snake river park koa campground final development

Transcription

SNAKE RIVER PARK KOA CAMPGROUND
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DEV2012-0013) AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP2012-0003)
STAFF REPORT: SHAWN MEANS AND JENNIFER ANDERSON
FEBRUARY 25, 2013
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
REQUEST:
Bud Chatham, Owner Camp On Inc., dba Snake River Park KOA
Approval of a Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to change the
operational characteristics of the Snake River Park KOA Campground, specifically to
add 18 Recreational Park Trailers (RPTs) to be located on the site year-round and rented
for visitor use on a short-term basis.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL OF Final
Development Plan DEV2012-0013 and Conditional Use Permit CUP2012-0003 based upon the finding
that the applications meet all applicable standards set forth in the Teton County Land Development
Regulations, with the following conditions:
1. A total of 98 campsites, including RPT, RV and tent sites, and 17 cabins are permitted. A
maximum of 39 RPTs are permitted.
2. The 17 cabins may be relocated on the site, provided setbacks and other applicable LDR
standards are met. The cabins may be repaired as necessary. Replacement of the cabins shall
require an Interpretation by the Planning Director Similar Use Determination finding that the
proposed replacement unit is similar to a cabin. Replacement of a cabin with a tent or RV site, an
RPT unit, or any camping unit determined to be similar to a campsite will constitute conversion
of the cabin into a campsite, at which point it must comply with the total number of campsites
permitted, which is 98.
3. All campsites and cabins are limited to guest stays of 30 days or less. A total of 7 sites or cabins
may be used long-term for the campground’s employees.
4. The tent sites and river access west of the existing cabin row shall not be used between November
30 and April 1. The remaining campsites and cabins, including RPTs, may be used year-round.
5. Prior to development permit issuance, a DEQ permit for the leachfield/septic system upgrades is
required as well as site plans submitted to the Planning Office. The upgrades shall be located out
of the 150-foot river setback and shall be completed prior to the installation of any additional
RPTs, including the 7 RPT units approved in 2010 but not yet installed, unless DEQ specifically
waives this requirement for the 7 already approved units.
6. Refuse containers and dumpsters are to be bear resistant, including individual trash containers
found throughout the campground, and shall comply with Division 49700, Bear Conflict
Mitigation and Prevention.
7. Prior to development permit issuance, a building permit for the recently installed restroom facility
shall be obtained from the Building Department.
Neither a detailed site plan illustrating separation distances nor specifications for RPT design and
installation were reviewed as part of this application. Therefore, prior to installation of any RPT units, the
applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the following LDR standards:
8. All RPTs shall use ground-anchoring systems as specified in the ANSI standards.
9. All RPT units shall be non-reflective and earth-tone in color.
10. All RPT exterior lighting shall comply with Section 49370, Exterior Lighting and Glare.
11. All new RPTs are permitted covered or uncovered porches built as part of the trailer on the
chassis and are limited to 100 square feet per trailer. No after-market external additions such as
expandable rooms, carports, decks or porches, other than external stairs with a landing essential
for safe ingress and egress as determined by the Building Official, may be attached or placed on a
campsite. Building Permits may be required for external stairs and landings as determined by the
Building Official depending on the design.
12. All new RPTs shall have a minimum insulation of R-19 walls, R-38 roofs, and R-19 floors.
13. All new RPTs shall meet the minimum snow load requirements for structures as defined in the
current Teton County Building Codes Resolution.
14. RPTs may be no higher than sixteen (16) feet in height as measured from any point on the
exterior of the RPT to the nearest point of finished grade.
15. All new RPTs shall have a separation distance of 10 feet between new RPTs, and between old
and new RPTs.
Board of County Commissioners
NB 2-1
March 5, 2013
Staff Report DEV2012-0013, CUP2012-0003
February 25, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING—January 29, 2013
Results:
DEV2012-0013 and CUP2012-0003—Motion to RECOMMEND APPROVAL with the
15 conditions as amended by the Planning Commission based on upon the finding that the
application meets all applicable standards set forth in the Teton County Land Development
Regulations, carried 4-1, with Patricia Russell opposed.
Discussion included the following topics:
•
Customer satisfaction and the need for RPT units—The applicant explained that
today’s RV units are much larger than in the past, and come with extendable slides.
The existing RV campsites are too narrow to adequately accommodate these units,
and customers complain that the RVs are too close together. Commissioner Patricia
Russell asked the applicant to clarify whether there is a space issue in the
campground design or just a shift away from RVs altogether. The applicant
explained that it was both.
•
Separation distances and RPT standards—Commissioner Mike Hammer asked
Staff for clarification on the separation distances and RPT standards. Staff explained
that the seven previously approved RPTs that have not yet been installed are exempt
from having to meet the standards adopted in 2011. Any new RPT units approved
with this application will have to meet all LDR standards, including separation
distances. The applicant will need to demonstrate compliance prior to RPT
installation.
•
Parking—Commissioner Mark Newcomb raised questions about parking,
specifically the parking that may be occurring within the highway right-of-way, and
asked whether a condition should be added prohibiting parking within the right-ofway. Staff clarified that the parking is adequate on the site without counting any
spaces in the right-of-way, and that the applicant should not be held entirely
responsible for enforcement of prohibited parking in those areas by individuals and
groups not associated with the campground. Efforts have been made by the
applicant to place “no parking” signage and keep campground customers from
parking in that area. Additional enforcement by the Sheriff’s office may be
appropriate in this area.
•
Winter Use—Commissioner Steve Duerr raised questions about winter use of the
campground, particularly below the existing cabins along the river corridor.
Recommended Condition #4 limits winter use of the property to the campsites and
cabins east of the existing cabin row. The tent sites and river access west of the
existing cabin row are not to be used between November 30 and April 1.
Commissioner Duerr questioned Staff about the rationale for this condition and the
applicant about his interest in pursuing winter activities in that area in the future.
Staff explained that the condition resulted from a Wildlife Habitat Assessment
prepared addressing potential impacts of winter use and the presence of winter
habitat for bald eagles in the vicinity. Amending the condition to expand the winter
use area would first require an updated habitat impact assessment; the applicant
would need to pursue such an update if he is interested in winter use on that portion
of the property.
Following the Planning Commission meeting, Staff followed up with Biota for
clarification on the Habitat Assessment. Biota clarified that the potential disturbance
to winter bald eagle habitat would stem from camping, particularly in RVs with
generators, and vehicle access to the areas along the river corridor. Human powered
activity, such as walking along the river, would not result in adverse impacts to
protected species or habitats. Recommended Condition of Approval #4 is intended
to restrict the potential for camping and vehicle access in the designated areas
during the winter, and not to limit the ability of the owner or campground guests to
walk along the river corridor.
•
How should the camping cabins be handled?—Pursuant to the discussion outlined in
Key Issue 1, the Commission discussed the camping cabins. The Planning Director
stated that the correct tool for making a determination about the camping cabins is
an Interpretation, and that their status is only a factor if the Commission wished to
recommend the maximum number of allowable RPT units. Regardless, the applicant
would like clarification on how the cabins may be regulated in the future with regard
to repair, relocation and replacement. Clarification on the size of the cabins,
NB 2-2
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
approximately 250-300 square feet, was provided. The applicant offered further
explanation as to how the cabin units are more consistent with traditional camping,
citing lack of linens and facilities as examples. The Planning Commission
concluded that the cabins are, in effect, a bonus on top of the existing campsites and
therefore should not be used to determine maximum allowable RPT units. The
question of how the cabins might be regulated in the future if they are not campsites
was not further discussed or addressed; the Planning Commission agreed with
Staff’s Recommended Condition #2 to address that issue, but proposed amending
the language to require an interpretation by the Planning Director rather than a
similar use determination.
•
Traditional vs Non-traditional Camping and Maximum Allowable RPT Units—
Commissioner Patricia Russell raised the question of how many “traditional” sites
(meaning RV and tent sites) would remain if the maximum number of RPT units
were approved. Commissioner Russell calculated that less than half of the campsites
would be traditional camping opportunities if the maximum number of RPTs were
approved. The Planning Director reminded the Commission that the intent behind
the 40% RPT ratio was to allow campground owners the opportunity to subsidize
less profitable forms of camping. The Planning Director also reminded the
Commission that they should recommend a maximum number of RPTs that is
between what is currently on the property and the allowed maximum of 39 RPT
units. The Commission discussed the campground compared with other local
campgrounds and how this application might affect what is approved for other
campgrounds. The use of campsites, including RPTs, as employee housing was also
discussed as non-traditional camping. Commissioner Hammer stated that permanent
employee housing is not inconsistent with the campground use and is part of most
campgrounds in the region. Staff clarified that housing employees at the
campground has been allowed previously and that Recommended Condition #3
limits the number of sites that can be dedicated to employees.
BACKGROUND
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Business Conservation (BC)
Zoning:
Natural Resources Overlay (NRO)
Overlay:
9.14 acres
Property Size:
9705 South Highway 89. Generally located 1 mile north of Hoback Junction on
Property Location:
the west side of Highway 89/189/191, across from Horse Creek.
VICINITY MAP:
NB 2-3
March 5, 2013
History:
February 25, 2013
According to the County’s archived aerial photography, the campground existed prior
to 1978. The date the operation was established could not be determined; the applicant
believes it started in 1968. When the first zoning regulations were adopted, the site
was zoned CV/CL (Visitor Commercial/Local Convenience Commercial), which was
for commercial establishments providing accommodations and services for visitors,
and retail business, office, and personal service establishments providing the day-today needs of local residents. Campgrounds were an allowed use in that zoning district.
At the time the campground was purchased by Stan Chatham in 1979, the site had
campsites (tent and RV) and was also used as a meeting and launch site for fishing and
rafting trips. Per the late 1970s aerial photo, the configuration of the site and roads
was very close to what exists today.
Under the former regulations, the following development permits were approved:
• DEV 83-0305 (development permit for shower and restroom facility)
• VAR 86-0153 (variance to sign size)
• BP 91-0079 (building permit for 3 guest cabins)
• BP 92-0016 (building permit for 3 guest cabins)
In 1994, the current Land Development Regulations were adopted, changing the
zoning district from CV/CL to Business Conservation (BC). The purpose of the BC
zoning district is to provide for the continuation of existing commercial development
where expansion of the nonresidential use into a commercial node is considered
inappropriate. The BC district recognizes existing businesses as conforming but
requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for any change of use. There have not been
any changes of use on this property since the adoption of zoning regulations in the late
1970s.
Under the current regulations, the following development permits were approved:
• BP 98-0099 and 0100 (building permits for 2 pre-built overnight camping
cabins)
• BP 01-0102 through 0107 (building permits for 6 camping cabins)
• SWF 08-0003 (septic permit for repair)
• DEV2010-0006/CUP2010-0002 (permitted 27 RPTs – prior to the adoption of
new campground/ RPT regulations)
• GEC2010-0058/FPR2010-0009 (grading & floodplain review for reclamation
of Snake River access roadway)
• SGN2011-0004 (replacement of 2-sided billboard)
• DEV2012-0001 (new bathhouse and laundry facility)
• BDC2012-0007 (building permit for laundry facility)
• New temporary bathroom facility. No building permit for a bathroom – a
temporary structure placed on the property last summer – has been submitted
or approved. The Building Division performed inspections, at which time it
was determined a building permit was not required if the trailer was only used
for the 2012 season. If used next season, a building permit will be required
prior to occupancy.
In 2010 the campground was approved for 27 RPTs to replace the same number of
existing RV sites. To date, 20 of the 27 approved RPTs have been placed on the site.
Existing
Conditions:
Uses on the property consist of:
• 34 tent sites
• 41 RV sites (7 of which have been approved as RPT sites)
• 20 RPT sites (27 sites approved, 20 installed)
• 17 camping cabins
• Lodge: deli/coffee shop for campers; store selling convenience items and
souvenirs for campers; rental shop for rafting related gear; business offices
• Living quarters for employees and manager
• Laundry and restroom facilities
Proposal:
An additional 18 RPTs to be placed on the site, bringing the total number of RPTs to
45. A site plan illustrating the proposal is included for reference. Phasing would be as
follows:
•
Phase 1: Install new leachfield/septic system (to be permitted by DEQ) in the
center of the property. Prior to the design and approval of a new system, a
determination regarding the total number of RPTs permitted by Teton County
NB 2-4
March 5, 2013
•
•
•
February 25, 2013
is necessary in order to design a proper system.
Phase 2: Relocate 15-17 camping cabins located on the western side of the
property adjacent to the Snake River and replace 15-17 new RPTs in the
former cabin area (7 of these RPTs were permitted in 2010). 6 of the cabins
will be relocated to 6 southernmost camping cabins to northwest portion of
property near existing restrooms, and install the remainder will be relocated to
the center of the property behind the lodge.
Phase 3: Install 6-8 RPTs in the existing RV sites in the center of the property,
reducing the number of RV sites in that area to a total of 8-10 RV sites.
Phase 4: Add 0-2 new RPTs to RV sites 78 & 79 along north boundary.
The applicant has proposed ranges of RPTs and RV sites in the various phases in order
to allow for flexibility for minor changes and adjustments in the placement of the types
of sites to be made from phase to phase.
NB 2-5
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
NB 2-6
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
KEY ISSUES
ISSUE 1
How are the camping cabins defined and regulated by the LDRs?
Camping Cabins
There are 17 camping cabins located on the Snake River KOA campground. As
described in the History section of this staff report, six of the cabins were approved
under the former zoning regulations with the issuance of building permits in 1991
and 1992. Eight additional camping cabins were issued building permits in 1998
and 2001, approved under the current LDRs which were adopted in 1994. There is
no record of permits having been issued for the remaining three camping cabins.
Records submitted by the applicant and KOA at past application reviews indicate
the remaining three cabins were brought on site in 1985.
The first six camping cabins were approved under the former zoning regulations,
which defined a campground as follows:
An outdoor recreation facility providing overnight visitor
accommodations in the form of tent sites and trailer sites, having no
permanent structures other than a management office, storage facilities
and sanitary facilities.
The eight cabins that received permits in 1998 and 2001 were reviewed and
approved under the 1994 LDRs, which defined a campground as follows:
Campgrounds use means establishments providing overnight or shortterm sites for recreational vehicles, trailers, campers, or tents, that have
no permanent structures other than a management office, laundry, small
grocery, storage facilities, and sanitary facilities that shall be solely for
the occupants of the campground.
Neither the 1978 nor the 1994 LDRs provided a definition of a campground that
accounted for or regulated semi-permanent structures such as the camping cabins.
There was no development permit reviewed approving their use; their installation
on site was authorized solely by building permit review.
In 2011, the LDRs were amended to allow and regulate the use of RPTs in
campgrounds. This amendment constitutes the lens through which all campground
applications shall be reviewed going forward. The amended definition of
campground reads as follows:
Campground means an establishment providing campsites for overnight
or short-term accommodations wherein customers camp in recreational
vehicles, trailers, campers, tents, or in Recreational Park Trailers
(RPTs). The campground shall have no permanent structures other than
a management office, which may contain a small grocery and sundries
store no larger than 4,000 square feet, laundry facilities, storage
facilities, sanitary facilities, or other existing amenities that shall be
solely for the occupants of the campground. Campgrounds are subject to
the standards set forth in Section 23400, Campgrounds.
The amended regulations do not define a cabin as a type of campsite, nor do they
provide standards for the regulation of cabins located in campgrounds. The existing
cabins on the site were approved by the Planning and Development Department
with the issuance of building permits and will be allowed to remain; however, the
cabins are not considered campsites under the current LDRs. Regardless of past
determinations, under the current LDRs the cabins are not counted as part of the
number of existing campsites, nor do they contribute toward the total number of
campsites for purposes of calculating the ratio of allowed RPT units to campsites.
The cabins may be relocated elsewhere on the site provided setbacks and other
applicable LDR standards are met. The cabins may be repaired as necessary. The
cabins may also be replaced, provided that it is determined through an
Interpretation by the Planning Director that the proposed replacement unit is
similar to the existing cabins. Replacement of a cabin with a tent or RV site, RPT
unit, or any camping unit determined by an Interpretation by the Planning Director
to be more like a campsite than a cabin, will constitute conversion of the cabin into
a campsite, and it will then be counted as a campsite for purposes of calculating
total sites and ratio of RPT units to campsites. A total of 98 campsites are
permitted. Conversion of cabins into campsites shall not result in the campground
exceeding this number.
NB 2-7
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
ISSUE 2
What is the maximum number of RPTs allowed by the LDRs for this
campground? Is the maximum number appropriate in this setting?
Ratio of RPTs to
Campsites
In 2010, the Snake River KOA applied for Development and Conditional Use
Permits to replace twenty-four campsites with RPTs. The applicant received
approval for 27 RPTs, 20 of which have been installed on the site. At the time of
the 2010 permit review and during the 2011 amendment process, it was determined
that a total of 112 campsites were in place on the property. No distinction was
made between tent, trailer, RV and RPT sites and cabin sites.
Prior to the 2011 amendment, the LDRs did not regulate total number of campsites.
Staff reports prepared for prior permit approvals provided a breakdown of the
different types of sites and units, but because the total number of campsites was not
regulated, a total number of campsites was not referenced. The 2011 LDR
amendment limits the number of sites per acre of base site area to 15, but also
permits an existing campground to retain the number of sites existing at the time
the new standards were adopted should that number exceed the number of sites
permitted under the new standard. Although discussions during the 2011
amendment process reference 112 campsites on the property, that number includes
the 17 camping cabins. As discussed in Key Issue 1, the camping cabins are not
defined as a form of campsite in the LDRs and thus cannot be counted toward the
total number of existing sites for purposes of determining the maximum allowable
number of RPTs, which reduces the number of existing campsites to 95. Using the
new standard of 15 campsites per acre of base site area, the campground would be
permitted 98 campsites.
Section 23400.C.8.b. of the LDRs states that of the total number of campsites
allowed in the BC zoning district, no more than 40% shall be used for RPTs. In the
case of the Snake River KOA, which is permitted 98 sites, a maximum of 39 RPTs
would be allowed. The campground has been previously approved for 27 RPTs, 20
of which have been installed on the site. The applicant is requesting an additional
18 RPT units through this application, which would bring the total number of RPTs
on the site to 45, in excess of the maximum allowed. The applicant based his
request on the assumption that the cabins contributed to the total number of
existing campsites. Since the cabins cannot be counted as campsites, the maximum
number of additional RPT units allowed under the LDRs is 39 units. Twenty-seven
RPT units have been previously approved, leaving 12 additional units that may be
approved through this application.
During the 2011 amendment process to allow and regulate the use of RPTs in
campgrounds, the Board of County Commissioners emphasized the importance of
preserving community character and traditional forms of camping such as tent or
RV camping. The 40% standard is intended to serve as a maximum limit on the
number of RPTs, not a by-right allowance. The specific number of RPTs allowed
is to be determined pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit and at the discretion of
the Board following a careful analysis of the unique nature of each campground,
the recommendations made by Staff and the Planning Commission, and the
potential impacts of RPTs on community character, site design and traditional
camping. During the 2011 amendment process, the Board expressed general
comfort with allowing an initial number of RPTs in the mid-20s, rather than the
maximum allowance, to give the campground owner, the Board and the community
an opportunity to assess the operation and impacts of RPTs. This application
represents the first request for RPT units under the new regulations.
In this report, Staff provides a technical analysis of the applicant’s proposal,
without public input as no comments were received in response to the neighbor
notice sent to surrounding property owners. On a technical level, the exchange of
existing RV and cabin sites for RPTs results in limited quantifiable impact to
performance measures such as setbacks, landscaping, parking, and utilities. A
wildlife habitat assessment prepared by Biota has also indicated that the RPTs do
not result in any additional negative impact to protected species or habitats than has
already resulted from the exiting campground. A purely technical analysis would
perhaps conclude that the maximum number of RPTs allowed should be permitted;
however, the technical information presented in this staff report is intended to
inform and provide a baseline for discussion of less quantifiable measures, such as
the impact of the proposal on community character.
NB 2-8
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
The applicant’s proposal involves a tradeoff between traditional camping
opportunities for tents and RVs and nontraditional opportunities such as cabins and
RPTs. Existing RV sites will be replaced with cabins or RPTs, resulting in an
approximately 50-50 ratio of traditional campsites to nontraditional RPTs and
cabins, which exceeds the 60-40 ratio called for in the LDRs. Additionally, the
proposal may result in a more congested site design as the applicant has not yet
demonstrated the precise configuration of the allowed units on the campground,
but rather general areas in which differing types of sites will be located.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission consider this application in light
of the Board’s direction to evaluate the unique nature of each campground site and
potential impacts to community character in determining an appropriate number of
RPTs, rather than focusing on technical considerations alone. Staff provided the
following questions to frame the Planning Commission discussion:
• What is the appropriate balance between respecting existing property rights
and protecting neighborhood character?
• What are the potential impacts of this proposal on site design and visual
resources?
• Is the proposed tradeoff between cabins/RPTs and traditional campsites
consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the
LDRs?
As outlined above, the Planning Commission discussion touched briefly on the
issue of traditional versus nontraditional camping, but Staff recommends that the
Board also consider these questions and the Planning Commission discussion in
arriving at a decision regarding this application.
ISSUE 3
Is the current septic system adequate for the existing uses and the proposed RPT
units?
Adequate Septic
During the review of the 2010 CUP/DEV applications, upgrades to the existing
septic system were proposed to ensure adequate capacity for the new RPTs.
Approval was conditioned as follows:
4. Prior to the use of Recreational Park Trailers, DEQ Underground
Injection Control Permit (UIC) approval is required.
5. Any upgrades or new septic system components shall be located outside of
Snake River setback. Once approved by DEQ, a site plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Office for compliance.
The UIC permit (10-111) was approved by DEQ prior to permit issuance; however,
the work was not completed. Although the UIC permit anticipated RPTs being
placed on un-sewered and inadequate sites, the RPTs installed thus far have not
necessitated upgrades as the units have been placed on existing sites with full
utility hook-ups, so improvements to the septic system have not yet been required.
The UIC permit application included two phases of upgrades. The first, Phase A,
proposed septic changes necessary to accommodate the twenty-seven (27) RPTs
approved by the County in 2010. As discussed above, those improvements have
not been needed. The second phase, Phase B, proposed upgrades necessary to
support replacement of cabin and RV sites with additional RPTs that have not yet
been approved by the County but are the subject of this application. The applicant
requested a minor modification to the DEQ UIC permit as a part of the 2012
review process for the new bathroom and laundry facilities. The request located
the bathroom facility on a previously sewered RV site and the laundry facility on a
previously un-sewered RV site. In addition, the dump station was abandoned, two
fewer washing machines were installed, and seven teepee/tent sites were
temporarily taken out of service until upgrades to the septic system were completed
as part of Phase B. The requested minor modification decreased the overall
capacity numbers and associated load on the wastewater treatment system.
Per DEQ a new septic system is required prior to the addition of any RPTs. This
would include installation of the 7 RPT units approved in 2010 but not yet
installed, unless DEQ specifics otherwise. The current systems are old, some
existing prior to the DEQ permitting process. Inspection and monitoring shows no
violations, but they are close to exceeding the 10 mg/L nitrate limit. Approval of
NB 2-9
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
the DEV and CUP applications by the County is necessary before the DEQ permit
application can be submitted to ensure the size of the new system is adequate.
Comments from Adrienne Nunn, DEQ Water Quality Division, indicate that the
proposed system would treat all wastewater from the site.
RELATIONSHIP TO CHARACTER DISTRICT
CHARACTER DISTRICT:
SUBAREA:
Classification:
Neighborhood Form(s):
Character District #8: River Bottom
Subarea #8.3: Canyon Corridor
Complete
Preservation Form, Clustering Form, Habitat/Scenic Form, and
Conservation Form
Campgrounds constitute an anomaly in terms of defined community character and vision. As areas of
intense development, they are incompatible with rural character. But while a campground is inconsistent
with Rural district goals such as open space and habitat preservation, a campground is also ill-suited for a
Complete Neighborhood district intended to provide residential development, community services and
quality of life. A campground is not rural, but it demands a rural setting to be appealing to visitors.
Despite these inconsistencies, camping has been identified as part of Teton County’s unique community
character, and preservation of a variety of camping experiences is an identified part of the community
vision. The evaluation of a campground application involves finding a balance between existing property
rights, overall community vision, and compatibility of a specific campground operation with surrounding
land uses in terms of design, construction and operations.
EXISTING AND FUTURE DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
Complies as conditioned. The Snake River corridor is identified as one of the most important wildlife
habitat and movement corridors in the community. Future development and redevelopment in this area
should focus on improving the functionality of wildlife habitat and connections and on shifting
development potential to Complete Neighborhood areas. The subject property is currently used as a
campground and is in the BC zoning district. Uses in the BC zoning district are, by nature, incompatible
with the surrounding land uses as the BC district was applied to existing commercial uses in otherwise
residential areas. In this instance, the surrounding development is primarily rural in character.
The proposal constitutes a change in the operational characteristics of an existing use allowed by the
LDRs and maintenance of this use is consistent with the community’s goal of providing a variety of
camping experiences. The replacement of existing RV campsites with RPTs, also defined as a type of
campsite, and cabins, which are not campsites but are already present on the property, does not constitute
a change in use. The overall number of camping opportunities on the property will not increase as a result
of this application. Per a wildlife habitat assessment submitted by Biota with these applications, the
exchange of cabins or RV campsites for RPT campsites will not result in any additional negative impacts
to species of concern or crucial habitat.
Conditions related to seasonality, separation distances and RPT design have been recommended to
minimize adverse impacts to site-specific community values such as the river corridor and to surrounding
land uses. As discussed in the Key Issues section, additional evaluation by the Planning Commission of
the tradeoff between traditional and nontraditional camping opportunities, site design, and respect for
existing property rights versus neighborhood character is recommended.
POLICY OBJECTIVES
• Policy 1.1.b: Protect wildlife from the impacts of development
Complies. Per a wildlife habitat assessment, replacing cabins or RV sites with RPTs would not
negatively impact any species of concern. The RPTs, cabins and RV sites are on already
disturbed areas as 90% of the property is used for campground. The remaining 10% of the site
offers little winter habitat to mule deer, and the trees along the river used by roosting bald
eagles would not be disturbed or impacted. No impacts to wildlife are anticipated with
additional RPT use.
• Policy 1.1.c: Design for wildlife Permeability
Complies. As stated above, the majority of the property is disturbed due to the existing
campground use. The property is considered transitional range for mule deer and the proposal
would not alter that range.
• Policy 1.1.h: Promote responsible use of public lands
Not applicable. This is a private property.
• Policy 1.2.a: Buffer water bodies, wetlands, and riparian areas from development
NB 2-10
March 5, 2013
•
•
•
•
•
February 25, 2013
Complies. Wetlands and riparian lands are more important to wildlife and ecological health
than any other habitat type. No wetlands exist on the property and the riparian area along the
Snake River is narrow. The majority of the site is 60 feet above the river and consists of already
established campsites. Seventeen cabins are currently located within the 150-foot Snake River
setback, approximately 80 to 125 feet from the river’s edge and approximately 60 feet above the
water. The cabins are located on former RV sites that predate the adoption of setback regulations
and are considered nonconforming. Although the cabin structures were added, the underlying
nonconforming sites have not changed, and the installation of RPT units on these sites does not
result in any additional impacts to the setback.
Policy 1.3.b: Maintain expansive hillside and foreground vistas
Complies. The additional RPTs will be located off the highway behind existing development
and will not be located on slopes.
Policy 1.4.a: Encourage non-development conservation of wildlife habitat
Complies. The subject property is already developed as a campground, with minimal wildlife
habitat present. The applicant is proposing to replace existing RV and cabin sites with RPTs,
which are defined as alternative forms of campsites in the LDRs. The proposal does not result in
changes to the existing, allowed use, nor does it present any opportunities for conservation of
additional wildlife habitat areas as the property constitutes an already disturbed area.
Policy 1.4.c: Encourage rural development to include quality open space
Not applicable. The subject property contains an existing campground development that is not
rural in character, although the character of surrounding uses is rural. The proposal to replace
existing RV campsites and cabins with RPT campsites does not result in a change to the use or
intensity of use on the property.
Policy 3.1.b: Direct development toward suitable Complete Neighborhood subareas
Complies as conditioned. The subject property is not part of a Complete Neighborhood subarea,
but is already developed as a campground. As discussed above, campgrounds, by their nature, are
incongruous with both Rural and Complete Neighborhood character. Relocation to a Complete
Neighborhood subarea is not appropriate, but conditions related to seasonality, site design and
separation distances, and RPT design have been recommended to minimize adverse impacts to
surrounding uses that are more rural in character.
Policy 3.1.c: Maintain rural character outside of Complete Neighborhoods
Complies as conditioned. Although the subject property is located outside of Complete
Neighborhoods, the site is already a developed campground that is not rural in character. This
application proposes the continuation of an existing use. As discussed above, campgrounds, by
their nature, are incongruous with both Rural and Complete Neighborhood character. Conditions
related to seasonality, site design and separation distances, and RPT design have been
recommended to minimize adverse impacts to surrounding uses that are more rural in character.
Policy 6.1.b: Promote eco-tourism
Complies. The campground use on the property is a tourism-based use. The addition of RPTs
will shift the type of traffic on the roadways from RVs, travel trailers, motorcoaches, etc. to
passenger cars coming to the site.
8.3: Canyon Corridor
Complies. The Conservation subarea is characterized by river canyon, with highway development parallel
to the river that is more intense than the development elsewhere in the district. The goal for the future is to
reduce impacts on wildlife and scenic resources while respecting existing property rights. The
campground on this property is an existing allowed use. The conversion of RV and cabin sites to RPT
campsites does not constitute a change in the existing use or an increase in the intensity of use on the
property, but depending on the number of RPTs approved, the RPT units could result in a more congested
site design, the loss of traditional camping sites for tents and RVs, and a change in community character.
Maintaining an existing use is permitted by the LDRs and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal
to respect existing property rights. Maintenance of a variety of camping opportunities is also listed as a
purpose of the campground regulations in the LDRs. The applicant has proposed to screen the RPTs from
the highway corridor to protect scenic resources, and has submitted an evaluation from Biota indicating
that the existing impacts to wildlife habitat that result from the development on this property will not be
increased by this proposal. While the proposal can be found to comply with the existing and desired future
character of this subarea on a technical level, whether community character goals can be achieved by
permitting the maximum number of RPTs allowed by the LDRs should be discussed by the Planning
Commission, as outlined in Key Issue 2.
NB 2-11
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
•
•
•
•
Policy 3.1.d: Cluster nonresidential development in existing locations
Complies as conditioned. The subject property is located within the BC zoning district. The
purpose of the BC zoning district is to provide for continuation of existing commercial
development where the expansion of nonresidential use into a commercial node is considered
inappropriate. The applicant’s proposal does not expand the campground, nor does it increase the
intensity of use, but rather it proposes the continuation of an existing allowed use. As
conditioned, impacts on surrounding rural character have been mitigated.
Policy 6.2.a: Enhance tourism as the basis of the economy
Complies as conditioned. Outdoor recreation tourism will continue to be this community’s
primary focus. The proposal continues a campground use by allowing the campground to update
the facility to meet the current needs of tourists who are now frequently traveling without RVs.
The proposal also requests year-round use of the RPTs. Previously, the use was restricted to
spring, summer and fall use because of the seasonal nature of RV and tent camping.
Policy 6.3.a: Ensure year-round economic viability
Complies as conditioned. The proposal is for RPT use year-round. Previously, the use was
restricted to spring, summer and fall use because of the seasonal nature of RV and tent camping.
Policy 6.3.b: Pursue many small efforts
Complies. This approach ensures the local economy is more adaptable and resilient in a
constantly changing global marketplace. The proposal’s purpose is to adapt with the changing
times and reflects how an increasing share of campground guests are now traveling – without RV
and campers.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICABLE LDRs
Section 2220, Definitions for Use Schedule/Table 2200, Use Schedule
Section 2220.B.5.b, Campgrounds, means an establishment providing campsites for overnight or shortterm accommodations wherein customers camp in recreational vehicles, trailers, campers, tents, or in
Recreational Park Trailers (RPTs). The campground shall have no permanent structures other than a
management office, which may contain a small grocery and sundries store no larger than 4,000 square
feet, laundry facilities, storage facilities, sanitary facilities, or other existing amenities that shall be solely
for the occupants of the campground.
Complies. The proposal maintains the use of the property as a campground. The facilities are in
compliance with this definition.
Section 23400 Campgrounds
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is: (1) to preserve Teton County’s unique community character
and site-specific community values by ensuring that campgrounds are compatible with surrounding
land uses in terms of design, construction and operations; and (2) to ensure that a variety of camping
experiences are available in Teton County for visitors so that visitor services are enhanced in a
manner that emphasizes the area’s unique outdoor attributes.
Complies. The proposal is consistent with preserving the campground tradition of providing a
variety of different camping styles. The proposal is also compatible with surrounding land uses in
terms of design, wherein the majority of campsites and cabins are screened from the highway and the
river and the structures are small and low-profile.
B. Applicability.
1. All new campgrounds shall comply with Section 51200.D. Thresholds for Development Plans and
Section 5140, Conditional and Special Uses.
2. Any existing campground that changes use or develops in any manner requiring a Development
Permit per Section 51200.D. Thresholds for Development Plans, or a Conditional Use Permit per
Section 5140, Conditional and Special Uses, shall come into compliance with all standards of
these Land Development Regulations, except as provided in Section 23400.B.3, 4 and 5 below.
3. The addition of any RPT unit beyond that which was approved prior to the enactment of this
regulation is considered expansion and requires a Conditional Use and Development Permit or
an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit. However, previously approved RPT units
shall not be required to be upgraded, retrofitted, or replaced to meet the standards of this section.
No changes can be made to existing RPT units that increase any violation of these standards.
4. Those campgrounds approved for RPT units prior to the adoption of this standard are permitted
to retain the existing LSR in place in 1994 or the LSR permitted at the time of the Conditional
Use and/or Development Permit applications, whichever is less.
5. A campground in existence prior to the adoption of this standard is allowed to retain the number
of campsites permitted by any Conditional Use or Development Permit for the campground. In
NB 2-12
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
the event a campground in existence at the time of the adoption of this standard does not have a
Conditional Use or Development Permit, the campground is allowed to retain the number of
campsites existing on-site at the time of the adoption of this standard.
Complies. This is an existing campground applying for additional RPT units; therefore, a
Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan are required. The previously approved 27 RPTs
(7 of which have not been installed on the site as of this date) are not required to be reviewed in terms
of upgrades, retrofittings, or replacement. Lastly, pursuant to the discussion presented in Key Issues
1 and 2, although previous reviews and the 2011 amendment process referenced 112 campsites, that
number included the 17 cabins which are not defined as campsites per the LDRs. Per LDR definition,
there are 95 campsites and 17 cabins on the property; subparagraph 5 permits the existing campsites
and cabins to remain. The property is actually permitted 98 total campsites, pursuant to Section
23400.C.3, discussed below.
C. Standards. The following standards apply to campgrounds:
1. Site requirements.
a. Amenities. Each campsite in the campground shall consist of a camp pad, a fire ring or
barbecue, a table, a pole for hanging food stores or bear proof boxes where appropriate, and
a surrounding active recreational area.
Complies. Each campsite contains the amenities described above.
b. Parking. One parking space is required for each campsite, which may be located either on
the campsite or within walking distance in an on-site parking lot. One additional parking
space per seven and one-half (7.5) campsites shall be provided for guests and employees.
Notwithstanding, the requirements set forth in Section 4260.L Disability Parking shall be
satisfied.
Complies. Parking was last reviewed on the site at the time of the 2010 Development Permit
and Conditional Use Permit approvals. At that time, the campground was approved for a total
of 112 campsites, assumed to include 17 cabins, wherein one parking space was required for
each site in addition to extra parking for the rafting and fishing trip use, which are
nonconforming uses. While Table 4240, Parking Standards by Use, does not specify fishing
or rafting operations, Staff determined previously that 1 per 4 rafting customers, 1 per 1
fishing customers and 2 spaces for employee parking would be required. It was determined
that 9 additional spaces were needed.
Since the 2010 review, parking standards were updated during the campground/RPT
amendment process. Under current standards, one parking space is required per campsite,
plus an additional space for every 7.5 sites to accommodate guests and employees. Nine
parking spaces are required for the nonconforming rafting and fishing trip uses. Because
cabins are not defined as campsites, nor is their use in a campground considered by the
LDRs, there are no specific parking standards in place for them. Pursuant to Section
4240.A.2, the Planning Director has determined that the cabins are similar to campsites
regarding parking demand and thus should meet the parking standards for campsites.
With the cabins included, 127 spaces are required for the campground use. When combined
with the 9 spaces required for the nonconforming fishing and rafting uses, the total required
parking for this property is 136 spaces. According to the scaled site plan submitted with this
application, 154 parking spaces are provided, including 21 spaces throughout the wooded tent
camping area. Although parking has historically occurred within the highway right-of-way,
such parking creates a safety hazard and is in violation of the LDRs. Any such parking shall
be discontinued immediately, and no spaces within the right-of-way have been counted
toward the minimum requirement.
c. Landscape Surface Area. Landscape Surface Area in a campground includes all
undisturbed areas, but does not include gravel or paved camp pads; roads; drives; buildings,
structures or RPTs, including porches, decks, terraces or patios; or gravel, paved or grass
parking spaces. Grass campsites for tent camping shall be counted towards the required
LSR.
Complies. Landscaped Surface Ratio required is 30% or 85,608 square feet of landscaped
area. Per the 2011 aerial, well over 123,000 square feet is undisturbed and supports
vegetation; therefore, meeting this standard.
d. Design. No external additions such as rooms, carports, decks or porches, may be placed on
a campsite unless specified in Section 23400.C.7.c. Design Standards for Recreational Park
Trailers. Non-combustible, at-grade improvements such as stone or sand-set terraces are
permitted on campsites, but shall not be counted as part of the required LSR.
Complies. The previously approved DEV and CUP did not contain any requirements or
conditions regarding external additions. The currently placed RPTs do have porches
NB 2-13
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
attached. No changes are required to be made to these existing units per the Applicability
section above. Additionally, the seven approved but not installed RPTs would not be
required to comply with this section. All new RPTs shall comply. The application stated that
the campsites will meet these standards.
2. Facilities. Restroom and shower facilities shall be required for all campgrounds based on the
number of campsites and utility hook-ups at the campground. Campsites containing RPTs as
described in Section 23400.B.7. Recreational Park Trailers shall not be included in the total
number of campsites for the purpose of calculating the number of required restroom and shower
facilities. When the determination of the number of required restroom and shower facilities
results in a fractional number, the requirement shall be rounded up to the next whole number. In
no case shall less than one facility be provided.
Requirement Per 30 Full Hook-up Sites
Requirement Per 15 Partial Hook-up Sites
or Tent Sites
Toilets
Men Women
1
1
1
1
Lavatories
Men
Women
1
1
1
1
Showers
Men
Women
1
1
1
1
Complies. If approved, the campground will have 18 full hook-up sites for RV sites and 57
tent/cabin sites with no sewer/water hook-ups. A total of five restroom facilities for each sex are
required. The lower restroom contains a total of six individual facilities. The recently installed
restroom contains four full individual facilities and three individual facilities with toilets and
sinks. The property will have 10 total facilities thus complying with the regulation.
3. Number of campsites. The total number of campsites, which includes sites for Conventional
Camping Units, RPTs, and tent sites, shall not exceed fifteen (15) sites per acre of base site area.
Complies as conditioned. The property is permitted a total of 98 campsites under this standard,
excluding 17 cabins, which are not defined as campsites. The application assumes the cabins are
campsites and states that 112 sites—17 cabins and 40 tent, 27 RPT and 16 RV sites—will be
retained.
The remainder of the existing RV sites will be converted to RPTs should this
application be approved. Staff’s review is summarized as follows:
Campsite
Type
Tent
RV
Cabin
RPT
TOTALS
2010 Approval*
40
28
17
27
112
Existing
Conditions**
34
41
17
20
112
Current Proposal
34
16
17
45
112
*Per the staff report and development permit issued for DEV2010-0006/CUP2012-0002
** Existing number of tent sites based on numbers listed in current application submittal. Seven of the approved RPT units have
not yet been installed.
To ensure compliance with Section 23400.B. and 23400.C, 98 campsites, defined by the LDRs to include
tent, RV and RPT sites, are permitted. Additionally, 17 cabins are also permitted.
4. Occupancy. Campsite occupancy, including RPT occupancy, is limited to short-term use of less
than 30 days in any 90-day period. While RPTs may be on the property for longer than 30 days,
the occupancy of any campsite or RPT shall be limited to less than 30 days in any 90-day period
by any individual or group of individuals. Campground employees may be permitted to occupy a
Conventional Camping Unit or tent campsite for longer than 30 days. The maximum number of
campsites that may be used by employees shall be determined through the Conditional Use
Permit process per Section 5140, Conditional and Special Uses.
Complies as conditioned. The previously approved DEV and CUP restricted RPT occupancy to
15 days or less due to KOA internal standards. Staff recommends that all campsites, including
cabins, be occupied for 30 days or less except those used by employees. The applicant estimates
that the maximum number of campsites used by employees is 7; therefore, Staff recommends that
7 sites or cabins be permitted for employee use longer than 30 days.
5. Seasonal Closure. Campgrounds shall be closed between November 30 and April 1 if winter use
at the campground would have negative impacts on animal species protected by Section 3270, as
determined by the Board of Commissioners upon consideration of a habitat/wildlife report
submitted by a certified biologist. A lesser timeframe for seasonal closure may be approved by
the Board through the Conditional Use Permit review where it is demonstrated that winter use of
the site would have minimal negative impacts to animal species protected by Article III.
NB 2-14
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
Complies as conditioned. The DEV and CUP approved in 2010 restricted RPT occupancy from
April 1 to November 30. There was not a seasonal closure placed on the remaining campsites.
While historically the campground has not been open to the public during the winter months, the
applicant is requesting year-round use of the RPT units. A Wildlife Habitat Assessment has been
submitted by Biota for the project and reviews the winter use impacts. The property is located
within the NRO mainly because Wyoming Game & Fish in 1994 mapped the vicinity as crucial
mule deer winter range as well as an area with bald eagle roosting trees. As stated in the
assessment, 90% of the property is disturbed as the primary campground area. The remaining
10% is located on steep, shaded slopes adjacent to the river. In short, the assessment stated that
there is little habitat for mule deer in the winter and that at best, the property is transitional range.
Eagle nests and roosting trees were also examined. The project area is located within 2 active
nest territories (Ross Plateau 1 mile north and Hoback Junction 0.4 miles south). The more
important feature is roosting trees along the river. Because of the elevation difference and mature
spruce trees, permanent cabins or RPTs along the western perimeter are not expected to influence
eagle use.
Based on these findings, Staff recommends that winter use be permitted for the campground east
of the row of existing cabins, including the cabins or RPTs to be located in that area. The tent
sites area and river access west of the existing cabin row shall not be used between November 30
and April 1. As outlined in the Planning Commission discussion section, this recommended
condition is intended to restrict camping use and vehicle access to these areas during the winter.
The condition is not intended to limit the campground owner or guest’s use of the river corridor
for human-powered activity such as walking.
6. Ownership. Each of the campsites and RPT units located at a campground shall be owned by
the same entity that owns the campground. No fractional ownership, timeshares or memberships
of campsites or RPT units is permitted.
Complies. All campsites, cabins, and RPTs are owned by the same entity owning the
campground.
7. Monitoring Program. An annual monitoring report, capable of audit, shall be prepared by the
operator of the campground and submitted to the Teton County Planning Department, by
January 31st of each year. The report shall summarize the operations of the previous year, and
shall include, at a minimum, each campsite’s rental history for the previous year with arrival and
departure dates. Additional records shall be provided by the owner of the campground if
necessary to determine whether campsite occupancy was in compliance with the short-term use
requirement of this section. Records shall be made available during normal business hours for
review by the Planning Department. Any noncompliance with the Land Development Regulations
or the conditions of a Conditional Use or Development Permit may result in the suspension or
revocation of such permit. Other appropriate remedies may be pursued by the County as set
forth in LDR Article IX and/or as permitted by statute.
Complies. The previously approved DEV and CUP required a monitoring program. As of this
date, the applicant has reported to the Planning Department every January. Since approval of the
2011 amendment to the LDRs addressing campgrounds and RPTs, the monitoring requirement,
which was previously a condition of approval, is now a requirement. Although no longer listed as
a condition, the applicant shall be required to provide an annual monitoring report pursuant to the
standards outlined in this section to maintain compliance with the LDRs.
8. Recreational Park Trailers. RPTs as defined in Division 8300, Definitions, shall be allowed at
campgrounds located within the Business Conservation (BC) zoning district provided a
Conditional Use Permit is issued pursuant to Section 5140, Conditional and Special Use for such
use. In addition to the requirements listed in Section 23400.B, the following standards are
applicable to RPT units:
a. Location.
RPTs are only permitted at campgrounds located within the Business
Conservation (BC) zoning district. Where a campground is in more than one (1) zoning
district, the campground may be designed and developed as a single development with RPT
placement in either zoning district if it can be demonstrated that the location proposed will
improve scenic views and lessen adverse environmental impacts as stated in Section 2460.B.
Developments in More than One Zoning District.
Complies. The property is zoned Business Conservation.
b. Ratio. Of the total number of campsites allowed in the BC zoning district, no more than 40%
shall be used for RPTs. A final number of campsites that are eligible for RPT sites shall be
determined through the Conditional Use Permit process per Section 5140, Conditional and
Special Uses.
NB 2-15
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
Complies as conditioned. As previously discussed, the current regulations allow 98
campsites (15 campsites per base site acre), yielding a maximum of 39 RPTs, an increase of
12 units from the number approved in 2010. Although 39 campsites are eligible to be used
for RPT sites, the maximum number shall be determined through the Conditional Use Permit
process at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. As recommended in the
discussion under Key Issue 2, existing property rights versus community character, site
design, visual impacts, and traditional versus nontraditional camping opportunities should all
be further evaluated by the Planning Commission and Board prior to determining the
maximum number of RPT units allowed on this property.
c. Set-up mode. RPTs are to be located on the site in such a way that the units can be removed
if deemed necessary. Permanent foundations shall not be used. Tongues may be removed if
not located within a special flood hazard area and removal is approved by the Building
Official. All RPTs are to be skirted. RPTs shall comply with any additional requirements,
including anchoring systems, deemed necessary by the Building Official.
Complies as conditioned. Permanent foundations are not proposed nor were the existing
RPTs placed on permanent foundations. Tongues were removed and the units are not located
within a flood hazard area. All RPTs are skirted. Anchoring systems shall be required as
specified in the ANCI standards section 5-8 Anchoring Systems.
d. Design standards.
(1) RPT units shall be covered with nonreflective materials.
(2) Earth-tone colors that blend the units into the terrain shall be used.
(3) Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 49370, Exterior Lighting and Glare.
(4) Covered or uncovered porches built as part of the trailer on the chassis are permitted
and are limited to 100-square feet per trailer. No after-market external additions such
as expandable rooms, carports, decks or porches, other than external stairs with a
landing essential for safe ingress and egress as determined by the Building Official, may
be attached or placed on a campsite. Non-combustible, at-grade improvements such as
stone or sand-set terraces are permitted at campsites, but shall not be counted as part of
the required LSR.
(5) All RPTs shall have a minimum insulation of R-19 walls, R-38 roofs, and R-19 floors.
Doors and windows shall meet a minimum U-factor of .35 or better. Documentation
confirming compliance with insulation requirements shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval prior to the placement of such units.
(6) All RPTs shall meet the minimum snow load requirements for structures as defined in
the current Teton County Building Codes Resolution. Documentation confirming
compliance with snow load requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval prior to the placement of such units.
(7) RPTs may be no higher than sixteen (16) feet in height as measured from any point on
the exterior of the RPT to the nearest point of finished grade.
Complies as conditioned. It is unknown if the previously approved RPTs meet the
insulation, snowload or height requirements as the County did not require minimum standards
prior to the campground amendment. Per the Applicability section above, the applicant is not
required to retrofit or upgrade the approved RPTs to meet these requirements.
The application states that no permanent foundation will be used; all units will be skirted; and
will follow the required design standards.
The previous RPT approval did not address porches or external additions nor did the County
have the current RPT regulations in place. Previously placed RPTs at this location do have
porches that were added. Please note that for any additional RPTs, these porches are not
permitted – only external stairs and landings for the purpose of ingress and egress. Building
Permits may be required depending upon the design.
As no specific RPT designs or documentation of the units meeting these standards has been
submitted with this application, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance
with these standards prior to RPT installation.
e. Setbacks. Each RPT unit shall be setback a minimum of thirty (30) feet from the front, street
right-of-way, roadway, or vehicular access easement; thirty (30) feet from the rear lot lines;
and ten (10) feet from the side lot lines. A minimum separation distance of ten (10) feet
between RPTs shall be required.
Complies as conditioned. The previously approved RPTs meet the applicable setbacks.
They do not meet the separation distances; however, per the Applicability section above, the
applicant is not required to move the previously approved RPTs.
NB 2-16
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
Staff has confirmed that the proposed RPT units will meet all applicable setbacks from the
property lines. Because the application did not include a scaled, detailed site plan, it is
questionable if the proposed RPTs will meet the separation distance of 10 feet required both
between new RPT units and between new and old RPT units if new and old units are
adjacent. The applicant debated whether to apply for a variance to this standard, but decided
to await the decision regarding the total number of RPTs as that will determine if the 10-foot
separation distance can be met. Staff recommends Condition of Approval #14 to ensure the
required separation distance between all new and between all new and existing RPTs is met.
If the FDP and CUP applications are approved, a variance may be needed to the
separation standard prior to the installation of new RPTs.
f.
Utilities. RPT sites are required to be connected to adequate water, electrical, and septic or
sewer system in accordance with all applicable State and County codes and requirements.
RPTs may be connected to quick-disconnect hook-ups upon approval by the Building Official.
Complies as conditioned. The previously approved DEV/CUP required approval from DEQ
on upgrades to the septic system. The upgrades were approved but never completed since the
RPTs brought to the property thus far were placed on existing sewered sites. Minor
modifications have been approved by DEQ. Prior to issuance of this development permit, a
DEQ permit for the upgrades will be required as well as site plans submitted to the Planning
Department. The upgrades shall be located out of the 150-foot river setback and shall be
completed prior to the installation of RPTs.
Table 2400, Schedule of Dimensional Limitations
Complies. The applicant’s property is 9.14 acres and is located in the BC zoning district. The following
limitations apply:
Landscaped Surface Ratio required is 30% or 85,608 square feet of landscaped area. Per the 2011 aerial,
well over 123,000 square feet is undisturbed and supports vegetation; therefore meeting this standard.
Floor Area Ratio for a BC lot over 4 acres, is 0.05 of the base site area or 14,268 square feet, with a
minimum of 17,242 square feet permitted per Table 2400 footnote 4. The floor area complies:
Restroom
450 sf
Laundry
420 sf
Lodge
4,000 sf
Camping cabins
3,400 sf
Bath/shower
450 sf
TOTAL
8,720 sf
The following structure setbacks are required:
Minimum street yard – 20’
Minimum side yard – 10’
Minimum rear yard – 20’
The existing lodge or front office building does not comply with the required setbacks, but it was built
prior to the adoption of zoning regulations. No new structures are proposed with this application.
Division 3200, Natural Resources Protection and Natural Resources Overlay (NRO) District
Complies as conditioned. The proposed application does not impact any additional development beyond
what has existed prior to the adoption of the zoning regulations. An exemption to the EA requirement has
been granted pursuant to Section 3130.H.4, based upon the findings that the development will occur over
previously disturbed ground on a property that has had the same use for the past least thirty years.
However, because year-round use has been requested, Staff required additional habitat information. A
Wildlife Habitat Assessment was submitted by Biota for the project and reviews the winter characteristics
of the campground use. The property is located within the NRO mainly because Wyoming Game & Fish
in 1994 mapped the vicinity as crucial mule deer winter range as well as an area with bald eagle roosting
trees. As stated in the assessment, 90% of the property is disturbed as the primary campground area. The
remaining 10% is located on steep, shaded slopes adjacent to the river. In short, the assessment stated
that there is little habitat for mule deer in the winter and that at best, the property is transitional range.
Eagle nests and roosting trees were also examined. The project area is located within 2 active nest
territories (Ross Plateau 1 mile north and Hoback Junction 0.4 miles south). The more important feature
is roosting trees along the river. Because of the elevation difference and mature spruce trees, permanent
cabins or RPTs along the western perimeter are not expected to influence eagle use.
Based on these findings, Staff recommends winter use be permitted for the campground area east of the
row of existing cabins, including the cabins or RPTs to be located in that area. The tent sites and river
access west of the existing cabin row shall not be used between November 30 and April 1. As outlined in
the Planning Commission discussion section, this recommended condition is intended to restrict camping
NB 2-17
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
use and vehicle access to these areas during the winter. The condition is not intended to limit the
campground owner or guest’s use of the river corridor for human-powered activity such as walking.
Section 3220, Waterbodies, Ten Year Floodplains, and Wetlands
Complies. As discussed in the Key Issues section, there are currently 17 camping cabins located within
the 150-foot Snake River setback. The applicant is proposing to relocate 15-17 of the cabins. Six cabins
will be moved to the northwest portion of the campground closer to the restroom facilities. The
remaining 9-11 cabins would be placed in the center of the property, behind the existing lodge. The new
proposed cabin areas are outside of the river setback. The cabins would be replaced by 15-17 RPTs
located 80 feet to 125 feet from the Snake River and above the river approximately 60 vertical feet.
These sites have existing sewer lines and water lines and no additional grading is required.
The cabins are currently located on former RV sites, which pre-date the County’s first zoning regulations
and the current LDRs and thus were not subject to the 150-foot Snake River setback. Installation of the
cabins was approved based upon a 1983 development permit that identified these locations as suitable for
development because of the existing RV sites. Removal of the cabins, which are considered structures
under the LDRs, and replacement of those cabins with RPTs, which are considered campsites could be
considered a decrease in intensity of use within the river setback. Although cabin structures have been
placed on top of the RV sites, the underlying RV sites have not been altered or abandoned. The LDRs do
not make a distinction between RV campsites and RPT campsites. Existing campsites, which predate
regulations and are located within the river setback will continue to be used as campsites. Therefore, Staff
has determined that no Variance is required for the conversion from cabin sites to RPT sites.
A flood hazard area has been identified in association with the Horse Creek drainage on the south side of
the property. No development is proposed within this area, which also contains steep slopes.
Division 4100 Landscaping Standards
Complies. Pursuant to Table 2400, nonresidential development requires landscaping at the rate of one
plant unit per 1,000 square feet of required landscaped surface. The Landscaped Surface Area required
for this property is 30% or 85,608 square feet, thus requiring 85.6 plant units. In addition to the LSR
requirements, one plant unit is required for every 12 parking spaces. The site is required to provide 136
parking spaces, thus requiring 12 plants units. A total of 97.6 plant units are required. 97.6 plant units
equates to a mix of approximately seven to eight 3”-caliper trees and 5-gallon bushes or roughly 780
plants. After walking the property, Staff estimates there over 600 mature trees or bushes. This does not
include the dense understory of bushes, which could not be counted as individual plants located on the
slopes down to the river and the drainage. Staff estimates that the property contains over 100 plant units
where 97.6 units are required.
Section 4290, Snow Storage Standards for Off-street Parking and Loading Areas
Complies. 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. There is adequate space on the
property for snow storage in the tent sites, as there typically are no tent campers in the winter. Additional
snow storage is depicted on the site plan to be located on the northeast corner of the property. It is located
close to the property line, but is contained entirely on the property thus it complies.
Division 4600 Signs
Complies. No new signage is proposed nor permitted.
Division 4700 Transportation Facilities
Complies. There are no changes in access to the highway proposed.
Section 49230. Refuse and Recycle Facilities
Complies as conditioned. This includes the following:
A. Refuse and Recycle Storage Facilities shall be provided. The application complies as three
dumpsters are located on-site and emptied on a regular basis.
B. Containers and Dumpsters to be Bear Resistant. Container and dumpsters used to store refuse
and recyclable items shall comply with Division 49700, Bear Conflict Mitigation and Prevention.
The current dumpsters are enclosed behind a seven-foot wooden wall with a recently built roof.
The individual containers scattered around the property are not fully enclosed. Staff has provided
suggestions to the applicant on how to make the current containers bear resistant until new
containers can be obtained. Changes to the enclosure and individual containers are required as
conditioned.
C. Container and Dumpsters to be screened. The current dumpster is located directly to the south of
the lodge and is fenced with a seven-foot high wood fence.
D. Temporary Dumpsters at Construction Sites. Not applicable.
NB 2-18
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
E. Locations of Dumpsters and Enclosures shall not encroach into parking areas or easements, not
interfere with clear visibility at site entrances, or not interfere with snow storage. The location of
the dumpster is appropriate.
Section 49370, Exterior Lighting and Glare.
Complies. No change in site lighting is proposed. The RPT lighting shall comply with the standards set
forth in this section which include:
• Maximum permitted illumination 1.5 footcandles.
• Maximum permitted height 18 feet.
• Light fixtures shall have a total cut-off of light at an angle less than 90 degrees.
• Shall be located do that the bare light bulb or light source is completely shielded from direct view
from a vantage point 5 feet above the ground a the perimeter of the lighted area.
• The light shall be contained entirely on-site.
The lighting for the proposed RPTs has not been reviewed as part of this application. Staff recommends
that prior to installation, documentation confirming compliance with the lighting standards shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review.
STANDARDS IN THE BUSINESS CONSERVATION DISTRICT
All requirements of these Land Development Regulations apply in the BC District, unless specifically
exempted in this Section.
A.
Expansion Permitted. The land use existing on the site as of the date of adoption of these Land
Development Regulations (May 9, 1994) shall be allowed an out-right expansion of twenty (20)
percent of the size of the structure provided all the standards of this section and these Land
Development Regulations are met. In instances where expansion of twenty (20) percent permits
less expansion than the Floor Area Ratio allows listed in Table 2400, Schedule of Dimensional
Limitations, expansion to the FAR shall be permitted, pursuant to the conditions of this section and
these Land Development Regulations.
1.
2.
3.
Determining Size. The twenty (20) percent expansion permitted shall be determined by the
size of the structure in which the use is located on the date of adoption of these Land
Development Regulations (May 9, 1994.) For example, the 20% expansion of habitable
building square footage shall be based upon the total square footage of all existing habitable
building square footage.
Not Applicable. No new floor area is requested with these applications.
Expansion of existing uses. Any expansion of existing uses permitted in the BC district shall
require a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 5140, Conditional and Special Uses,
except expansions of less than 3,450 square feet of gross floor area which shall be treated as
a minor development plan.
Not Applicable. This proposal does not include any changes to the existing use.
ADA necessitated expansions exempt. Expansions to existing buildings for the primary
purpose of meeting requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) shall be
exempt from any limitations on expansions imposed in this section. Expansions to meet ADA
requirements may include, but shall not be limited to, covered wheelchair ramps, lifts,
handicap accessible rest rooms, etc.
Not Applicable. This proposal is not an expansion.
B.
Change Signs or Lighting. Proposals to change signs or lighting shall not increase the
discrepancy between the existing sign and the standards of Division 4600, Signs, or Section 49370,
Exterior Lighting and Glare.
Complies as conditioned. There are no proposed changes to the existing signage or lighting.
Exterior lighting of each proposed RPT unit shall comply with the exterior lighting standards of
Section 49370. Lighting has not been reviewed as part of this application, so Staff recommends that
the applicant provide documentation of compliance with the standards of Section 49370 prior to
installation of RPTs.
C.
Change of Use Permitted. A Conditional use permit issued pursuant to Section 5140, Conditional
and Special Uses, is required for any change of use in the BC District. The following standards
shall be used in evaluating the change of use:
1.
2.
Uses. All uses permitted in the BC District are eligible uses for change of use applications.
Level of intensity. Determination of the level of intensity shall include consideration of the
size of structures, taking into consideration both the existing and allowed expandable square
footage, traffic generation (amount and type), impacts on access, parking demand, level of
outdoor activity, operational characteristics, and other potential adverse impacts on
neighboring uses.
NB 2-19
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
Not applicable. The proposal is not a change of the campground use.
D.
Signs and lighting. If the use is changed pursuant to this Subsection, the sign for the use shall
comply with the standards of Division 4600, Signs, and Section 49370, Exterior Lighting and
Glare.
Not applicable. The proposal is not a change of campground use.
E.
Lodging. Lodging may be permitted in the BC zone pursuant to the standards of this section.
1.
2.
Outside of the Lodging Overlay. A twenty (20) percent expansion of existing lodging is
permitted. Notwithstanding the FAR, new lodging or expansion exceeding twenty (20)
percent of existing lodging is prohibited.
In the Lodging Overlay. Within the lodging overlay, construction of new lodging or
expansion of existing lodging is permitted in order to meet existing demand pursuant to all
conditions of this section. Existing demand for lodging shall be determined to be lodging
demand generated from existing development on the date of the adoption of these Land
Development Regulations (May 9, 1994) or lodging demand generated by other attractions
in close proximity to the site.
Not Applicable. The property is not located within the lodging overlay, nor is it a lodging
use.
STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
1.
Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Development Plan shall be consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for
building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use.
Complies. See the “Relationship to Character District” and “Relationship to Other Applicable
Comprehensive Plan Policies” sections of this Staff Report.
2.
Compatibility. The proposed Conditional Use shall be compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the land proposed for development including scale, bulk, and general
appearance.
Complies as conditioned. The subject property is located in the BC zoning district. BC-zoned
uses are, by nature, incongruous with the surrounding land uses as they represent commercial
uses in otherwise residential areas. Additionally, as discussed elsewhere in the staff report,
campgrounds present a particular challenge because while not rural in character, campgrounds
need a rural setting to be attractive destinations. The exchange of existing RV and cabin
campsites for RPTs, which are defined in the LDRs as a form of campsite, does not constitute a
change in the existing campground use. On a technical level, the exchange of existing RV and
cabin sites for RPTs results in limited quantifiable impact to performance measures such as
setbacks, landscaping, parking, and utilities. However, the campground, as a commercial use, is
inconsistent in character with the surrounding residential properties. Although some of the RPTs
will be placed on sites currently occupied by camping cabins, some of the proposed RPT units
will replace RV sites currently used seasonally instead of year-round. This change represents a
tradeoff between traditional camping opportunities such as tent and RV sites, and nontraditional
camping such as cabins or RPTs. Conditions have been recommended regarding design, lighting,
rental period and seasonal use to minimize adverse impacts to neighboring properties. As
discussed in Key Issue 2, the maximum number of RPT units allowed by the LDRs for this
property is 39. An additional condition limiting the permitted number of RPT units may be
appropriate based on the outcome of discussions about community character called for in Key
Issue 2.
3.
Minimizes adverse impact. The design, development, and operation of the proposed
Conditional Use shall minimize or mitigate adverse effects, including visual impact of the
proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Conditional Use shall avoid
significant adverse impacts on surrounding lands regarding trash, odors, noise, glare, and
vibration, and not create a nuisance.
Complies as conditioned. The applicant proposes to replace existing RV and cabin sites with
RPTs, which are defined in the LDRs as a form of campsite. The proposal does not increase the
overall number of campsites and cabins on the property, nor does exchanging one type of site for
another result in an increase in the intensity of use. Section 23400 of the LDRs contains standards
for setbacks, materials, lighting, height and rental periods, all intended to reduce impacts to
surrounding properties. Landscaping standards, as outlined in Section 4160, also provide for
buffering and screening within and around development to help protect area character. As
discussed in the “Relationship to Applicable LDRs” section of this Staff Report, the applicant’s
proposal complies with the required standards for setbacks, rental periods and landscaping.
NB 2-20
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
Although specific RPT designs have not been evaluated as part of this application, Staff has
added Recommended Conditions of Approval requiring that the proposed RPT units be evaluated
for compliance with design, height and lighting standards prior to their installation on the
property. The RPTs will be located in the center and rear of the property, screened from the
highway by existing development, and screened from view from the Snake River by existing
vegetation.
The main change in operational characteristics that would result from approval of this application
is the proposed winter use of the campground. The applicant has submitted a Wildlife Habitat
Assessment which states that no additional impacts to wildlife or protected habitat will result
from placement of additional RPT units on the property. Conditions regarding rental period and
seasonal use have been recommended to minimize adverse impacts of year round use on
neighboring properties.
4.
Minimizes adverse environmental impact. The development and operation of the proposed
Conditional use shall minimize adverse environmental impacts.
Complies as conditioned.
The proposal which uses existing campsites and roads does not
disturb any additional ground on the campground. The applicant is proposing to relocate 15-17 of
the camping cabins, currently located within the 150-foot Snake River setback, to other locations
on the property outside of the setback. The 17 cabins are currently located on former RV sites,
which pre-date the County’s first zoning regulations and the current LDRs and thus were not
subject to the 150-foot Snake River setback. Installation of the cabins was approved based upon a
1983 development permit that identified these locations as suitable for development because of
the existing RV sites. Removal of the cabins, which are considered structures under the LDRs,
and replacement of those cabins with RPTs, which are considered campsites could be considered
a decrease in intensity of use within the river setback. Although cabin structures have been placed
on top of the RV sites, the underlying RV sites have not been altered or abandoned. The LDRs do
not make a distinction between RV campsites and RPT campsites. Existing campsites, which
predate regulations and are located within the river setback will continue to be used as campsites.
The applicant has submitted a Wildlife Habitat Assessment which finds that the exchange of
cabin sites for RPT sites will not result in any additional negative impacts to wildlife or protected
habitat. A condition related to seasonal use has been recommended to minimize adverse
environmental impacts to habitat that may result from the proposed year-round use of the
campground.
5.
Impact on public facilities. The proposed Conditional Use shall not have a significant adverse
impact on public facilities and services, including transportation, potable water and wastewater
facilities, parks, schools, police, fire, and EMT facilities.
Complies as conditioned. This project will not have significant adverse impacts on public
facilities or services as the RPTs will be used for short-term visitor use rather than by long-term
occupants or full-time residents. Full-time occupants could increase the needs for basic public
facilities, such as schools, parks, etc. In addition, potential impacts pertaining to transportation
were reviewed. The type of traffic entering/exiting the property will be changing from RVs,
trailers and campers to passenger vehicles, which may reduce impacts of the campground on the
transportation system.
As discussed in Key Issue 3, upgrades to the existing septic system are required prior to
installation of the proposed RPTs to ensure adequate capacity. Approval of the DEV and CUP
applications by the County is necessary before the DEQ permit application can be submitted to
ensure the size of the new system is adequate. Comments from Adrienne Nunn, DEQ Water
Quality Division, indicate that the proposed system would treat all wastewater from the site.
6.
Other relevant standards of the Land Development Regulations. The development and
operation of the Conditional Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other
applicable provisions of these Land Development Regulations for use, layout, and general
development characteristics.
Complies as conditioned. See the “Relationship to Applicable LDRs” Section of this staff
report.
NB 2-21
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
REQUIRED REVIEWS
The application materials were sent to the Fire Marshal, Building Official, Engineer, Sanitarian, Sheriff,
Housing Authority, DEQ and WYDOT. Comments on the application were received from each agency
and are summarized below. (A copy of review comments is attached.)
•
Fire Marshal. Ms. Kathy Clay recommended using the same Fire Department conditions placed
on the KOA’s original permit two years ago:
o
o
o
o
o
A Fire Department Access Road is required to ensure that facilities are within 150 feet of
fire department access. The Fire Department Access Road, the exterior one-way loop
through the KOA, will be a minimum of 15 feet of all weather surface. Access to the
facilities along the interior drive will be gained from the exterior loop. (2012 proposal does
not change this)
A minimum of 2 feet of clearance on both sides of the 15 foot wide Fire Department Access
Road is required. (2012 proposal does not change this)
A minimum internal turning radius of 25 feet for the Fire Department Access Road shall be
established. (2012 proposal does not change this)
Signs must be positioned that state “No Parking Fire Lane” along the 15 foot wide access
road and ensure enforcement of regulation. (Fulfilled as signs were posted in 2010)
To meet the requirements of Class 3 Ignition Resistant Construction, the RV’s will have
skirting installed within 6 inches of grade. All other requirements of Class 3 IR construction
have been meet. (This is now a requirement per the recent campground amendment)
•
Building Official. Mark Antrobus had no concerns.
•
County Engineer. No comments were received.
•
Sanitarian. Gabe Klamer had no concerns as long as the DEQ process is followed, the permit is
approved, and no new grading occurs.
•
Sheriff. Sheriff Whalen was concerned about an increase in the amount of traffic turning into the
property. The number of campsites are not increasing; however, the type of traffic
entering/exiting the property will be changing from large RVs, campers, and trailers to passenger
vehicles. Sheriff Whalen stated he would prefer passenger vehicles to campers and expressed no
other concerns regarding the proposal.
•
Teton Housing Authority. Stacy Stoker had no comments on behalf of the Housing Authority.
•
DEQ. Adrienne Nunn of the Water Quality Division was contacted to confirm the septic system
changes. Earlier this year, the applicant submitted a minor modification revision to the 2010
Underground Injection Permit. The modification was made to encompass the recently installed
bathroom and laundry facility and the removal of a dump station. A new system is proposed and
the applicant has been working with DEQ. Per Ms. Nunn, the system will have to be designed
and permitted prior to RPT placement. Since approval of the minor modifications, a major
modification to the permit will also be required since 2 new systems were discovered. In short,
approval of the DEV and CUP applications will be required prior to submitting or approving a
new system in order to determine how much capacity will be required in the new system.
•
WYDOT. No comments were received.
NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATIONS – PUBLIC COMMENT
Neighbor notifications were sent to properties within 800 feet of the subject property during the
application review process. As of the date of this staff report, thirty written comments and one verbal
comment have been received. All those who commented are in support of the proposal to add RPT units
to the campground and all recommended that the County approve the application. Several of the
comments submitted were from visitors to the campground rather than neighboring property owners. The
visitors all spoke highly of the RPT experience as being easier, more comfortable and more economical
than RVs, tent camping and other lodging options. The verbal comment, which came in the form of a
phone call to Staff, included questions about the proposed site design and the adequacy of the septic
system. Staff provided additional information regarding the layout and that exact separation distances
have yet to be determined, and referred the caller to the DEQ for additional information about the
proposed septic system.
NB 2-22
March 5, 2013
February 25, 2013
Written comments submitted included the following:
• The existing RV sites are too small
• Many people are traveling without RVs because they can stay in a cabin or RPT and have the
same experience with less expense
• The RPTs provide an authentic camping experience and a nice alternative for people who don’t
want to sleep outside
• The RPTs do not take away from the “Jackson Hole character”
• The RPT units are high quality and attractive
• The RPTs reduce RV traffic which makes the campground more peaceful and the highway
easier to travel
• The RPTs fit in with the landscape and the neighborhood
• The owner has done a good job of revamping the campground and the campground is a high
quality operation
• The RPTs and campground upgrades benefit surrounding businesses and provide a place for
their clients to stay
• The change will increase business to the Hoback area
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Application and Correspondence
Applicant’s Phasing Site Plan and Parking Plan
PRC Comment
Neighbor Notification and Public Comment
NB 2-23
March 5, 2013
ATTACHMENT A: APPLICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Bud Chatham
Shawn Means
New Site Map and CUP Hearings
Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:23:50 PM
MAP 8 revised 01-03-13.pdf
PastedGraphic-1.tiff
twitter32.png
Hi Shawn,
Just to followup on our conversation today, lets go ahead and push back our
Planning Commission Meeting and County Commissioner Meeting by two weeks so
that we can get a site plan that is as accurate as possible. I have enclosed an
updated site plan map for you to look over. Let me know if you have any questions
about it.
I would like to work with you and Jeff on creating a site plan that the county is
comfortable with but also allows us some room to adjust as we go from phase to
phase without having to go through an entire CUP process as long as we stay within
the county regulations for campgrounds and RPTs. For example, we do not want to
have to go through an entire CUP process if we decided that we need to leave a few
camping cabins on the river bank and instead more RPTs in the area where on the
plan it now says 6-8 RPTs. These phases are not going to happen immediately and
would like to take advantage of any positive things we learn from phase to phase.
Does that make sense? Thanks Shawn and talk to you soon!
Bud
Bud Chatham
[email protected]
Dave Hansen Whitewater and Scenic River Trips
Phone - 307-733-6295
www.davehansenwhitewater.com
Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter!
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Jennifer Anderson
"Bud Chatham"
Shawn Means
KOA applications (CUP2012-0003)
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:31:41 AM
Hi Bud,
The Planning Commission’s 2013 schedule has been approved. I was looking at scheduling you for
one the following meetings:
Planning Commission January 15, 2013 – County Commissioners February 19, 2013
Planning Commission January 29, 2013 – County Commissioners March 5, 2013
Planning Commission February 11 – County Commissioners March 19, 2013
Let us know so we can get the neighbor notices out immediately!
Additionally, I have started a staff report for Shawn and had some follow-up questions:
· How many campsites do you use for employees? Please let us know the maximum
number.
· In order to use the existing septic/water lines where the 6 RPT will replace cabins, will
work need to be done on these lines…just wondering if RPTs can be placed with no work or
if line repair will be needed.
· I am looking at conditioning the permit so that all campsites, including cabins and RPT
could be used year-round with everything west of the cabin row (tent sites and river
access) to be closed between Nov 30 and April 1. Any issues on your end?
· The new bathhouse was approved by Building Dept as a temporary structure. I assume
that you will want to use it again this upcoming season? If so, a building permit may be
needed as a condition of this permit.
I think that is all for now.
ThanksJennifer
Jennifer Anderson
Code Compliance Officer
Teton County Planning & Development
PO Box 1727
200 S. Willow Street
Jackson, WY 83001
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Shawn Means
"Bud Chatham"
RE: BCC Meeting
Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:53:39 PM
image001.png
image002.png
Bud,
The packets go out on Monday. So if I have comment by early Monday morning, it will be reflected
in the staff report and included in the packet. If I receive it midday Monday or later, it will go to the
BCC separately. Now for some answers/responses to the original comments you sent me below.
With regard to the first part of your comments about the number of campsites, I’ve adjusted the
wording slightly to try to provide some clarity on a couple of things:
1. The staff reports from past approvals do not contain a total number of sites because we
weren’t regulating the number of campsites in the past. They simply include a breakdown
of the number of different kinds of sites on the property. That breakdown always totals to
112, but the tent and RV sites and cabins are always listed separately.
2. The discussions recorded during the 2011 amendment process do specifically reference
112 campsites at your campground.
As we have discussed previously, the position of the Planning Department is that regardless of
what was determined or discussed in prior approvals or during the amendment process, the LDRs
do not include a cabin in the definition of campsite. Staff is obligated to provide the narrowest
application of the LDRs of anyone involved in this process. We are the technical analysis/letter of
regulations reviewers. So at the moment we are confined by the fact that the definition doesn’t
include cabin and therefore a cabin isn’t a campsite. The cabins/campsites question remains a key
issue so that the BCC will be sure to weigh in on it and provide some guidance as to how the cabins
should be counted and handled in the future given the gap in the literal wording of the LDRs. I
know you are immensely frustrated that this is even up for debate at this point, and I sympathize
with your frustration, but I want to assure you that I am doing the best I can to ensure that you
have complete certainty at the outcome regarding the cabins. The Board, based on the familiarity
with the amendment process and the intent behind the language, has the authority disagree with
the way Staff has read and applied this section and to determine that the cabins are sites. But we
have to wait for them to make the call.
Regarding the Interpretation vs Similar Use Determination question:
The short answer to this question is that a Similar Use Determination is a very specific kind of
Interpretation. An Interpretation is an official determination by the Planning Director of how the
LDRs are to be applied, based upon the legislative intent of the BCC in its adoption of those
regulations. The Interpretation section allows the Planning Director to be flexible in the application
of the regulations so long as doing so does not lower the protection afforded to the community.
A Similar Use Determination is an official determination by the Planning Director that a use not
listed in Table 2200, Use Schedule is sufficiently similar to a listed use to be allowed and regulated
identically to that listed use. The problem with using the “Similar Use Determination” tool is that
the Use Schedule is not specific enough to include “campsite” or “cabin.” It lists broader use types
like “campground.” The determination we would need here is not whether something you are
proposing is similar to a campground; there is no debate that you have a campground. The
determination needed is that a unit that may replace a cabin in the future is also a cabin. So the
Planning Commission requested that the language be changed to “Interpretation by the Planning
Director.” By doing so we get away from having to make determinations specifically related to the
Table 2200, which doesn’t help us here because we are working with finer-grained issues.
As far as process goes, it is the same regardless of whether we call it a Similar Use Determination
or an Interpretation, because both requests are processed as an Interpretation. You would submit
a letter requesting an Interpretation. The fee is $400. Once the request is here, we have 14 days to
declare sufficiency (which for something like this the full 14 days is unlikely), and then 30 days from
sufficiency for the Planning Director to issue the interpretation. It’s a quick review and an
administrative process. There is an appeal process through the BCC if an Interpretation is issued
that you do not agree with.
Winter Use:
I followed up with Hamilton Smith from Biota about the specifics of his analysis. He based his
recommendations on the assumption that there would be no “campground” use along the river in
winter. Walking or other human-powered activity is fine; it’s the generators and vehicle traffic that
would pose a problem. So no, the condition about the winter use does not imply any restrictions
on walking access along the river. We just need to restrict use of those sites as campsites and
vehicle access down there. I’ll play with the wording of that condition a bit to make sure it is clear,
and add a note in the PC discussion section as well.
I think this covers the issues you raised. I’m still awaiting comments on the revised report from Jeff
and Paula. Once I have those, I’ll tie everything together and the staff report will go out Monday.
I’ll make sure you get a copy of the final version.
Thanks,
Shawn
Shawn E Means, AICP
Staff Planner
Teton County Planning and Development
PO Box 1727
200 South Willow Street
Jackson, WY 83001
(Ph)307-733-3959
(Fax)307-733-4451
From: Bud Chatham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:21 PM
To: Shawn Means
Subject: Re: BCC Meeting
Hey Shawn,
Quick question....I think you shot me an email that you needed to receive any comments by
2/24 for it to be included in the BCC packet...but I noticed (just now) that that was a Sunday
and wanted to make sure that was right. I might submit something to you now, but I also
might wait until I see the entire BCC packet and send it to the commissioners separately.
Thanks,
Bud
On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:16 AM, Shawn Means wrote:
Hi Bud,
Not ignoring you. I put a call into Biota for some clarification on your last question and I was
hoping to hear back from them before I responded so I could just get it all at once. Hopefully
they’ll get back to me today. I’ll follow up this afternoon or first thing tomorrow.
Thanks!
Shawn
Shawn E Means, AICP
Staff Planner
PO Box 1727
Jackson, WY 83001
(Ph)307-733-3959
(Fax)307-733-4451
From: Bud Chatham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:54 PM
To: Shawn Means
Hi Shawn,
Hope you are doing well and thanks again for all the back and forth correspondence.
I have read over the draft of the BCC packet and have a couple of things. One major
correction I wanted to point out is in the the discussion of applicability language. It is stated
that through past development reviews (2010 CUP and text amendment) that is was
determined that we had 95 campsites and 17 cabins. This is not accurate and I think is
misleading...in those reviews, it was clearly stated that we had 112 campsites, with our cabins
being included in the calculation of those sites. They were NEVER broken out separately
during those reviews, as it is mentioned in this packet.
Like I already passed along (and I know you listened to), in the audio during the last hearing
before the vote on the text amendment it is reference by everyone (county attorney, Jennifer,
Jeff, and commissioners) that we had a total of 112 sites through a previous CUP. From this,
Hank Phibbs (from Jennifer's recommendation) then proposed in the applicability language,
#5, which said that campgrounds are allowed to retain the number of sites they had through a
previous CUP. This was basically written for us... our CUP in 2010 acknowledged that we
had 112 sites (which included our camping cabins), and we are "allowed" to retain that
number of sites through #5.
I am still confused why this logic is not being followed, but in this section, I think it is very
important that how the number of sites were presented and documented in past reviews is
accurate. The past reviews (CUP, Development, Text Amendment) all reflected us having
112 camp sites through the total of tent sites, RV Sites, cabins, and RPTs. Our cabins were
never separated from the calculation even though staff, director, and commissioners were
well aware (through documentation, discussion, and inspection) that they were included in
the 112 sites of all the reviews.
Also, could you explain to me the difference between an Interpretation and a Similar Use
Determination? I want to know mainly the process, what the requirements are of me, and
how long a decision for an Interpretation can take.
Last thing (for now;) is with the winter use and what commissioner Duerr was asking during
the meeting. I understand better what he was asking and what the winter use requirement is
stating. When I initially read the winter access restrictions, I thought it was strictly not
allowing river access through tenting...I did not think it was restricting walking access to the
river. Is the county restricting walking access to the river (we walk the campground all the
time now)? I looked through the Biota report and although he mentions in the report how we
do not plan to have sites open on the river (which we do not and have no problem not having
sites on the river), he does not mention that walking traffic needs to be restricted. If we
wanted to clarify this, could we ask him?
Thanks Shawn and let me know what you think when you have a moment.
Bud
Bud,
I’m attaching a draft version of the staff report that I have just forwarded up the chain for internal
review. This is a draft, and Paula and Jeff may make suggestions or request changes be made prior
to finalizing the report. Once I have their comments, I’ll try to get you an updated version before it
goes in the packet. I have received two comments in support of your proposal since we last spoke.
Those will be attached to the BCC packet and I’ve discussed those comments in the staff report. I
think I’ve managed to catch all the places where the numbers were inconsistent, but if you see any
oversights in that department, please let me know.
Thanks,
Shawn
Shawn E Means, AICP
Staff Planner
PO Box 1727
Jackson, WY 83001
(Ph)307-733-3959
(Fax)307-733-4451
To: Shawn Means
Thanks Shawn. It would be great to see the preliminary report when you get it done.
On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Shawn Means wrote:
Hi Bud,
The BCC hearing for your application will be at the regular BCC meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
March 5th . It will remain on the 2/19 agenda, because that’s when it was originally scheduled, but
when the packet for that agenda goes out (later today actually), it will contain a postponement
memo that moves your hearing to 3/5 officially. At that point Sandy will update the item’s status
on the agenda to postponed. So don’t worry too much about the online agenda for next week. We
are on for March 5th !
I am working on a revised staff report and packet for the BCC right now. I have to have a draft staff
report ready for internal review by Friday. I’ll send the draft to you as well so you can take a
preliminary look if you like. There will be several changes to correct errors and inconsistencies, as
well as the addition of a summary of the Planning Commission discussion. At this point I haven’t
had any public comments on your application, but if I receive any before 2/24, I can include them in
the staff report.
I’ll be in touch later in the week when I get this draft wrapped up, but I’m available by phone and
email if you need anything in the meantime.
Thanks!
Shawn
Shawn E Means, AICP
Staff Planner
PO Box 1727
Jackson, WY 83001
(Ph)307-733-3959
(Fax)307-733-4451
From: Bud Chatham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:04 PM
To: Shawn Means
Subject: BCC Meeting
Hi Shawn,
Hope you are doing well. I wanted to check in...I was looking at what was on the agenda for
future meetings of BCC and saw that our application was still set to be hear on 2/19
(http://www.tetonwyo.org/bcc/meeting/county-commissioners-regular-meeting/5267/), but I
thought it was moved to 3/4 because our planning commission meeting was moved out two
weeks.
Also, could you let me know if there is a new packet that you will be sending out to the BCC
and if so, when you will be sending out that packet if you have not already. I wanted to
know as well if there would be any changes in that packet from what was sent to the planning
commission. If you could let me know too if you all have received any public comments, that
would be great.
Thanks,
Bud
Bud Chatham
[email protected]
Phone - 307-733-6295
<image001.png><image002.png>
Bud Chatham
[email protected]
Phone - 307-733-6295
<DRAFT DEV2012-0013CUP2012-0003 BCCStaffReport-KOA.pdf>
Bud Chatham
[email protected]
Phone - 307-733-6295
Bud Chatham
[email protected]
Phone - 307-733-6295
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Bud Chatham
Shawn Means
Re: BCC Meeting
twitter32.png
Thanks Shawn, I'll take a look at it and let you know if I see anything that is off. With the two public comments that you have received (along with any that you
might receive going forward), is there a way you can forward them to me just so I
can know what is being said. I know they will end up in the BCC packet, but would
just like to be able to see them before that.
Thanks so much!
Bud
Bud,
I’m attaching a draft version of the staff report that I have just forwarded up the chain
for internal review. This is a draft, and Paula and Jeff may make suggestions or
request changes be made prior to finalizing the report. Once I have their comments,
I’ll try to get you an updated version before it goes in the packet. I have received two
comments in support of your proposal since we last spoke. Those will be attached to
the BCC packet and I’ve discussed those comments in the staff report. I think I’ve
managed to catch all the places where the numbers were inconsistent, but if you see
any oversights in that department, please let me know.
Thanks,
Shawn
Shawn E Means, AICP
Staff Planner
PO Box 1727
Jackson, WY 83001
(Ph)307-733-3959
(Fax)307-733-4451
To: Shawn Means
Thanks Shawn. It would be great to see the preliminary report when you get it
done.
On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Shawn Means wrote:
Hi Bud,
The BCC hearing for your application will be at the regular BCC meeting scheduled for
Tuesday, March 5th . It will remain on the 2/19 agenda, because that’s when it was
originally scheduled, but when the packet for that agenda goes out (later today
actually), it will contain a postponement memo that moves your hearing to 3/5
officially. At that point Sandy will update the item’s status on the agenda to
postponed. So don’t worry too much about the online agenda for next week. We are
on for March 5th !
I am working on a revised staff report and packet for the BCC right now. I have to
have a draft staff report ready for internal review by Friday. I’ll send the draft to you
as well so you can take a preliminary look if you like. There will be several changes to
correct errors and inconsistencies, as well as the addition of a summary of the
Planning Commission discussion. At this point I haven’t had any public comments on
your application, but if I receive any before 2/24, I can include them in the staff
report.
I’ll be in touch later in the week when I get this draft wrapped up, but I’m available by
phone and email if you need anything in the meantime.
Thanks!
Shawn
Shawn E Means, AICP
Staff Planner
PO Box 1727
Jackson, WY 83001
(Ph)307-733-3959
(Fax)307-733-4451
From: Bud Chatham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:04 PM
To: Shawn Means
Subject: BCC Meeting
Hi Shawn,
Hope you are doing well. I wanted to check in...I was looking at what was on
the agenda for future meetings of BCC and saw that our application was still set
to be hear on 2/19 (http://www.tetonwyo.org/bcc/meeting/countycommissioners-regular-meeting/5267/), but I thought it was moved to 3/4
because our planning commission meeting was moved out two weeks.
Also, could you let me know if there is a new packet that you will be sending out
to the BCC and if so, when you will be sending out that packet if you have not
already. I wanted to know as well if there would be any changes in that packet
from what was sent to the planning commission. If you could let me know too if
you all have received any public comments, that would be great.
Thanks,
Bud
Bud Chatham
[email protected]
Phone - 307-733-6295
Bud Chatham
[email protected]
Phone - 307-733-6295
<DRAFT DEV2012-0013CUP2012-0003 BCCStaffReport-KOA.pdf>
Bud Chatham
[email protected]
Phone - 307-733-6295
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PHASING SITE PLAN AND PARKING PLAN



 



 
ATTACHMENT C: PRC COMMENT
ATTACHMENT D: NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Laura Burke
Shawn Means
KOA Campground
Monday, February 25, 2013 8:25:43 AM
Dear Teton County Commissioners,
I am writing to you as a resident of Teton County, former employee of Snake River Park KOA and
supporter of their current CUP application that you will be hearing soon. I worked at the KOA during
the 2011 season and was able to witness first hand the positive changes that the recreational park
trailers brought to the KOA and the tourist that stayed at the campground. From being surrounded by
mature trees and the river to having smores at night around a campfire with the family, these units
offered many people the opportunity to experience the feel of camping who normally could not because
they did not have an RV or wanted to make the one time invest in camping equipment. Working the front desk full time, there was an enormous difference between the satisfaction level of
customers staying in RPTs vs customers staying in RV sites. No matter how descriptive I was in the
limitations/restrictions of the RVs sites and size of RVs that the sites could accommodate at the time of
booking a reservation (which we are trained to do), customer complaints about the RV sites were
numerous every night and by far the number one complaint during the time I worked at the KOA. We
constantly refunded people's money and checked people out early who were staying in RV sites and as
an employee it was always stressful interacting with these people who were not happy. Conversely,
people loved the RPTs and I rarely had a complaint involving anyone who stayed in these units.
I hope you will approve the KOA's application. The RPTs truly provide a much better experience to
people visiting Jackson Hole and the KOA and will help spread the word of what a great place Jackson
Hole is to visit. Sincerely,
Laura Burke
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Laura Fletcher
Shawn Means
To the attention of Ms. Shawn Means
Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:24:24 PM
We are writing in support of Bud and Kelly Chatham and their application you are about to review for the Snake River Park KOA. We got married in
2011 at our parents house in the Riverfront subdivision in the Hoback area and a lot of our extended family and friends stayed in the RPTs while
they were here for the week. It was great to have a location so close to all the wedding events that our guests could stay at instead of having
everyone stay in town. Everyone loved the units they stayed in because they were comfortable and at the same time had a great outdoor feel to
them that our family visiting the area for the fist time loved. The grounds are extremely maintained and everyone employed there was gracious,
genuine and very helpful to the first-timers. We think the RPTs are a great addition to the Snake River Park KOA and urge you to support their
application. Please do let us know if you have any further questions.
Thanks for your consideration,
Chris and Laura Kling
Laura Fletcher, Broker | Great Point Properties, Inc. | One North Beach Street, Nantucket, MA 02554
P. 508.228.2266 | C. 508.221.4455 | F. 508.228.2321 | www.greatpointproperties.com
Exclusive Affiliate of CHRISTIE'S INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE
Visit Great Point Properties' Market Update page for the most current Nantucket Real Estate Data From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Betsy Swantner
Shawn Means
Support the RPT petition for SRP KOA
Ms. Means,
I am writing to express my support and urge your favorable decision to allow SRP KOA to increase their
offerings of RPT units. I have lived, worked and visited Jackson over the past 15 years. I have so
enjoyed my visits to SRP KOA!
The progressive direction SRP KOA has taken in upgrading their location with an affordable family
lodging alternative via RPT is a welcomed one! I have traveled with two teenagers and the offering of a
spacious, modern, warm and homey place to rest, such as the RPT's are one of the reasons that bring
us back each year. Through the eyes of a twelve year and fourteen year old the RPT is cool, hip and
makes staying outdoors fun. It is Jackson for us.
In contrast, the RVs are loud, too large, non Jackson and stand for everything we come to Jackson to
escape - crowding, congestion and noise.
The RPT offers a economical and family friendly way to enjoy the beauty of Jackson.
I strongly encourage you to approve the application! Thank you for your consideration in reading the
above.
Sincerely,
Betsy Swantner
Director, Human Resources
E. & J. Gallo Winery
Modesto, California
Sent from my iPad
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Kevin Nord
Shawn Means
Snake River Park RPTs
Sunday, February 24, 2013 7:20:01 PM
Mrs. Means-I am writing to give my support to Snake River Park KOA's recent application for RPT sites at their campground.
My wife and I have been visiting Jackson for over 20 years, and we always make it a priority to visit the
campground. Over the past few years, specifically, we have seen major improvements to the campground. We
have found one of these renovations, the RPTs, to be especially outstanding--they combine the comforts of a
cabin with the outdoors-feel of camping, and yet they are cozier and warmer than a RV site. Plus, the RPTs do
not clog up the campground like RVs (I guess I'm just not a RV person). In any case, we will continue to visit Jackson, and the KOA, for many years to come. We would love to continue
to stay in the RPTs when we visit!
Thanks for your time, Kevin Nord
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Mike Kaiser
Shawn Means
Snake River Park KOA
Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:36:21 AM
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the application submitted by Snake River Park KOA.
I have been visiting Jackson for 20 years and have stayed at the KOA on many occasions. I believe the
RPTs are a vast improvement. Now that I am older I have given up camping in tents and my family
loves the RPTs (have you been inside one?). we also love that we can stay outside of town, right on
the river. We still enjoy a campfire, but sleep a heck of a lot better. Additionally, these RPTs are far
more enjoyable to look at than an enormous RV. They fit right into the Jackson Hole theme and I will
continue to visit as long as we can camp in an RPT.
Thank you for your time,
Mike Kaiser
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Bret Geller
Shawn Means
Snake River Park KOA Cabins
Dear Shawn,
I am writing you in support of the application for the Snake River Park KOA to bring
in more cabins. I have been visiting Jackson Hole since 1994 and have been bringing
organized group trips since 1998. The addition of the cabins (or RPTs) has been very
beneficial to my family and my business. When my family comes to Jackson, it is
great to have the cabins for grandparents, and others who are not tent campers. It
allows the family to stay together and have a great camping experience with the
campfires, stars, s'mores and more. For my business, the additional cabins allows
me more flexibility by having a place for the drivers to stay who transport us. It
gives me flexibility, to give my customers two sleeping options while on our trip and
it reduces the number of RVs in the park which cause congestion and make the
place feel more like a city than a campground.
The Snake River Park KOA is heading in a positive direction. I hope you can continue
to support them in making their campground a great place to stay.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely,
Bret Geller
National Board Certified Teacher
Owner: ETR Outdoor Adventures, Inc
206-794-1200
[email protected]
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Holmer, Elaine
Shawn Means
Snake River KOA
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the application submitted by Snake River Park KOA.
I have been visiting Jackson for the past several years and have stayed at the KOA on many occasions.
I believe the RPTs are a vast improvement. Now that I am older I have given up camping in tents and
my family loves the RPTs (have you been inside one?). we also love that we can stay outside of town,
right on the river. We still enjoy a campfire, but sleep a heck of a lot better. Additionally, these RPTs
are far more enjoyable to look at than an enormous RV. They fit right into the Jackson Hole theme and
I will continue to visit as long as we can camp in an RPT.
Thank you,
Elaine Holmer
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Patrick Keating
Shawn Means
Snake River KOA
Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:55:27 PM
Dear County Commissioners of Teton County,
We are writing to you to let you know how much our family of four has
enjoyed staying in the recreational park trailers at the Snake River Park
KOA. To us, they are not park trailers, but cabins that allows us to camp.
We live in a city and storing camping equipment or having an RV is really
out of the question. Before we planned our trip to visit Wyoming and
Montana, we looked at renting an RV, but decided against it once we added
up the rentals fees and what the cost of gas would be for the trip. Instead we
heard from another family about cabins at the KOAs and decided to go that
route. It was exactly the vacation we wanted to do with our family where we
still felt like camping, but did not need to go buy a bunch of equipment for it.
At the Snake River Park KOA, we were surrounded by trees and the river,
still cooked all of our meals, and had campfires every night. It is definitely
an experience you don't get living in a city, or for that matter, would get
staying in the town of Jackson.
We enjoyed the vacation so much in 2010 that we came back in 2012 just to
stay in Jackson at the KOA and see the area more. I understand that the
KOA would like to bring in more of these recreational park trailers. I would
just tell you that they are a positive for the Jackson area and something I
would encourage you to support. We would only be able to and want to do a
trip like this if these units were at the KOA because tent camping and RVs
are not an option for us.
Thank you,
Patrick Keating
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Candace Leach
Shawn Means
[email protected]
RPT replacement - Snake River Park KOA
Ms. Means,
I wanted to take a moment to offer my strong support of the application submitted
by Snake River Park KOA to place additional RPT's in their park. I have been visiting
Jackson for close to 20 years now and have taken many a trip down the Snake with
this stellar outfit. I was pleasantly surprised to see the addition of the RPT's last
year. They add significant value to the campground and offer an economical outdoor
experience to a family visiting the area. The log cabin RPT look fits right into the
exceptional scenery and is a pleasant change from the large RV's previously
encompassing those spaces. I encourage you to embrace the forward thinking
nature of these improvements.
Kind Regards,
Candace Leach
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Importance:
Cara Nord
Kelly Kaiser; Kevin Nord; Shawn Means
FW: Need a tremendous favor by this SUNDAY!
twitter32.png
High
Ms. Means:
Greetings.
Nearly 16 years ago (Gasp! We can't be THAT old! :) my husband Kevin and I worked at Snake River
Park (SRP) KOA - Kevin drove the shuttle van for the whitewater trips, and I worked in the office
helping customers with reservations and the like. Since then, we have returned to Jackson nearly every
summer. We have tent-camped at SRP and stayed in one of SRP's great cabins. Our two sons,
Benjamin (7) and Maxwell (2) now accompany us on our yearly pilgrimage from Colorado Springs (our
home) to Jackson. In recent years, we have been so impressed by the direction SRP has taken. It is much cleaner, much
quieter, and much more organized. The recreational park trailers (RPTs) play a large role in these
improvements. For the reasons stated below, we wholeheartedly support SRP's petition for additional RPTs, and
respectfully request that it be granted. First, the RPTs are beautiful. They are clean and inviting. With their natural wood, they are so
"Jackson", and fit in perfectly with the natural landscape. The modern large and cumbersome RVs, on
the other hand, do the exact opposite; they are an eyesore. Second, the RPTs are a great way to experience Jackson. They provide families like ours - who enjoy
the outdoors and who come to Jackson for the outdoors - the possibility of walking around a familyfriendly environment during the day and sitting around a campfire at night, but always have a home-like
setting to return to at any time. They also save us from having to "fuss" with traveling from Colorado
with a tent and other such equipment, having to get a 2-year-old and a 7-year-old in a tent all night,
etc. Third, the RPTs are environmentally sound. While working in the KOA office, the RVs were incredibly
cumbersome. It was always a feat to get the RVs into sites, with exhaust fumes going from one site
into another, hampering the enjoyment of campers in the adjacent sides. And, over the years, RVs
have just gotten bigger. (I'll never forget the night that a huge RV actually struck the office building.) Fourth, the RPTs are economical compared to the hotel prices in town. We would MUCH RATHER
spend the money staying at an RPT than staying at a comparably-priced hotel room in town. The RPTs
give us so much more bang for our buck. For the reasons stated above, we ask that SRP's request for additional RPTs be granted. The RPTs are
an asset for Jackson, a boon to its tourism, and, well... "right up our family's alley."
Thank you for your time and careful consideration. Cara L. Nord, Esq.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Angela Renee Merlo
Shawn Means
CUP Application for RPT"s at KOA campground!
Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:31:22 AM
Shawn,
I am writing this email in support of the RPT's at the KOA in Jackson. Our family has been visiting Jackson
for about 8 years now and can't wait to stay in one of the RPT's – what a great idea to even further
improve the KOA we love! I only wish they would convert 100% (instead of only 40%) of their sites to
RPT's to eliminate the big, ugly, polluting RV's. What a great way to keep the cozy mountain feel and
enhance a vacation! I want to reserve my RPT now, since I know they are going to book-up fast! I hope
you agree. Thank you for your consideration.
Angela Merlo, PT, DPT, PhD
Assistant Professor, Physical Therapy College of Health and Human Services
Northern Arizona University
Phoenix Biomedical Campus
435 N 5th St., 6th floor (C626)
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-827-2428
[email protected]
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Genzer, Jim
Shawn Means
Bud Chatham/Snake River Park Campground---CUP
Shawn---I am writing this to let you and the County Commissioners know that I am in favor of
placing more Permanent Recreational Trailers at this site.
What a great way to save our environment by keeping travel trailers and motor homes of our
roads (with all their various costs) and yet allowing couples and families the chance to stay in an
“outdoor environment” with a stream beside you and the Snake River close by. In my opinion it
certainly fits into our outdoor character and should fit the community values of this valley.
Thank you,
Jim Genzer, CIC
Hub International, Mountain States Limited.
PO Box 2560, Jackson, WY 83001
Ph-307-732-5945
Fx-866-246-1819
[email protected]
This electronic message, together with its attachments, if any, is intended to be viewed only by the
individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, protected
health information and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited without our prior permission. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient or you have received the message in error, please notify us immediately
by return e-mail and delete the original message and any copies of it from your computer
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Kim Wheeldon
Shawn Means
Bud Chatham/SnakeRiver Park
Friday, February 22, 2013 8:59:46 AM
Shawn,
I am writeing you about Bud Chatham Snake River Park KOA. We are a neighbor
of Snake River Park up Horse Creek. We have a Business and what he does benefits
in our area. Our hunters and clients are only a mile a way, and it brings us more
business. We support them adding additonal cabins. Please let us know if we can
further assist you.
Thanks,
Chancy & Kim Wheeldon
Mill Iron Ranch
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Rebekkah Kelley
Shawn Means
Hoback KOA
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:49:42 AM
Hi Shawn,
I just wanted to write in my support for the Hoback KOA park’s application to install RPTs. As a
Hoback resident I feel this change will be great change to the overall look and character of the
neighborhood and bring more business to the Hoback area. Thank you for the consideration.
Rebekkah Kelley
(307) 413-5294
[email protected]
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
RICHARD KIMMI KUSSY
Shawn Means
KOA Campground
Hi Shawn, We were made aware that the KOA south of town was going through a conditional use
permitting process with the planning department for adding recreational park trailers to the
campground. We are in favor of the RPTs for the Hoback area as there are not many lodging options
down south. We have used RPTs at various campgrounds throughout Wyoming as an inexpensive
alternative to hotels. Richard & Kimmi Kussy
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Shelly Paciulli
Shawn Means
KOA CUP application
Dear Shawn Means,
We are writing in support of allowing the KOA in Hoback to convert some of their
sites to RPT's. We feel that the RPT's will not take away from the
distinctive JH character and also have a positive outcome of reducing some of the RV
traffic.
Thank you for taking your time and consideration.
Shelly & Matthew Paciulli
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Dustin Child
Shawn Means
Bud Chatham
KOA
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:42:25 AM
Shawn,
I just wanted to drop you a note on behalf of Bud Chatham and the
Snake River Park KOA Campground. As a neighbor to the KOA
Campground I do fill that the new RPT's that were added to the
campground were a great benefit to the public and the area. We did
receive several positive comments from our horseback riding customers
that were staying at the Snake River Park campground about how nice
the RPT's are. I feel that the RPT's brought in were a great addition to
the campground and the Hoback area.
Thank you,
Dustin Child
A-OK Corral
307-733-6556
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
[email protected]
Shawn Means
Park Trailers at Snake River KOA
Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:29:38 PM
Hello Ms. Means,
I am writing as I know Teton County is currently considering an application from Snake
River KOA to approve the use of "park trailers" at the campground south of town. I am
hoping you will move forward and support their use at the Snake River KOA. These park
trailers make the outdoors more accessible to people who don't own an RV and prefer not to
sleep on the ground and wouldn't mind a little comfort along the way. I believe park trailers
are now offered by about one-third of the nation's public campgrounds. Let's let the Snake
River KOA keep up with what more and more campers are looking for; park trailers. - John
Freeze From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Tracy Castagno
Shawn Means
Bud Chatham
planning
Saturday, February 16, 2013 7:38:24 AM
Hello my name is ryan castagno and I live here in teton county and am aware or what they are trying to
do at the KOA with Bud Chatham. I refer people to lodging among other things at the town square
and updated and more services are what our county needs to service our summer visitors. I commonly
have a hard time finding a spot and we lose visitors from lack of spots here in the valley. I am 100% in
favor of what they are trying to do. Ryan Castagno
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
john simms
Shawn Means
RPTs at KOA
Hi Shawn,
I just wanted to voice my personal support For Bud Chatham's KOA proposal for
additional RPTs at his site.
I've lived in the vally for fifty years and have known personally known the last three
owners of the property. They have all struggled with various problems and done
their best to maintain a high quality operation. Bud has the opportunity to create a
great semi-camping experience for city folks
As times change, virtually every business has to improve their operation in order to
stay abreast of new tendencies in their market.
--
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Stephen Davidson
Shawn Means
Snake River KOA
Monday, February 18, 2013 3:25:24 PM
Dear Shawn Means ([email protected]
I am writing in regards to the Snake River Park KOA CUP application. I wanted to
show my support for the projects they have done down at the park. "I live south of town and I am very familiar with the Snake River Park KOA. My
work has me driving by it all the time. I feel like the changes they have made over
the last couple years have been great for the Hoback area. In particular the cabins
are in line with the neighborhood character and promoting the outdoor values of the
community and I support their current CUP application."
Stephen M Davidson
(307) 413-8903 From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Scott Sanchez
Shawn Means
Snake River KOA RPT
Dear Shawn,
I would like to write in support of Snake River KOA's request for 40% PRT units. They have done a
responsible job with the campground and the request is in the parameters of the county's planning. In
addition this allows for a nice mix of summer accommodations in the Hoback area while still allowing for
reasonable size RVs.
Thanks,
Scott Sanchez
Jackson, WY
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Jim Triplett
Shawn Means
Snake River KOA
Shawn,
I just want to express my support for Bud Chatham owner of Snake River KOA in his
efforts to convert RV sites to RPTs.
On my daily commute, I drive by Bud's place and the large motor homes trying to enter
and exit at a point which tends to be congested anyway is frustrating to motorists and
doesn't seem to be the safest place for large vehicles to be accessing the roadway. There have been times when traveling south, lines of vehicles waiting to enter Bud's lot
resulted in sizable traffic jams.
Also I've worked with Bud in a business capacity for a number of years now and have
seen that whatever he does, he makes all necessary efforts to get it right. I'm certain
that allowing this conversion to move forward is a win for everyone involved.
Thanks for your consideration.
Jim
Jim Triplett
Operations Manager
Virginian Lodge
PO Box 1052
750 W. Broadway
Jackson, WY 83001
307-733-2792
Fax 307-733-4063
[email protected]
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Chelsey Peters
Shawn Means
Snake River Park CUP Application
Good Morning Shawn,
I am writing on behalf of Bud Chatham and Snake River Park in support of their CUP
application. The RPTs that have been added to the park are an excellent lodging
option for people who are looking for the "Jackson Hole" experience. Adding more
RPTs will exponentially help increase visitation to a slightly neglected part of our
valley (Hoback Nation). The existing RPTs fit in beautifully with the landscape and
Hoback "neighborhood". Bud has done an excellent job of revamping Snake River
Park, and I enjoy seeing the renovations unfold. Snake River Park is a beautiful place
for tourists to stay that gives them a luxury camping experience in Jackson Hole.
Chelsey Peters
PO Box 1267
Jackson, WY 83001
307.413.1089
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
[email protected]
Shawn Means
Snake River park current CUP application
Thursday, February 14, 2013 10:03:22 AM
Dear Shawn: I am writing to give my approval to the changes proposed to the
Snake River Park,near Hoback Jct.
As a business owner at the Hoback Jct,I believe the changes allow for an uptick in
the local economy
About the RPTs- people still consider them camping because they are cooking
their own food, bringing their own linens, having the campfire with smores along the
river. With the rustic log siding look and outdoor feel, it is the outdoor experience that people are looking for when they come to our area. Not having a lot of lodging
options near Hoback, I think the RPTs have been good for the area too, keeping
more people in Hoback vs staying in town. Not having so much RV traffic in front
of the campground is something us neighbors have really appreciated also.
thank you for your consideration of my opinion
Tight Lines!
Scott Hocking
TetonTroutfitters.com
307 733-5362
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Cohn-Oswald, Lezlie A.
Shawn Means
Snake River Park KOA
Friday, February 22, 2013 1:37:13 PM
image002.png
I understand that you are about to review an application from the Snake River Park KOA to
bring in more recreational park trailers and wanted to pass along my thoughts and support for
the application. We live in the Salt Lake City area and have been visiting Jackson Hole and
staying with a large group (40-70 people/year) of work friends for the last 6 years. While we
have always stayed at the KOA, our group's preferences of how they stay at the KOA have
changed dramatically. At the very beginning of our trips to Jackson, we had a lot more
people bring and stay in their RVs. Now almost the entire group stays in the camping cabins
and in the new recreational park trailers. The change has been for a few reasons. This was initially do to gas prices. People who had
RVs did not want to make the trips in their RVs when they could get the same experience,
more comfort, and less expense in staying in a cabin. More recently, people stay in cabins
versus traveling in their RVs because the RV sites are just too small. While the setting of
the KOA is beautiful and we very much enjoy the outdoor feel away from town, their RV
sites are really small in comparison to what our group is use to with other campgrounds they
visit. The cabins that we stay in provide exactly what we want. With the wooded area, mountains
and the river, to go with campfires, cooking our own food and being close to our friends in a
beautiful area that is away from the city and the work environment, to us we are definitely
camping. In particular, we have enjoyed our stay at the KOA much more over the last couple
years. The KOA is a much more peaceful place without all of the RV traffic. I hope this helps give you a view from a tourist group who have visited Jackson Hole and the
KOA for many years. What the KOA has done is very good for your community and the
tourist(s) that visit it and I would urge you to support their application to bring in more
recreational park trailers.
Thanks for your consideration and feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Lezlie Cohn-Oswald Lezlie Lezlie Cohn-Oswald, CPhT, VCM
Program Specialist
Veterans Rural Health Resource Center - Western Region VA Salt Lake City Health Care System
500 Foothill Blvd (182)
Salt Lake City, UT 84148
801-582-1565 ext. 4081
800-613-4012 ext. 4081
[email protected]
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
laurie forstrom
Shawn Means
Snake River Park KOA CUP
Shawn Means
I have heard that the Snake River Park KOA has some plans to make more improvements to the Park. I
wanted to show my support for them and the future plans that they have. I live south of town and in
the summer I work in the tourism industry. I have recommended the park to many visitors looking for
an affordable place to stay in the valley. Many of these clients want to feel the experience of
camping/living outdoors but do not have all the gear they need to do this. The KOA park has created a
great alternative. The look of the RPTs having a rustic cabin theme and having the outdoor experiences
associated with camping; like camp fires, picnic tables, outdoor activities, plus the location next to the
river and surrounded by trees.
I feel like the Snake River Park KOA has done a great job to keep the property in line with the
community values and character of the area. They have done this and filled a great niche for local
affordable lodging.
Laurie Forstrom
3555 S Canadian Dr
Jackson, WY 83001
307-413-5121
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
[email protected] on behalf of Chris Pokorny
Shawn Means
Snake River Park KOA RV/RPT Application
Ms. Shawn Means:
I am writing this email to support Bud and Kelly Chatham's Snake River Park KOA application to
convert some of the RV sites to RPT's. I am very familiar with Snake River Park KOA having visited and spent time in Jackson many times
over the past seventeen years. I love the fact that spending time in Jackson allows me to escape the
busy big city atmosphere but still offers a level of comfort hard to find in other outdoorsy destinations. I believe that this is what RPT's provide. RPT's allow you to camp without the hassle of getting wet
when your tent leaks. You can have a campfire in your fire pit and get to know the people staying
next to you without all the smells and commotion that RV's always cause. As an aside, I think that
RV's really hurt the atmosphere that the city of Jackson seems to strive to maintain. If you've ever
walked around the town square you know how unpleasant and dangerous RV's can be to the
pedestrians. I am for anything that helps alleviate the RV situation and helps Jackson maintain it's
appeal. I plan to visit Snake River Park this coming summer and for many summers to come - it's really a
fantastic vacation. I love the improvements Bud and Kelly Chatham have made to the campground
including the addition of RPT's over the past few years. My only complaint is that it's tough to get a
reservation in one unless it's booked early. It would be helpful if more were available during the
wonderful summer months. Sincerely,
Chris Pokorny
503-347-2662
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Jim Ryan
Shawn Means
Support for hoback campground
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:36:40 PM
I wanted to drop you a note about the Hoback campground across from horse creek. I like the addition
of the cabins and appreciate how the fit in so well. I also think the cabins will reduce traffic issues with
less travel trailers and motor homes. I support the additional units
Jim
Sent from my iPad
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Brady Sahnow
Shawn Means
Support for RPT"s at Hoback KOA
Mr. Means,
I would like to offer my support of the application for additional RPT’s at the KOA in Hoback. I have
been visiting Jackson regularly since I was in college in the mid-nineties and I consider it one of my
favorite places. The KOA has improved drastically over that time and bringing in the RPT’s has been
a great way to add options for us travelers while remaining consistent with the look/feel/culture of
the area. These are made for a Jackson style community! When I was there last summer I noticed
the RVs that were parked and it didn’t lend the same feel to the park, both from a size standpoint
and also aesthetically.
Please approve the application for additional RPT’s at the KOA so that the natural culture and
outdoor “feel” that is so important to folks visiting Jackson can be maintained.
I thank you for your time in reading this,
Brady Sahnow
Brady Sahnow
Vice President of Sales and Customer Relations
brass|MEDIA Inc.
987 NW Circle Blvd
Corvallis, OR 97339
[email protected]
(541) 753-8546 (office)
(541) 753-8548 (fax)
brassmedia.com
brassmagazine.com
See what we’ve been up to - check out our latest products at products.brassmedia.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain
confidential information that is legally privileged. It is intended for distribution to the designated recipient(s) only and is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosures, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message and all
copies.
The information contained in this email (including any attachments) is confidential and may
be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, print, copy, retain, distribute,
or disclose its content. If you have received this email in error, please advise us by return
email. To ensure the security of your personal information, do not send account numbers,
social-security numbers or credit card information via email. Secure methods for transmitting
such information include telephone and fax.

snake river park koa campground final development

Transcription

Similar documents

DISCOVER Michigan`s Beauty

Crawford`s Campground - Space Coast Jeep Club

Sandbanks Provincial Park maps

Campground Layout Map

Fun Food Fantasy!

industry - Normandy Farms

Yogi Bear`s Jellystone ParkTM Camp-Resort

Campground Layout Map

cakerawala - Apply Emtunga AB

! Sandia Casino Expansion ! - Slots Double Diamond Deluxe