Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses developer on Mountain Estates access, planning panels flag ordinance and commercial-development concerns
Summary
Councilmembers asked developer Mr. Izatt for clearer plans for Mountain Estates and raised potential conflict-of-interest, emergency-egress and road-maintenance concerns; Roads Advisory Board voted to deny road access unless the developer paves and maintains roads and pays an annual fee.
Councilmembers asked for a dedicated meeting with Mr. Izatt to clarify the Mountain Estates plans and to answer specific questions about phases and responsibilities for road access and maintenance.
Councilman Ellis said the submitted plans appeared confusing, showing what looked like two separate phase-one areas, and asked that Mr. Izatt provide clarification. Councilman Merrill told the council she had heard concerns that a councilmember might have a conflict of interest and said the council would discuss that possibility before it became an issue.
County requirements for emergency egress were a central concern. Councilman Toolson said the county is adamant that the town grant emergency egress road access and suggested the developer should be responsible for maintaining that access. The Public Works Director said the town needs a clear, written statement of who is responsible for damage and access to town property.
Separately, the Roads Advisory Board reported it passed a motion at its Feb. 4 meeting to deny road access to the Mountain Estates development and passed a motion requiring the developer to pave and maintain the development roads and to pay a yearly fee to the town. The Roads Board did not provide a formal recommendation to the council at the work session; it also proposed an ordinance to create a combined public works board.
The Planning Commission raised two items relevant to future permitting and land-use review: a Bear Mitigation Zone ordinance that some councilmembers and residents said might be better addressed through education and resident action rather than ordinance enforcement, and concern about a proposed commercial property development at the town entrance because of noise, water and energy impacts and the potential for industrial use in a prominent location.
Mayor Rok asked that the council schedule a thorough March work session discussion with the fire chief present to address egress and emergency-access concerns. No binding decision or council vote on Mountain Estates access was recorded at the work session; the council requested further information and a follow-up meeting with the developer.
