansen – The business areas are going to be gravel and the apartments are going to be paved once all four are completed. Evan Worrell – Is there any other public comment? Kirk Mackert – If we are seeing this right where do the rail road tracks go? Cornel Hansen – They angle on the Simplot property. Evan Worrell – Public Hearing is now closed and we will turn the time over to the board to discuss. Vance Derricott – It sounds like he has his ducks in a row. Kirk Mackert – I would recommend making 10 foot not 5 foot setback. Cindy Roberson – Do we need to make him put in a hard surface? Karen Lords – I will have to check with the city ordinance to see their definition of hard surface. Kirk Mackert – It would help on dust control. Karen Lords – It states what I read to: in Special Provisions: C. No dust, odor, smoke, vibration or intermittent light, glare or noise is discernible beyond the premises shall be

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 18 permitted. So let me look at it and I will give him a copy of their code because he needs to comply with that. Vance Derricott – I make a motion for approval to go forward with the setbacks on the north side to be 10 foot not 5 foot, also hard surface areas or gravel and possible dust situation. Cornel wants to know the reason for the larger set back but due to public hearing being closed he will have to come into the office and ask the question. Ron Kynaston – I second the motion. Evan Worrell – A motion has been made and seconded. All in favor, motion carries.

Public Hearing – Proposed 26 Acres Subdividing 5 Lots – Northeast of Ashton- Steve Wagoner, Developer – Rick Byrem, Surveyor

Evan Worrell – The next item on the agenda is the public hearing for the proposed 26 acres subdividing 5 lots – Northeast of Ashton, Steve Wagoner- Developer, Rick Byrem – Surveyor. Karen Lords - This project is located just north of Ashton as you cross the Ashton bridge turn right on Fisherman’s Drive, drive 3 or 4 miles from paved to gravel buts up to Circle Flying E subdivision that was created by Ed Howell back in the 7-‘s there is a gated fenced area around this property and they want 5 lots, there is a flat area next to the river that will be open space. Lots 3, 4, and 5 will have building envelopes due to steep slopes. There will be individual septic and individual wells. Evan Worrell – Have the proper notices been provided? Karen Lords – Yes, property owners have been notified and the property is posted. Evan Worrell – Do any of the board members have a conflict of interest with this project? Karen, would you please report. Karen Lords – Yes, SUBJECT: Application for Class II Permit Application for the purpose of subdividing property to be known as River Rim Estates Steve Wagoner, 113 East 49 South, Idaho Falls, Idaho has applied for a Class II permit application to propose subdividing approximately 26 acres into 5 lots and common area located in Section 20, Township 9 North, Range 43 East Boise Meridian, Fremont County, Idaho. Soil mapping units suggest the proposed subdivision would be in Kucera-Lostine silt loams, 4 to 8 percent. Soils that are similar to the Kucera silt loam, bedrock substratum and Sarilda silt lam but have bedrock or cobbles and boulders at a depth of 10 to 40 inches (10 percent); Marystown silt loam (5 percent); Rock outcrop (5 percent).

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 19 Density: For the purposes of determining the density of the development allowed, the site consists of 26 acres with an overall average of 1 dwelling unit per 5.2 acres. Project: The lots would be served with individual well and septic system. Idaho Department of Water Resources and District Seven Health Department will require the developer to meet their regulations. The number of dwelling units requested is 5 lots and with an open space containing 2.9 acres on the southeastern border of proposed development. The proposed subdivision will be accessed from Fisherman’s Drive, a county road. Subdivision road will be private and contain a maximum length for cul-de-sac of 880 feet with a 60 foot radius. Building envelopes will be required for lots 3, 4, and 5 due to slopes. An open space will be provided with a private pedestrian access for the property owners to the Henry’s Fork River. Underground power will be provided by Fall River Electric with an easement along the private road. I recommend a point assignment of “0” on absolute performance standards and a “+6” for relative performance standards. The development would have the following conditions:

1. VII D. Runoff and Erosion Control – A professionally prepared runoff and erosion control plan be implemented by developments where a cumulative total of more than one acre of land with a slop of more than 8% will be disturbed, or where more than 20,000 square feet of contiguous impervious surfaces will be created.

2. VII.F.1. Stream Corridors/Floodplain: Setbacks – Minimum development setbacks shall be required along all streams, as shown in Table VI.1. The use of buffers created by this requirement shall be compatible with the protection of stream corridor values.

3. VII.F.3. Stream Corridors/Floodplain: Chapter XI – Developments in the Floodplain Overlay Zoning District shall comply with the performance standards of Chapter XI.

4. VII.H.I. Slopes: Open Space 30% Plus – Open space use of slopes of 30% or more, or other slopes identified as unstable, shall be encouraged.

5. VII.H.2. Slopes: Open Space: 15-30% - The open space use of 15-30% slopes shall be encouraged.

6. VII.I.2. – Wildfire Hazards: Subdivisions – for subdivisions: thin timber on and remove dead fuel from the entire site, and provide appropriate perimeter and, in larger developments, internal fuelbreaks. -2/+2(3) A fuel break is strategically located strip of land in which the timber has been thinned and fuel removed to create an open “park-like” appearance. Fuelbreaks either include roads or are accessible to fire fighting apparatus. Fuelbreaks are

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 20

generally at least 200 feet in width, with the width increasing on slopes over 10%. 7. VII.M.1. - Irrigation Systems: State Law – All subdivisions shall

demonstrate compliance with I.C. 31-3805, as amended, which provides for the approval of subdivisions by irrigation entities (I.C. 31-3805 appears in Appendix F.) Compliance shall be attained by the transfer of water rights or the installation of a central irrigation system maintained by a community association. Irrigation systems installed in subdivisions to achieve compliance with I.C. 31-3805 are subject to the requirements imposed on other subdivision improvements. See Chapter XIII. Plat Note

8. V.II.M.2. - Irrigation Systems: Runoff – No development shall channel storm water or snowmelt runoff into any irrigation system without written consent.

9. VII N. – Protecting Agriculture Operations – Development of other uses in farming areas should not interfere with normal agricultural operations, including the normal operation of dairies, feedlots, potato cellars, and other agricultural activities that may, at time, be perceived as a nuisance by the inhabitants of nearby residences. Farming areas include all portions or the North Fremont Zoning District except the incorporated cities, areas of city impact shown in the comprehensive plan, and existing residential subdivisions. No building permit for a residence in any farming area shall be issued until a resource management easement has been recorded by the owner. The model resource management easement is reproduced in Appendix G.

10. VII.P. Weed Control – As required by I.C. 22-2471, “It shall be the duty and responsibility of all persons and nonfederal agencies to control noxious weeds on land and property they own.” Plat Note

11. VII.R.6. Runoff – No development shall channel storm water or snowmelt runoff in a way that adversely impacts neighboring properties or public ways.

12. VII.T. Livestock on Residential Lots – The keeping of livestock on residential lots shall be restricted to two horses or cows, or ten llamas, sheep, or goats (including their offspring until weaned) per acre. Temporary keeping of stock during local big game hunting season shall be exempt. Residential lots are defined as platted subdivision lots and residential parcels in un-platted areas where the average density is greater than one dwelling unit per 20 acres.

13. VII.A Signs – Signs shall comply with the detailed performance standards of Appendix A.

14. VII.D.D. – Individual Water Supplies – Where reliance on individual water supplies is proposed, evidence shall be provided that an adequate quantity and quality of water is available for the proposed development. The required evidence may be in the form of documented experience with existing wells at geologically similar, neighboring sites or records of on-site well tests.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 21

15. VII.E.E. – On-Site Sewage Disposal – All on-site sewage disposal systems shall be sited, designed, and constructed in compliance with state standards. Note that this requirement does include nonconforming uses applying for a Class II permit for a chance in occupancy or replacement as provided in I.F.3. and I.F.4.

16. VII.FF.2 – Private Utilities: Capacity – Written certification that capacity to serve the proposed development is available and shall be obtained from all proposed private utilities.

17. VII. G.G. – Construction in Easements – No building shall be placed in any utility or irrigation easement, public or private. Wire or rail fences, or solid wood fences with a removable section across the easement may be constructed across easements (note that some utilities and irrigation entities may prohibit fences permitted by this ordinance). Plat Note

18. VII.J.J. – Roads – There shall be all weather road access to all developments (the requirement for all-weather road construction does not imply that roads must be maintained throughout the year). The design and construction of roads shall be in compliance with the detailed performance standards of Appendix B.

19. VII.L.L.1. Fire Protection: FPD Comments – Comments from the North Fremont Fire Protection District shall be considered in determining the development’s compliance with VII.I. VII.C.C. VII.I.I., VII.J.J. and VII. M.M.

20. VII.L.L.2. – Fire Protection: Building Heights – Building heights shall be limited to those that can be effectively protected by existing fire fighting apparatus.

I have picture of the property I will send around. Evan Worrell – Do any of the board members have any questions for Karen, Rick do you have any additional comments to say? Rick Byrem – Yes, I would like to point out some of the physical features on the property. It is a pretty big bluff that the property sits on and the building sites are. There will be some natural buffering, and all of the slopes will be protected. There will be very minimal physical impact to the ground. Karen there is one thing mentioned that we are building a road on an area with 8% slopes; I think the requirements are an acre or so. Where we are wanting the entry it is fairly steep in there and then it levels off. We want to put an entry feature there it will have some steep slopes of that 8% but it will only be about a quarter of an acre disturbance and with your direction to us, but we don’t think it there needs to be extensive erosion control. Karen Lords – It says if it is more then one acre of land and slopes of more then 8% or more then 20,000 square feet.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 22 Rick Byrem – I will state that we are under both of those, but I would like clarification of what you would like. There is a very small area in the entry area that we will be about 6%. Evan Worrell – Any other questions? Then we are open to public comment, did anyone sign up? Molly Knox – No. Evan Worrell – Is there any written comment? Karen Lords – Yes, the only letter we have is from the utility companies as follows: We appreciate your contacting Fremont Telecom with regard to placing communication lines with in your proposed subdivision. This parcel containing 26.1 acres divided into 5 lots is part of Fremont Telecom’s service area. Fremont Telecom would be capable of providing telecommunications services to all lots of the proposed subdivision. Finances for construction, labor, materials and engineering would be dependant on developer for in plat communication lines. The developer would also be responsible for any out of plat construction fees that exceed 1000 ft. from Fremont Telecom’s existing facilities. Sincerely, Corey Packer Fremont Telecom Operations Supervisor After reviewing the subdivision proposed by Steve Wagoner, Fremont-Madison Irrigation District is concerned that because of the location of the land there could be additional runoff from hard surfaces in the subdivision as well as surface water contamination from septic systems. As the Planning & Zoning Commission reviews this permit application, the board of directors asks the Commission to consider potential water quality degradation to the Henry’s Fork of the Snake from those sources. Dale Swensen Executive Director Proposed Construction of the Steve Wagoner Subdivision in Ashton, Fremont County, Idaho. #SL#06-0716 The Fish and Wildlife Service is providing you with a list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and/or candidate species which may be present in the area of the proposed construction of the Steve Wagoner Subdivision in Ashton, Fremont County, Idaho. This list fulfills the requirements for a species list under section 7© of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. If the project decision is not made within180 days of this letter, regulations require that you request an updated list. Please refer to the SL number above in all correspondence and reports.

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 23 Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to assure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered to threatened species. Federal funding, permitting, or land use management decisions are considered to be Federal actions subject to section 7. If the proposed action may affect a listed species, consultation with the Service is required. Formal consultation must be initiated for any project that is likely to adversely affect a threatened or endangered species. If a project involves a major construction activity and may affect listed species, Federal agencies are required to prepare a Biological Assessment. If a proposed species is likely to be jeopardized by a Federal action, regulations require a conference between the Federal agency and the service. If you determine otherwise or require further assistance, please contact Deb Mignogno of this office at (208)237-6975. Thank you for your continued interest in endangered species conservation. Deb Mignogno Supervisor, Eastern Idaho Field Office LISTED SPECIES COMMENTS Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) XN – Experimental/Non- essential population Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) LT Ute ladies’-tresses LT We again did not receive a letter from the Idaho Fish and Game. Evan Worrell – Owen have you looked at this site? Owen McLaughlin – No I have not been invited out, I think from the size of lots it would be okay but I would like to look at it. Evan Worrell – Weldon do you have any comments? Weldon Reynolds – No. Group discussion of how far the road is plowed in the winter. Evan Worrell – Do the gentlemen from the Fire Department have any comments? John Grube – No. Cindy Roberson – Is it overhead power? Mitch Jacobs – Yes, they will bring power in from the east overhead to the front of the property then it will go under ground. Karen Lords – Fall River did not submit a letter stating that they could provide service. Cindy Roberson – Are you worried about the lava rock, do you think it is going to create a problem? Mitch Jacobs – We hope not. Group discussion of wanting the input from the Health Department. Karen Lords – You can either make it a condition of approval or leave public hearing open until the next meeting. Evan Worrell – Do I hear any motions?

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 24 Kip Martindale – I make a motion to leave the comments open until July’s meeting. Evan Worrell – We have a motion do I hear a second? Ron Kynaston – I second the motion. Evan Worrell – We have a motion that has been seconded to leave the public comment open until July’s meeting. Kirk Mackert no, remaining board members in favor.

Final Plat – Elk Crossing at Black Mountain – 11 Lots – Kim Lolo, Developer – Rick Byrem, Surveyor

Evan Worrell – The next item on the agenda is the final plat for Elk Crossing as Black Mountain, 11 lots, Kim Lolo- Developer, Rick Byrem- Surveyor. Karen Lords – Explaining the subdivision while handing out maps for final plat, this project is located off of hwy 87 on your way to Ennis Montana. It is going to sit West of Yellowstone Acres. They are proposing 11 lots there will be two entryways off of Highway 87, he did receive permission from the Highway Department on the second entrance the first was already existing. The roads have been constructed and are complete and are to County standards. This will be individual wells and individual septic. Most of lots are over 2 acres in size. Kim and Rick are both here for additional questions. Vance Derricott – Kim have there been any change since you originally brought this to us? Kim Lolo – No. Ron Kynaston – Wasn’t there a recommendation from Fish and Game not wanting a fence? Unless it was under four foot high and Kim Lolo – There are none now but on the east side that is barbwire where there are cattle on the other side grazing. Karen Lords – When we went to Public Hearing on April 17th additional conditions that you asked for included all the requirements made by Idaho Fish and Game letter dated of April 11, 2006. Plat notes should include an agreement that land owners cannot file a claim against Idaho Fish and Game for wildlife damage to their property. Plat notes should include language prohibiting feeding of wildlife or other songbirds, especially elk and deer. It should be noted that recent legislation strictly prohibits the private feeding of big game animals in this area (IDAPA 02.04.25.001). Bird feeders should be prohibited when bears are active, March and November. Plat notes should require pets (Dogs & cats) be restrained or directly attended at all times. Should require than any fences which are constructed be built to allow wildlife passage. Buck-and rail ansd woven fences should be prohibited. Barb wire fences should be no taller than 42 inches, with a smooth bottom wire 16 inches above the ground to allow antelope passage. They should also be designed to be let down in the winter. Garbage should be kept in bear proof containers

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 25 and removed at least once a week. Noxious weeds must be controlled. Canada thistle, leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, and dyers woad are all present in this area. John Nedrow – So have those conditions been met? Karen Lords – There are no plat notes on here regarding Fish and Game. The road dedication is also missing. Rick Byrem – It is there. Karen Lords – Oh, it is there but we are missing the plat notes required by the Fish and Game that you made a condition of your approval. Which they can make a change and add those to be signed off. Rick Byrem – We are agreeable to do that. I remember discussing all of that but I never received a copy of the letter. Karen Lords – We can give you a copy of the approval letter that was sent to us. Evan Worrell – Do I hear any motions? Kirk Mackert – I make a motion to approve Elk Crossing at Black Mountain with the condition of Fish and Game information is included as a plat note when it goes to the County Commissioners. Evan Worrell – Do I hear a second? Vance Derricott – I will second it. Evan Worrell – We have a motion that has been seconded, all in favor, motion carries. You have been approved to proceed to the final plat approval before the County Commissioners, You will need to meet with Karen to schedule that. Karen Lords – You will need to meet with Jeff. Kirk Mackert – Mr. Chairman I make a motion to take a 5 minute recess. Evan Worrell – We have a motion for a five minute recess do I hear a second? Cindy Roberson – I second it. Evan Worrell – We have a motion that has been seconded for a 5 minute recess, those in favor, all, motion carries. Evan Worrell – we are calling the meeting back into order

Sketch Plan – Proposing to subdivide 5 lots on 208 acres – East of Ashton in Lamont

Area – Mike Flury, Developer – Rick Byrem, Surveyor

Evan Worrell – Next on the agenda is the sketch plan proposing to subdivide 5 lots on 208 acres East of Ashton in the Lamont Area, Mike Flury – Developer, and Rick Byrem – Surveyor. Karen will you report on this? Karen Lords – Explaining project while handing out maps, this is 208 acres that sit out west of the Lamont grain elevators just off of Highway 15. This is productive crop land,

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 26 so they are asking for 40 acre parcels. Kip could tell you more about the property then I could because he farms near it. They are showing the access would be off of 4600 East that intersects with 700 North, they are providing an 880 ft cul-de-sac to access lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and a private cul-de-sac to the west for lot 5. Rick Byrem is here to represent for the Developer. It was discussed by Rick Byrem the Surveyor: The property is currently being farmed, some of it is timbered and some of it is farm land. The roads will be built to county standards. It was discussed by the board and the Surveyor of the issue of the application stating that there are no wetlands when in fact there are. It was pointed out on the map that on the western boarder of lots 3 and 5 where a year round spring is located. The Surveyor noted that he would look into it and if needed, they would put a building envelope on those lots. It was discussed of an existing home on lot one that is an old farm house that will be torn down. It was discussed of the discouragement of development of productive cropland. It was suggested that plat notes should be made to enforce the one single family dwelling per 40 acres to discourage future development. The surveyor made it known that the property is being farmed now but it will be up to the owners to do as they wish with it. Additional information from the board members was requested from Weldon Reynolds Road and Bridge Supervisor to discuss the roads in the area. It was discussed of the conditions of the road leading to the proposed property. They are seasonally maintained single lane roads, maintained only on the summer. They are dirt and mud and that they get slick in the rainy season. It was asked if there were any plans in the transportation plans to enhance these roads in the near future. It was answered that no there are no plans. Asked if it would be helpful to put plat notes that existing roads are not going to be changed to a better condition in the near future Kirk Mackert – I make a motion to move ahead with the Mike Fury subdivision to Public hearing. Evan Worrell – We have a motion do I hear a second? Ron Kynaston - I second the motion. Evan Worrell – We have a motion that has been seconded, all in favor to move ahead, motion carries. Administrator’s Report

- Administrators Report - Western Planners Association anyone want to go? Kirk Maybe?

P&Z Minutes June 19, 2006 Page 27 Adjournment: Glen Pond – I make the motion to adjourn. Cindy Roberson – I second the motion. Evan Worrell – We have a motion to adjourn that has been seconded. We adjourned at 9:42pm Motion to Approve: Motion Seconded by: Motion Approved: Evan Worrell, Chairman