Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Get this document free



                             FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
                                    DEV 06-0036

                                STAFF REPORT: ALEX NORTON
                                        May 14, 2007

APPLICANT: John Walker

AGENT:           Rendezvous Engineering

REQUEST:         Applicant is requesting Final Development Plan approval for a 9,215 square foot
                 building that will house Mill Iron Timberworks’s contractor shop and warehouse space
                 and Mountain Electrical’s warehouse space on the first floor; and four (4) accessory
                 residential units (ARUs) on the second floor.


The Planning Commission recommends (3-0) that the Board of County Commissioners DENY
Development Plan DEV 06-0036.

                                   STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners APPROVE Development Plan DEV 06-
0036 finding that the application is consistent with the Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan and
meets all applicable standards set forth in the Teton County Land Development Regulations with the
following conditions:
   1. Prior to issuance of the development permit, a surety equal to 125% of the cost of the materials,
      installation, and maintenance of the approved landscaping plan must be posted to ensure
      completion of the approved landscaping.
   2. At the time of Grading and Erosion Control Permit application submittal a Stormwater
      Management Plan meeting the requirements of Division 4900 Stormwater Management
      Standards and any additional requirements of the County Engineer shall be submitted with the
      required Grading Plan.
   3. No site disturbance other than that permitted by GEC 06-0056 shall occur on the site until a plan
      level, Grading and Erosion Control Permit meeting all the standards of Division 49100 Grading
      and Erosion Control is issued for the proposed grading.
   4. Prior to issuance of the development permit, the Teton County Housing Authority shall approve
      and sign a mechanism that restricts the occupancy of the accessory residential units to those
      employed within Teton County, and gives on-site employees priority.
   5. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the building, the applicant shall record the
      mechanism restricting occupancy approved by the Teton County Housing Authority.
   6. Prior to issuance of the development permit, the Planning Director shall approve a deed
      restriction on the ARUs that limits the number of personal vehicles to one (1) per ARU and
      prohibits any additional personal vehicles, including recreational vehicles, from being stored on-
   7. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the building, the applicant shall record the
      approved deed restriction limiting vehicles per ARU.
   8. There shall be no parking on Antelope Lane.
   9. If there is any parking conflict, including violation of Condition 8 of this permit, which cannot be
      resolved through alteration of site design or building operation, the Planning Director may revoke
      as many ARU permits as deemed necessary in order to ensure an end to the conflict, and those
      ARUs without permits shall be vacated.
   10. Any condominiumization of the proposed building shall be executed such that the ARUs are
       conveyable only in conjunction with non-residential floor area; and not as separate, residential

Board of County Commissioners                NB 5-1                                          May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                     May 14, 2007

                                PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
                                            March 12, 2007
Results:   Motion to recommend APPROVAL of DEV 06-0036 with the ten (10) recommended Staff
           conditions was DENIED unanimously, 3-0. Tony Wall and Joe Palmer were absent.

Issues:    Staff discussed the two (2) Key Issues from the Staff report. At the time of the Planning
           Commission hearing, the application for the Antelope Lane street yard parking variance had
           not been submitted. Therefore, discussion of parking issue centered on the applicant’s shared
           parking proposal. Staff explained the worst case scenarios and that in the early morning hours
           from 7-7:30 when Mountain Electrical’s trucks are being loaded with supplies for the day the
           Mountain Electrical trucks may have to double park for a brief period. However, Staff believes
           that the shared parking proposal is consistent with Section 4250.D.2 because it accommodates
           on-site employee housing and the applicant’s proposal to deed restrict the ARUs to allow only
           one personal vehicle per unit enhances the shared parking function.
           All three Planning Commissioners present were concerned about the parking. They asked for
           examples of successful deed restriction of ARU personal vehicles, as well as where overflow
           vehicles would end up parking if there were a parking conflict, and further explanation of the
           worst case scenarios. Ultimately, the Planning Commissioners felt that if all employees and all
           ARU residents were on site, the shared parking proposal would not be sufficient to
           accommodate all of the vehicles and that double and triple parking would occur, which in the
           case of a fire, or other emergency, would create an unsafe situation. See “Key Issue 1” below
           for further discussion of these questions.
           Kasey Mateosky also asked for clarification about the condominiumization of the ARUs. Staff
           explained that the ARUs cannot be sold separately, that they must be sold as part of a non-
           residential condominium unit, and that the applicant has indicated that there will be two
           condominium units each containing half of the building’s non-residential space and two (2) of
           the four (4) ARUs.


     Zoning District:       Business Park (BP), within the Natural Resources Overlay (NRO)
     Property Size:         0.47 acres
     Property Location:     3955 S. Antelope Lane, Lot 2 Valley View Business Park Subdivision, about
                            2.5 miles south of Jackson; (Township 40N, Range 116 W, Section 17)

HISTORY AND                 In March of 2006 the development plan DEV 05-0009 was approved,
PROJECT                     allowing the subdivision of Lots 13 and 14 of the Valley View Subdivision
INFORMATION:                (Platted in 1965) into the nine (9) lot Valley View Business Park
                            Subdivision. Plat 1178 of the Valley View Business Park Subdivision was
                            filed on July 6, 2006. Prior to platting, the developer of the subdivision
                            received approval of grading permit GEC 06-0056 to install a road (Antelope
                            Lane) and utilities and driveways to each of the nine (9) lots. The grading
                            permit also included a stormwater management plan for the entire site. Teton
                            County current holds a $254,312.50 letter of credit for the infrastructure and
                            grading work.
                            The current proposal is for a 9,215 square foot building on Lot 2 of the
                            Valley View Business Park Subdivision. Half of the first floor is composed
                            of warehouse and shop space for Mill Iron Timberworks; the other half is
                            warehouse space for Mountain Electrical. The second floor contains four (4)
                            795 square foot accessory apartments. Once the building is built, the
                            applicant plans to condominiumize it into two units with each condo
                            containing 2,810 square feet of non-residential space and two (2) ARUs.

Board of County Commissioners                NB 5-2                                          May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                     May 14, 2007

                                           VICINITY MAP

                                             KEY ISSUES

ISSUE 1:          Based on the size of the proposed building and the number of employees and company
Parking and       vehicles needed to operate Mill Iron Timberworks and Mountain Electrical, thirteen
the Alternative   (13) parking spaces are required for the non-residential portion of the proposed
Site Plan         building. An additional six (6) parking spaces are required to accommodate the four (4)
                  proposed ARUs, meaning that a total of nineteen (19) parking spaces are required for
                  the project. Per Section 4250.D.2 and Table 4250.D, accessory apartments to industrial
                  uses are eligible for up to 100% shared parking depending on the extent to which they
                  provide on-site employee housing and the extent to which the development location
                  and design enhance the function of the shared parking.
                  The first stipulation regarding on-site employee housing is addressed through the Teton
                  County Housing Authority required deed restriction on the ARUs ensuring that they are
                  rented only to people employed within Teton County, with priority given to on-site
                  employees. The second stipulation regarding project design enhancing the function of
                  shared parking is addressed by through the applicant proposed deed restriction on the
                  ARUs that would limit each ARU to only one (1) personal vehicle making the parking
                  requirement for the ARUs four (4) instead of six (6), effectively reducing the shared
                  parking request from a 100% request to a two-thirds (2/3) request. Staff believes that
                  the extent to which the applicant is ensuring on-site employee housing and minimizing
                  parking conflict through design warrants allowance of shared parking that would
                  permit the provision of only thirteen (13) spaces, with the four (4) spaces needed for
                  the ARUs being shared with four (4) of the spaces needed for the operation of the
                  Mountain Electrical has nine (9) employees driving seven (7) company vehicles. One
                  or two (1-2) employees will be at the warehouse throughout the day while the other
                  seven (7) drive their company vehicles to the warehouse in the morning, stay for fifteen
                  to thirty minutes to load up, and are gone by 7:30. They return for about ten minutes in
                  the evening around 5:30 to punch timecards and unload any excess materials, then
                  drive their company vehicles home. Mountain Electrical rarely has any non-employee
                  visitors to the warehouse. Mill Iron Timberworks has five (5) employees. There are
                  frequently three (3) and occasionally four (4) employees working at the
                  warehouse/shop. Mill Iron’s construction crew convenes at the job site rather than the
                  warehouse/shop. Maybe once a month an owner or architect will come to the Mill Iron
                  warehouse/shop to discuss a project, but for the most part their conference room is used
                  internally. All seven (7) Mountain Electrical and both (2) Mill Iron company vehicles
                  go home with their drivers every night.

Board of County Commissioners                NB 5-3                                          May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                                           May 14, 2007

                 The worst case parking scenario is that all four (4) ARUs are occupied by on-site
                 employees who each have a personal vehicle, but drive a company vehicle during the
                 day. At night there is no parking conflict. Because the company vehicles all go home
                 with their drivers, four (4) personal vehicles and four (4) company vehicles could all be
                 parked outside with an (1) additional space left over. If company vehicles were parked
                 inside overnight, there would be even more extra space outside. During the day is when
                 a potential conflict could arise. The ARUs’ four (4) personal vehicles would take up
                 outdoor spaces all day. An additional four to six (4-6) spaces will always be occupied
                 by the employees that work in the building. This potentially leaves zero or only one (0-
                 1) exterior space for any client, architect, guest of an ARU occupant, etc. and might
                 even require that a (1) vehicle be parked inside all day. Based on the general operation
                 of the businesses, the business owners believe that they can avoid any problems and
                 still accommodate loading activities. The applicant has also assured Staff that if
                 additional spaces are needed, due to a meeting or multiple company vehicles coming
                 back during the day, the interior spaces will be used. The times of day with definite
                 parking conflicts are the morning and evening loading/return periods of Mountain
                 Electrical. With four (4) spaces occupied by ARU personal vehicles, the seven (7)
                 company vehicles loading up for the day would fill all the remaining exterior spaces
                 and the two (2) interior spaces on the Mountain Electrical side of the building. This
                 means that only two (2) other vehicles, parked in the interior Mill Iron side spaces,
                 could be on the site. The applicant has assured Staff that in the evening the return of the
                 Mountain Electrical employees is brief and staggered so no conflict should arise. In the
                 morning it is likely that the Mountain Electrical trucks will have to triple or quadruple
                 park to load up and still allow Mill Iron employees to arrive, but the applicant has
                 assured Staff that this will not create problems and is a workable way to operate the
                 building because it is a situation that can be managed internally by the owners of the
                 building and will not cause conflict with use of the site by visitors.
                 In order to address the Planning Commission’s concern about the shared parking
                 proposal the applicant has proposed an alternative site plan (Attachment II) that would
                 still meet all LDR standards if variance VAR 07-0002 is passed and would provide an
                 additional five spaces on the lot. The applicant has proposed to build these spaces if the
                 variance is approved meaning that eighteen (18) spaces would be provided on the site
                 where only seventeen (17) are required if the personal vehicle limit deed restrictions
                 are recorded. Below is a table laying out the worst case parking scenario laid out above
                 in the case that variance VAR 07-0002 passes or is denied.
                                                          Worst Case Parking Scenario
                        All ARU residents are employees of Mtn. Elec. or Mill Iron with personal vehicle and Company Vehicle
                                  Spaces Needed by time of day (exterior filled first): total needed(interior requirement)
                                 Site Plan w/o VAR 07-0002 extra spaces         Site Plan with VAR 07-0002 extra spaces
                                    9 exterior 4 interior 13 total spaces           14 exterior 4 interior 18 total spaces
                                  7-7:30         8-5         5-5:30      night       7-7:30         8-5        5-5:30          night
                  Mtn. Elec.        7-9          1-2           0-9         2          7-9           1-2          0-9             2
                   Mill Iron.       0-4          3-4           0-4         2          0-4           3-4          0-4             2
                      ARUs           4            4             4          4           4             4            4              4
                       Total    11-17(2-4)    8-10(0-1)     4-17(0-4)    8(0)      11-17(0-3)    8-10(0-1)    4-17(0-4)         8(0)
                  Remaining      -4-2(0-2)     3-5(3-4)     -4-9(0-4)    5(4)       1-7(1-4)      6-4(4)      1-14(1-4)        11(4)

                 Staff believes, as they did at the time of the Planning Commission meeting, that the
                 originally proposed shared parking proposal is adequate to provide the needed parking
                 for the development, and that “Conditions 6-9” ensure compliance with the regulations.
                 The width of the parking lot, the width of the access drive and the proximity of the
                 building to the road allow Fire/EMS to respond to any emergency situation that can be
                 reasonably anticipated even if some double parking were to occur. Staff feels that while
                 the alternative site plan responds to the Planning Commission’s concerns, it is not
                 necessary to provide five (5) additional spaces and that leaving those potential extra
                 spaces unpaved provides stormwater, snow storage, and aesthetic value which is
                 greater than any hypothetical problems that may result from the applicant’s shared
                 parking proposal. Staff recommends that the original site plan be approved, even if
                 variance VAR 07-0002 is approved, finding that it provides the necessary parking
                 while preserving the maximum amount of landscape area to serve various lot functions.
                 Should problems arise in the future, variance VAR 07-0002, if approved, would allow
                 the applicant to construct additional spaces as needed and give the applicant flexibility
                 in complying with “Condition 9”.
ISSUE 2:         The applicant plans to condominiumize the building upon completion of construction.
Condominium-     The building would be divided down the middle, with one half of the first floor and the
ization          two ARUs above making up each unit. The LDRs are silent on condominiumization
                 other than to state that the division of a building is subject to review, approval and
                 recordation requirements of Division 6100, Final Plat, and to say that no condominium
                 shall be sold that has not been legally platted. The use of the land would be no different
                 if the building is condominiumized than if it were leased as two separate spaces, and

Board of County Commissioners                       NB 5-4                                                         May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                      May 14, 2007

                  thus Staff sees no reason why, upon completion of the building, the applicant cannot
                  file an application for a Final Plat in order to condominiumize the building.
                  The one issue is the ARUs. in the past ARUs have been condominiumized and sold as
                  individual units. Proposed “Condition 10” prohibits this from occurring because if the
                  apartments are condominiumized as separate units they are no longer clearly incidental,
                  subordinate and secondary to another, primary use as required in Section 2370.
                  Conveying one or multiple apartments unassociated with non-residential space also
                  violates the use restrictions of the BP zoning district. Accessory residential use is the
                  only permitted residential use in the BP. As conditioned, Staff believes that
                  condominiumization of the proposed building complies with the LDRs.


Chapter 1: Community Vision
To guide and manage change and development to:
    support and promote a diverse social and economic population that includes a resident work force;
    preserve the traditions and character of the Rocky Mountain West and Wyoming, including ranching
    and through architectural design;
    promote economic sustenance that does not depend on population growth;
    set aside, for generations to come, scenic vistas and wildlife habitat;
    maintain and enhance environmental quality, including air and water quality; and
    maintain outdoor recreation and adventure opportunities.

The guiding principles shown below have been articulated to reconcile the benefits of growth with the
benefits of growth management.
   1. Teton County’s wildlife and scenic resources are a local and national treasure, and, therefore,
         the community recognizes a stewardship responsibility for their protection. Future development
         in Teton County will take place in this context.
   2. The intent of this Plan is to create conditions for a sustainable visitor-based economy not
         dependent upon growth, and an economy that reflects the unique small-town, Western
         commercial character of Jackson, and the outdoor recreational opportunities of Teton County as
         key components of the visitor experience.
   3. As a community grounded in values of individualism, fairness and hospitality, the intent of this
         Plan is to provide property owners and local businesses with as much flexibility as possible in the
         use and development of their property. Local elected officials will be entrusted with discretionary
         decision-making power to protect public health, safety and welfare.
Complies. The proposal protects natural resources by proposing light industrial development in an area
where light industry is a historic use and thus will not further impact natural resources. The development
would also allow two local contracting businesses, that support the visitor based economy as well as the
local population, to develop a building that meets their specific needs.

Chapter 2: Population, Economy, and Growth
   1. To manage growth based on the community character vision, so that growth achieves beneficial
       outcomes throughout the community.
   2. To support a balance of growth among residential, commercial, and resort development to
       preserve and enhance community character.
   3. To encourage enhancement of the types of visitor services that emphasize the area’s unique
       outdoor attributes.
   4. To define the future boundaries of growth necessary to preserve community character.
   5. To manage the rate of growth in the residential, resort and commercial sectors in a way that
       allows the community to change while preserving community character.
Complies. The proposal supports a balanced economy by providing a local, unique space for two local
light industrial contractors.

Chapter 3: Community Character
   1. To maintain a sense of place and of community, and a way of life based upon Teton County’s
       western heritage.
   2. To protect Teton County’s natural and scenic resources, including wildlife, as a primary element
       of community character.
   3. To maintain social and economic diversity.
   4. To maintain a balance between visitation and community life.
   5. To preserve the character of some existing neighborhoods and commercial centers and to
       enhance others through redevelopment.
   6. To guide the development of “mixed-use villages.”

Board of County Commissioners                 NB 5-5                                          May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                         May 14, 2007

Complies. As stated above the proposal maintains economic diversity, and in doing so also maintains
social diversity by allowing two local light industrial contractors to operate more effectively in the
community. It also perpetuates the industrial neighborhood where it is located, promoting future light
industrial development with the same sorts of value in that area and the County as a whole.

Chapter 4: Natural and Scenic Resources
   1. To preserve and protect wildlife habitat, including continuous migration corridors.
   2. To protect environmentally sensitive and physically unsafe areas from development.
   3. To preserve the scenic quality of the environment.
   4. To protect significant natural features and land forms.
   5. To encourage restoration of environmentally degraded areas.
   6. To preserve open space.
   7. To foster, promote and encourage ranching.
Complies. The property is located within the NRO; however, the value of this designation is
questionable. Development adjacent to the site of the proposal has already limited the natural resource
value in the area. As a result, by developing this industrial use on this site, natural resources are preserved
by creating no further impact on any resources in other areas of the County.

Chapter 5: Affordable Housing
   1. To provide a variety of quality affordable housing for Teton County’s socially and economically
      diverse population.
   2. To establish a balanced program of incentives, requirements, and public and private actions to
      provide affordable housing.
Complies. The proposal’s four ARUs will meet the standards of the LDRs and be monitored by the
Teton County Housing Authority so that the proposal may provide housing for on-site employees or
others employed within Teton County.

Chapter 6: Commercial and Resort Development
   1. Economic development efforts shall be consistent with community character, natural resources
       and affordable housing goals.
   2. To preserve and protect the economic vitality of the community by ensuring that the quality of the
       natural and built environment and unique western character are maintained.
Complies. The proposal is consistent with the character of the development around it, and as stated
above protects an important aspect of Teton County’s economic and social diversity – light industry.

Chapter 7: Community Facilities
   1. Anticipate community facility needs due to planned levels and locations of growth.
   2. Maintain up-to-date Town and County development exactions, and/or adopt impact fees, which
       ensure that growth pays its fair share of the costs of park and recreation facilities, transportation,
       water supply and wastewater treatment facilities, fire protection facilities, government facilities
       and schools.
Complies. Because the intent of ARUs is to provide needed workforce housing no development
exactions are required for the apartments.

Chapter 8: Transportation
   1. To systematically plan for future mobility that meets the needs of residents and tourists within the
       context of community character.
   2. To decrease the rate of anticipated vehicular traffic growth in the community.
   3. To improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system in Jackson and Teton County.
   4. To coordinate the administration of the overall transportation system.
Complies. The proposal meets the goals of this chapter as the transportation demand was already
accounted for in the development of Valley View Business Park Subdivision.

Chapter 9: Intergovernmental Coordination
   1. To achieve a high level of cooperation and coordination among the various state, federal, and
      local agencies operating in Teton County.
Complies. The Teton Conservation District (TCD) and the Teton County Housing Authority (TCHA)
were included in the review process for this proposed development. Their respective comments are
included in the “Required Reviews” section of this Staff Report.

Board of County Commissioners                  NB 5-6                                            May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                       May 14, 2007

Chapter 10: Agricultural Resources
To encourage agricultural activities in Jackson Hole because:
    1. It is productive use of land.
    2. It contributes to Jackson Hole’s unique community character.
    3. It provides and maintains critical habitat for wildlife.
    4. It is the primary foreground view for the scenic vistas so popular among tourists and residents
    5. It is a tourist attraction in and of itself and as well as providing a context for such attractions as
       the rodeo and County Fair.
    6. It lends diversity and tradition to a rapidly changing area.
Not Applicable. The proposal does not impact agricultural resources.

                           RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICABLE LDRs

Section 2220, Definitions for Use Schedule
The primary use of the building is as a warehouse and contractor shop for Mill Iron Timberwoks and as a
warehouse for Mountain Electrical. These are Light Industry uses, which are permitted by right in the BP
Zoning District. The operational office space for each business is a part of the industrial use. The
residential space is in the form of Accessory Residential Units (see below), which are also permitted by
right in the BP Zoning District.

Section 2370, Accessory Residential Units
ARUs are permitted by right in the BP zoning district if they meet the standards of this section. At the
time of the Building Permit, the applicant will have to submit four Accessory Residential Unit (ARU)
Permit applications, at which time Staff will more closely examine the specifics of the ARUs. Because the
primary use of the building is non-residential meaning that there is no primary dwelling unit, the only
allowed occupants of the ARUs are people employed in Teton County as outlined in Subsection 2370.B,
Occupancy. The applicant has proposed a deed restriction for the ARUs that would ensure occupancy by
those employed in Teton County with preference given to on-site employees first. To ensure that this
requirement is fulfilled “Condition 4” and “Condition 5” are being proposed.
Two of the ARUs are proposed to be 794 square feet and two are proposed to be 799 square feet. All meet
the 850 square foot maximum for an ARU associated with a non-residential use. Storage for each ARU is
provided outside of the unit on the back deck. The ARUs are designed as one bedroom units to preclude
the possibility of children living in the units and any conflict of use between the light industry and family
living. A proposed deed restriction limiting each unit to only one personal vehicle also encourages single
occupants of the ARUs. The livability of the ARUs is enhanced by the large deck space in the back (west)
of the units and the east and west facing windows. The parking for the ARUs is discussed below.

Table 2400 Part H, Schedule of Dimensional Limitations, Business Park (BP) Zoning District and
Table 2450.B, Nonresidential Floor Area Limitations
The applicant’s property is 0.47 acres and lies within the BP zoning district. The following table outlines
the required Dimensional Limitations and states what is proposed and allowed on the subject property:

                                          Existing                Proposed
                                                                                     LDR Standard
                                        Conditions             Development
         Street (east)                            n/a                  ~46 ft1                   20 ft
         Rear (west)                              n/a                    20 ft                   20 ft
         Side (north)                             n/a                    10 ft                   10 ft
         Side (south)                             n/a                    15 ft                  10 ft2
      Dimensional Limitations:
         Base Site Area               0.39 acres
         Maximum FAR                              n/a     .355 or 6,029 sq ft3     .6 or 10,184 sq ft
         Minimum LSR                              n/a    ~39% or 6,669 sq ft      15% or 2,546 sq ft
         Maximum Height                           n/a                    32 ft                   35 ft
      Floor Area Limitations:
         BP                                       n/a              9,215 sq ft            15,000 sq ft
         measured from the southeast corner of building to nearest point of road easement at south
          property line.
         building must actually be setback 15ft due to 15ft storm water easement on south property line
         does not include 3,185 sq ft in the four (4) ARUs (2 x 799 sq ft + 2 x 794 sq ft)

Division 3100, Environmental Analysis and Division 3200, Natural Resources Protection and
Natural Resources Overlay (NRO) District
This project is exempt from an EA because it is determined by Staff to be development within an
approved project. The developer of the Valley View Business Park Subdivision submitted to Staff

Board of County Commissioners                 NB 5-7                                           May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                                     May 14, 2007

materials sufficient to demonstrate that the existing intensity and type of use around the area was such
that a full EA was not needed because the development of the Valley View Business Park Subdivision
would have minimal additional impacts on wildlife. Because of the conclusions and recent completion of
the Valley View Business Park EA the current proposal does not require a new, individual EA. There are
no wetlands or water bodies on the property.

Section 4130, Landscape Plan and Section 4170, Installation and Maintenance
The landscaping plan and alternative landscaping plan (attachment II) meet the requirements of Section
4130 as submitted. As required by Section 4170, the applicant shall provide a surety equal to 125% of the
cost of all required landscaping materials, installation, and maintenance. Staff proposes that “Condition 1”
fulfill this requirement.

Section 4160, Landscaping Standards
This section requires that an applicant for a nonresidential building in the BP Zoning District plant one (1)
plant unit per thousand (1,000) square feet of required landscape surface area, per Subsection 4160.B.1
Nonresidential Standards, General, one (1) plant unit per sixteen (16) parking spaces, per Table 4160.C
Landscaping Standards for Parking, and two (2) plant units per loading bay, per Subsection 4160.D.1
Loading Area Screening Standards, Loading area.
For this application, the above general requirements result in a requirement of 2.55 plant units for LSR,
0.82 plant units for parking and 4 plant units for the required loading bays. This totals 7.37 or a
requirement of eight (8) plant units. The applicant proposes to install nearly eight (8) units of Plant Unit
Alternative B. A sewer line and subdivision stormwater easement and swale run along the south and west
sides of the property. In an effort to accommodate these utilities, as well as the foundation design that is
function of the presence of the sewer line and stormwater swale, the applicant has proposed a number of
evergreen shrubs along the west and south sides of the building. The applicant also proposes to plant
numerically fewer but more mature, larger trees to the east and north in lieu of many smaller trees that
might end up killing each other as they grow. Staff feels that the proposal meets the intent of screening
and softening the building and therefore achieves the requirements of this section.

Table 4240, Parking Standards by Use and Section 4250, Other General Standards for Off-Street
Parking and Loading
Per Subsection 4250.C, if there is a mix of uses on a site then the parking requirement is the additive total
of the individual uses. The following table illustrates the parking requirement for the proposal.

                                                              Proposed Floor                   Company        Parking
     Use            LDR Requirement              Owner            Area           Employees     Vehicles     Requirement
  Contractor     1 space per 1,000 sf plus 1
                                                Mill Iron         1,760             5             21        1.76+2=3.76
    Shop            per company vehicle         Mountain
                                                                     0                0             0             0
                 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sf or 1
                                                Mill Iron          1,025              0             0            0.51
                   per employee plus 1 per
                 company vehicle stored on      Mountain
                             site                                  2,840              8            71             8
                                                              4 total bedrooms
    ARU            1.5 spaces per bedroom                                                                       6(4)2
                                                                  in 4 units
                                                                                              Total           18.27(16.27)
Notes: 1Only the company vehicles used by on-site employees living in ARUs will be stored on site over night.
         2/3 shared parking is proposed for the ARUs as the applicant will deed restrict the units so that only 4 spaces are
          needed - 1 per unit.

The applicant proposes to provide thirteen (13) parking spaces where nineteen (19) are required. Table
4250.D allows apartments associated with industrial use to apply for 100% shared parking credit.
Subsection 4250.D.2 states that the allowed shared parking percentage be based upon the extent to which
the ARUs provide on-site employee housing and the design accommodates functional sharing of the
spaces. The applicant proposes to deed restrict the ARUs to only allow one personal vehicle per unit.
Because of this, the applicant is only asking for a shared parking allowance for 4 spaces or 2/3 of their
requirement. Staff feels that 2/3 shared parking credit is appropriate considering the applicant’s desire to
provide employee housing to on-site employees and the assurances created through proposed “Conditions
6-9” (See Issue 1 for further discussion). Therefore, as conditioned, Staff feels the applicant has met the
requirements of these Sections.
The Planning Commission felt that approval of the shared parking proposal would create safety issues if
there were ever any sort of emergency situation during one of the worst case scenarios for parking. Since
the Planning Commission meeting Staff has discussed the concerns of the Planning Commission with
Kjell Elisson, Fire Marshal and even in a case of double parking, the width of the parking lot, the width of
the access drive and the proximity of the building to Antelope Lane would still allow Fire/EMS access to
an emergency on Lot 2. To address the Planning Commission’s concerns, the applicant has created an
alternative site design which provides an additional five (5) parking spaces. The alternative site plan only
complies with the regulations if VAR 07-0002 is passed, reducing the street yard parking setback along
Antelope Lane from twenty (20) feet to two (2) feet. Because Staff believes that the necessary parking is
provided by the original site plan, and because the original site plan preserves more landscape area for lot

Board of County Commissioners                        NB 5-8                                                  May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                       May 14, 2007

functions such as stormwater percolation, snow storage, and aesthetics, Staff recommends that the
original site plan be approved regardless of the outcome of the variance VAR 07-0002 application. If a
parking conflict does materialize in the future, an approved variance VAR 07-0002 would provide a
means to address “Condition 9” without revoking ARU permits.

Section 4260, Off-street Parking Facility Design Standards
The perpendicular parking model proposed by the applicant requires twenty (20) foot long parking spaces
with a twenty-four (24) foot wide drive aisle between them. All parking stalls meet the twenty-foot
requirement except the handicap space closest to the building on the south of the lot. That space is
proposed to be only eighteen (18) feet and to overhang two (2) feet under the stairs. This is allowable per
Subsection 4260.J.1 as the area under the stairs will be kept clear of snow, but is not a designated
walkway for pedestrian movement. All other requirements of this Section are met with the original site
plan. The alternative site plan (attachment II) requires a variance to Subsection 4260.D to allow parking
in the street yard setback. Variance VAR 07-0002 would reduce the parking setback along Antelope Lane
from twenty (20) feet to two (2) feet and if it were approved would bring the alternative site plan into
conformance with all requirements of this Section.

Section 4280, Off-Street Loading Standards
Per Table 4280.A, commercial and industrial establishments of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet
require one loading berth. This proposal contains two industrial establishments of about 2,815 square feet.
The applicant proposes one loading bay for each business. The proposed loading bays meet the
dimensional requirements and Staff agrees that conflict between the loading bays and the parking spots in
the same space can be avoided.

Section 4290, Snow Storage Standards for Off-street Parking and Loading Areas
A minimum of 2.5% of the total required off-street parking and loading areas, inclusive of access drives,
shall be provided as snow storage area. Stored snow shall not restrict access and circulation, nor create a
visual obstruction for motorists and pedestrians. The applicant shows two hundred (228) square feet of
snow storage, which exceeds the required square footage. In the alternative site plan this snow storage is
provided mostly within the Antelope Lane right-of-way. This issue is discussed in more detail in Staff’s
review of VAR 07-0002 but does not pose any problems as the area provided for snow storage in the
Antelope Lane right-of-way is equal to the area of the road itself, leaving plenty of excess area for
additional snow from Lot 2. Staff believes that the snow storage shown on the alternative site plan meets,
without contradicting, the standards of Subsection 4290.B.3.

Section 4440, Projections Into Required Setbacks
Division 4400, Residential Architectural Standards applies to either residential use within a mixed-use
structure, residential structures, or both depending on the subsection. Subsection 4440.B, Fire Escapes
allows that, “Fire escapes may extend into a side or rear yard by not more than four (4) feet.” There is no
restriction as to which zoning districts this subsection applies, nor any mention that it should only apply
to purely residential buildings. The proposed fire escape serves only the ARUs, which are a residential
use. Staff agrees with the applicant that the fire escape is a residential architectural projection which is
allowed in the BP district and because it projects less than four feet meets the standards of Division 4400
regardless of the primary use of the building.

Division 4500, Nonresidential Architectural Standards
Because the LDRs are silent in this Division about architectural projections, whereas in Division 4400,
Residential Architectural Standards architectural projections are specified as being allowed in certain
cases, architectural projections serving the nonresidential use of the building, such as eaves, are not
allowed to encroach into setbacks. Based on the building elevations submitted with the proposal this
standard is met. The building is to be sided with earth toned metal and wood and have a dark brown
patina, metal roof. At the time of the Building Permit it will be ensured that all materials are non-
reflective prior to installation.

Section 4620, Allowable Signage By District and Section 4680, Sign Material and Display Standards
Nonresidential uses in the BP Zoning District are allowed one wall sign per street frontage not to exceed
one (1) square foot per two (2) linear feet of building facing the street, to a maximum area of twenty-four
(24) square feet per sign. Each business has about 39 feet of street frontage. Therefore one (1) wall sign is
allowed for each business with each sign having a maximum area of 19.5 square feet. The proposed Mill
Iron sign is eighteen (18) square feet and the proposed Mountain Electrical sign is 19.4 square feet. The
lighting of the signs meets the requirements of Section 4680 as shown. The lights are external and point
back toward the sign and building and appear to be fully shielded. The applicant is aware that they have to
receive a Sign Permit prior to installation of any signs. At the time of sign permit application review,
Staff will ensure that all specifics of Division 4600 are met.

Division 4700, Transportation Facilities
The proposal takes primary access from a parking drive aisle that is accessed by an approved drive off of
Antelope Lane.

Board of County Commissioners                 NB 5-9                                           May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                        May 14, 2007

Section 4810, Potable Water Supply & Section 4820, Sanitary Sewer Systems
As a condition of the approval of DEV 05-0009, the developer of Valley View Business Park Subdivision
was required to install water and sewer service to each of the nine (9) lots. These connections hook into
the Valley View Subdivision water and sewer systems through the existing connections for Lots 13 and
14 of Valley View Subdivision (the two lots that became the nine (9) lots of Valley View Business Park
Subdivision). Valley View Business Park is a member of the Valley View Sewer Company and the
Valley View Mutual Water Company. Membership in the Valley View Mutual Water Company is
evidence of adequate water supply. Valley View Sewer Company has an agreement with O-Bar-B that
that allows Valley View sewage to flow through the O-Bar-B sewer line into the Town main sewer line.
Valley View Sewer Company and O-Bar-B have both signed the Town’s standard maintenance
agreements to ensure that all sewer lines under their jurisdiction are maintained to the Town’s standards.
Valley View Sewer Company and O-Bar-B have the capacity to carry the effluent from the Valley View
Business Park Subdivision, and the Town treatment plant also has the capacity to receive the sewage. The
applicant is aware that at the time of submittal of their building permit application they will also have to
submit a Sewer Connect Permit Application that will be reviewed by the Town in order to ensure that the
sewer connection meets the necessary standards and to inform the Town of the connection.

Division 4900, Stormwater Management Standards
As conditioned in DEV 05-0009, a Stormwater Management Plan was submitted and approved as part of
GEC 06-0056 for all of Valley View Business Park subdivision. That Stormwater Management Plan
includes drainage swales and a catch basin located within 15 foot easements on along the west and south
property lines of Lot 2. The landscaping required for this proposal must be partially completed in these
stormwater easements. The landscape design has been altered from the original submittal to eliminate the
impacts of the development on the stormwater easements by planting smaller shrubs along those
easements in a way that does not alter the function of the stormwater system. Further detail, including
calculations and a full stormwater management plan showing how the site specific stormwater control
will tie into the overall subdivision stormwater plan and affect the subdivisions stormwater management
at build-out will be provided at the time of the Grading and Erosion Control permit application. Proposed
“Condition 2” ensures that the requirements of this Division will be fulfilled. The County Engineering
Department sees no potential conflict between variance VAR 07-0002 and the standards of this section,
implying that the alternative site plan will also be able to meet the standards of this section upon submittal
of the stormwater management plan with the Grading and Erosion Control permit application.

Division 49100, Grading and Erosion Control
The County Engineering Department is satisfied with the finished grading shown in the Final
Development Plan. Prior to any previously unapproved land disturbance on Lot 2 a Grading and Erosion
Control Plan will have to be issued. At that time Planning and Engineering Staff will more closely
examine the proposed grading, erosion control, and stormwater proposals. The applicant is aware that
they will be required to submit a Plan level Grading and Erosion Control Permit application. Proposed
“Condition 3” therefore fulfills the requirements of this section. Again, the County Engineering
Department saw no conflict between variance VAR 07-0002 and the standards of this section. The
alternative site plan should be able to meet all standards upon application for a Grading and Erosion
Control permit.

Section 49230, Refuse and Recycle Facilities
The applicant proposes to place a bear proof dumpster within a wood trash enclosure sufficient to meet all
the standards of this section. The alternative site plan shows this dumpster as being within the street yard
setback. This is permitted so long as the screening fence is less than four (4) feet. Westbank Sanitation
provides a three (3) foot tall bear proof dumpster which will be used by the applicant and can be screened
by a fence of less than four (4) feet. The applicant is aware that temporary dumpsters used during
construction are exempt from bear resistance and screening requirements only if they are used solely for
construction materials.

Section 49370, Exterior Lighting and Glare
The exterior lighting on the second floor, illuminating the entrances to the ARUs, exceeds the eighteen
(18) foot height restriction for exterior lighting. However, the walls to which these lights are attached are
recessed from the ground floor walls of the building and with the required total cut-off the light would
only shine on the deck, not all the way to the ground. Building Code requires that entrances and exits be
lit and as such Staff feels that the proposed lights on the second floor meet the intent and purpose of these
regulations. The lighting of the signs is addressed above. All other exterior lighting complies with this
Section as shown. Specific fixtures will be reviewed during Building Permit approval.

                                         REQUIRED REVIEWS

The application was forwarded to the County Engineering Department, the Building Official, the Fire
Marshal, the Teton Conservation District, and the Teton County Housing Authority.

Board of County Commissioners                 NB 5-10                                           May 22, 2007
Staff Report DEV 06-0036                                                                     May 14, 2007

Teton County Building Official
•   Nothing to prohibit project from moving forward. All code requirements will have to be addressed
    when a complete set of plans is submitted for a Building Permit.

Teton County Engineering Department
County Sanitarian/Engineering Technician:
•   Installation of the plant materials and associated irrigation system in the stormwater easements on
    the west and south of the property will adversely impact the performance of the subdivision
    stormwater management plan. (The applicant has addressed these comments to the satisfaction of the
    County Sanitarian)
•   No finish grade shown. (Applicant has provided satisfactory finish grade design)
•   Applicant will be required to address the impacts to the subdivision stormwater management plan
    and provide the required information and detail outlined in Section 4920, including detailed
    stormwater calculations and drawings, at the time of Grading and Erosion Control Permit
    application. A Grading and Erosion Control Permit is required for this application.

Teton Conservation District:
•   TCD suggests using compost berms for erosion control as opposed to a silt fence.
•   All chemicals such as construction equipment, transmission, and hydraulic fluids should be
    safeguarded and the equipment properly maintained to avoid spill events.
•   All scarified areas should have a land management plan. TCD or the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service can provide technical assistance in the preparation of such a plan.

Teton County Fire Marshal
•   No comments have been received at this time.

Teton County Housing Authority
 • TCHA recommends that a condition be placed on the Development Permit requiring a deed
    restriction be placed on the ARUs to ensure they are used for workforce housing. (The applicant has
    drafted a deed restriction.)


As of the date of this Staff Report, no public comment regarding this application has been received by the
Planning Department.


        I.   Plan Review Committee comments are attached from the following:
                Ray Shriver, County Sanitarian 1/3/2007
                Staff’s Review
                Rachel Markko, Teton Conservation District
                Emily Van Engel, Teton County Housing Authority
                Ray Shriver, County Sanitarian 1/16/2007
                Mark Antrobus, County Building Official
        II. Alternative site plan (to potentially replace Sheet FDP 3,4,6,7)

Board of County Commissioners                NB 5-11                                         May 22, 2007

To top