Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Palisade Village Concept topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palisade Village concept review advances with conditions; neighbors raise boundary and irrigation concerns
Summary
The commission reviewed the Palisade Village concept plan—seven new lots with a 19.6-acre open-space parcel—and did not take final action; staff recommended conditions (updated natural-resource analysis, EIPH verification, road improvements) and public commenters asked for a boundary survey and canal easement clarity.
Get email alerts on the Palisade Village Concept topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teton County planning staff presented a concept plan for Palisade Village, a proposed subdivision of seven lots (1.5–2.48 acres) with a 19.6‑acre open‑space lot on currently undeveloped grazing land. The parcel includes overlays: natural resource, preliminary floodplain and a scenic corridor. Staff reported an updated natural resource analysis had been submitted and noted building envelopes were placed to avoid mapped floodplain and scenic‑corridor areas.
Staff listed recommended conditions for future submittals: an updated natural resource analysis to accompany the preliminary plat, verification that Eastern Idaho Public Health (EIPH) approvals remain current for the revised scope, and compliance with public‑works comments requiring evaluation and possible upgrades of local roads (West 5250 North and Tag Elder Lane) to county standards. The Fire Marshal approved the proposed exterior access but said detailed fire‑suppression plans must be submitted with improvement plans.
Applicant counsel and the owner said they had submitted updated wildlife analysis material and intend to work through the public‑works and EIPH comments at preliminary plat. Neighbors spoke during public comment, raising a boundary-line concern on an older fence and noting irrigation ditch easements; the neighbor asked for a resurvey or clarification before final approval to avoid a later challenge. The applicant said the disputed corner lies inside the scenic corridor and outside building envelopes, and that surveys and pins have been placed multiple times; the owner offered to meet with the neighbor to resolve the concern.
The commission did not take a final action on the concept at the hearing. Staff recommended those conditions be addressed at preliminary plat; the applicant and staff agreed the natural‑resource analysis and public‑works items will be carried forward for technical review at the next stage.
