C hapter 2. Thinking about Our Future
Teton County, Idaho is a rural community of approximately 10,000 people and 450 square miles in Southeastern Idaho west of Grand Teton National Park and southwest of Yellowstone National Park. It has large areas of unincorporated County and three incorporated cities which are Tetonia, Victor, and Driggs (the County seat). Teton County is often called “Teton Valley” or “Teton Basin” since the majority of the land is located on the valley floor between the Teton Range to the east and the Big Hole Mountains to the west and includes the headwaters of the Teton River. During the early 1800’s, this area was referred to as Pierre’s Hole in honor of “le grand Pierre” Tivanitagon and was the center of the northern Rocky Mountains fur trade. Beginning in the late 1800’s, the County became a small agricultural community settled by Mormon Pioneers, many descendants of whom still live in the community today.
In addition to families who have been in the Valley for generations, the population includes a mix of individuals and families who are part-time residents, transplants from other parts of the country and hispanic residents. Common values have shown a clear path for the future.
Teton County, Idaho is closely tied in many ways to its neighbor Teton County, Wyoming. Physically, the two counties share a common border and view of the Teton Range, most notably the peaks of the Grand Teton, Mount Owen, Teewinot, Middle Teton and South Teton. Grand Targhee Resort, which lies in Wyoming, is one of the largest employers in the area and can only be accessed through Teton County, Idaho.
Chapter 2. Thinking About Our Future 2-1 Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest
Targhee National Forest
St. Anthony
Rexburg
Idaho Falls
2-2 Yellowstone National Park
Targhee National Forest
Ashton Targhee National Bridger-Teton Forest National Forest
Grand Teton National Park Teton County Driggs
Victor
Jackson
Caribou National Forest
Chapter 2. Thinking About Our Future 2-3 The transition of a portion of Teton County’s economy to outdoor recreation and tourism began in 1969 when over 900 local citizens worked together to establish Grand Targhee Resort and opened it to benefit the community and economy of the region. Over the last decade, Grand Targhee Resort has proven to be a key economic driver in the area and the Valley experienced significant activity in second-home and resort- based development. As a result of its growing reputation as a mountain resort combined with the national real estate boom, Teton County was the second fastest growing rural county in the United States between 2000 and 2009 with the majority of the economic growth in the real estate and construction industries.
The bursting of the real estate bubble that started nationally in 2007 and hit Teton County hard in 2008 resulted in high unemployment, plummeting property values and high foreclosure rates throughout the Valley.
Despite the economic challenges, the community has continued to develop its appeal as a unique mountain lifestyle community due to its breathtaking scenery, clean water, fresh air, abundant wildlife, healthy forests and world class recreational opportunities that include skiing, fishing, cycling, hunting and many others. It has a growing arts and cultural identity and has hosted nationally acclaimed performers. National Geographic chose the County seat as the future location for a Greater Yellowstone Geotourism Center.
2-4 Teton County, Idaho has been embroiled in a boom-bust growth cycle for most of the past century and the boom of the 2000s and the subsequent bust were the most extreme example of this historic cycle. The bust hit the economy of Teton Valley especially hard because a large portion of the economy was based on land development speculation. The conditions in Teton Valley which included large amounts of relatively cheap, private land, a Teton County, Wyoming work force that needed affordable housing and a strong second home market created a perfect storm for speculative development.
As a result of these conditions and a somewhat flexible regulatory environment, thousands of lots were created in subdivisions that now lie empty. The over abundance of undeveloped platted residential lots (over 7,000) make economic recovery even more difficult by saturating an already weak real estate market. There has been a decline in investment into our community and many storefronts lie empty. The County government is strapped for cash due to Idaho’s tax cap and entitled developments with no means for mitigating the fiscal impacts of the roads, schools, emergency services and weed management. And so most residents of Teton Valley would agree that what we are doing now under the current 2004-2010 Comprehensive Plan has not worked and it is in the interest of the community to revise the Plan and set forth new guidelines for development.
Almost everybody in the community agrees that additional, rampant subdividing of land will not help the Valley’s economy or character. Unplanned growth could result in falling housing prices, continuation of high foreclosure rates and unsustainable costs to taxpayers to maintain infrastructure. Most agree planning guidance is warranted. While few want to subdivide their property at this time, many land owners want the right to be able to subdivide if and when they so choose to do so in the future. This guidance is there not to impinge on future development but to protect it.
Chapter 2. Thinking About Our Future 2-5 The goal of this Comprehensive Plan is to outline a vision and framework that considers all viewpoints, achieves a balance of effective land planning and private property rights, and finds common ground regarding the future of Teton Valley. It is impossible to fulfill the desires of either extreme, however it is possible to find a viable plan that the vast majority of the community can accept and support. The intent of this plan is to achieve this goal.
The current comprehensive plan, Teton County Comprehensive Plan: A Guide for Development 2004-2010, was laden with controversy from its adoption. The Plan has contradictions within itself and most would argue that while it might claim to protect the rural character of the valley, it has not been effective in doing so. Half-dead developments plague the County, however, we have learned some valuable lessons. The previous Plan was based on projections that took the Valley through 2010, while this date has passed, it can also be argued that the conditions on the ground have changed so drastically since the Plan’s adoption in 2004 that it is no longer a relevant document. This new Plan will be a living document that is able to be adapted and modified to fit changing circumstances while holding true to the vision that the community has outlined for itself.
As in business, a community needs a plan for its future. Before a new business opens, it will create a business plan that identifies major sectors of the business and some plan of how the business will eventually make money. The business plan usually includes a mission statement and often has specific goals and objectives of how to accomplish that mission. Likewise, a community needs a vision for itself and a plan for how it will get there. That is the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. It is a guiding document upon which all governmental community actions should be based. This is necessary to avoid over zoning in a manner that negatively affects the entire community and individual properties.
Referenced by Idaho State Statute 67-6508, which mandates that every community adopt and regularly update a plan, “It shall be the duty of the planning or planning and zoning commission to conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare, implement, and review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter referred to as the plan.” The Local Land Use Policy Act (LLUPA) recognizes the importance of a visioning process to planning for a community’s future. Although this Plan does not follow the exact format or order shown in LLUPA, all required components are included.
2-6 32 31
2 1 6 5
11 12 7 8 9 10
13 16 15 14 13 18 17 15 14 16 15 14 17 13 18
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 19
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32
4 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 1 6 Miillk Crreek Esttattes
Reserrve att Badgerr Crreek Haden Hollllow Tollman 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
Riidgelliine Ranch
2
3
y 13 17 16 15 14 13 18 a 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
16 15 14 18 w
h g
Riiverr Riim Ranch i
H
N
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
W Highway 33
t
S
n
i
a M 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 Canyon Creek Ranch 25 29 28 27 26 25 30 Canyon Creek Ranch 28 27 26 30 N
W Highway 33 Herriittage Peaks Appalloosa Riidge 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 Trrapperr''s Riidge
Westt Riidge Ranch Thorrnberrrryy Acrress 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 Grrouse Landiing The Viistta Att Watterrss Edge Siillverr Dollllarr
Mounttaiin Legends Ranch 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12
17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18
23 24 19 20 21 22 H 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 H 19 un 22 23 24 un 21 Tarrghee Hiillll Esttattes PUD
t t
s s
man man
S S The Willows pr The Willows pr
ings ings 29 28 27 26 25 30Olld Farrm 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 A-20 Zone A-2.5 Zone Bllue IIndiian Sceniic Riiverr Esttattes Westt Meadows
Drriiggs Centtrre Phase II 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32
3 2 1 6 5
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4
W W 8
7
0 11 12 0 9 10 0 7 8
0 12
0 10 11 0 8 9
1 12 7 1
11 1
9 10
1
2
2 11000 N W 3 000 N N 11 3
W
N
Y
Y
A
A
W
W
H
H
G
G
I
I
H
H
N N
14 13 18 17
16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 W
W Valley Vista Estates
Valley Vista Estates
0
0
0
0
5 5
W HIGHWAY 33
W HIGHWAY 33
N N
TetoniaW TetoniaW
H IGHWAY 33 H I GHWAY 33
W
W W
W
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
5
5 0
0
4
4 5
5
N
N N
N
W
W
0
0 0
0 19 20 0
0 22 23 24 3
3 20 21 19
21 22 23 24 N 21 22 N 23 24 19 20
W 4000 N W 4000 N
W
W
W
W
0
W
0
W
5
5
0
0
0
0
2
2
5
5
0
0
4
4
7
7
0
0
5
5
8
8
N
N
N
N
N
N
3
W 3000 N D W 3000 N D 3 3
R 3
R
Y E 2500 N E 2500 N
Y Y
A A Y A
W W A W
W A W
W A
T
T
H H
0 H
0 H
0
G 0 G G
I I G I
W I
5
W
5
R
H R 7
H 7
0
0
D D
0
N
0 N L N
N L 0
O O 0
4
4
D
N 29 R N D 30 R 25 L 27 26 L 28 L 29 I L 30
W 25 I 26 H W
27 28 H I 30 29 I 0 25 K 0 27 26 K
0 28
S 0
D S
0
D
0
7
R
7 R
E
E
N
0 E The Roost N 0 E The Roost 0
N 0 N 0 I
E 250 N 0 I 1 E 250 N L 1
L
Driggs E
N Driggs E BATES RD N
T BATES RD
T
A
A
T
T
S
S
E
S
E
S
0
0 0
0 Tetton Reserrve
0
0
1
1
S S
S E 2000 S W W 2000 00 S E 2000 S 32
W 20
W 31 35 36 0 33 34 0 32 0 35 36 31 0 33 34 0 31 32 0 36
5 34 35
33 5
S S
W 3000 S E 3000 S W 3000 S E 3000 S
W 4000 S W 4000 S
E 5000 S E 5000 S
W 5000 S W 5000 S W
2 5 W 6
1
0 W 5750 S 5 4 3 2 0
0 6
W 5750 S 3
0 1
5
3
3
5
4
3
4 Y
W 6000 S
S Y
A W 6000 S
S
A W
W Kearsley Acres
H Kearsley Acres
H
G
I
G
I
H
H
S S W Center St W 77 50 S W 77 W 8000 S Victor 50 S W 8000 S Victor W CENTER ST W CENTER ST Legend W HIGHWAY 31 Legend W HIGHWAY 31 10 11 12 7 8 S 7 8 9
H S W
12 IG H
W S 0 H I G
0 A-20 Subdividable Parcels (> 40 acres) W 9500 S W A-2.5 Subdividable Parcels (> 5 acres) 0 H
0 1 0 H A W
1 W 9500 S 3 Y 0 1 A
3 3 1 Y
S i Y 3 3 hway 31 g S W Hig A Y 3 A-20 Zone Currently Developed / Subdivided W A-2.5 Zone Currently Developed / Subdivided A h S H GH I S HW w H I G ay City Boundaries City Boundaries 1 3 3 3 Public Lands Public Lands y a w 17 18 h 17 16 15 14 13 18 13 g i
H
S Warrm Crreek Esttattes Warrm Crreek Manorr Within Teton County's A-20 Zone, there are approximately Within Teton County's A-2.5 Zone, there are approximately Everrgrreen Grrove 600 parcels / 84,000 acres with the potential to be further 1,400 parcels / 60,000 acres with the potential to be further divided to the underlying 20-acre zoning density (does not divided to the underlying 2.5-acre zoning density (does not 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 include existing subdivisions and parcels less than 40 acres). include existing subdivisions and parcels less than 5 acres). · Theoretically, this could result in 3,600 Theoretically, this could result in 22,600 additional 20-acre lots. additional 2.5-acre lots. Legend 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29
Potential Additional A-20 and A-2.5 Lots 31 34 35 36 31 32 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 Source: 2012 Analysis by GIS Analyst Rob Marin DisMiltes ressed Subdivision: NL:o\Projects\R ob\ZIoningAddLots\Pfotentrial_Lotas.mxd structure Distressed Subdivision: Partial Infrastructure 1 6 5 4
9 Distressed Subdivision: Vacated
Printed: October 26, 2011
Teton County Distressed Subdivisions 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles
Chapter 2. Thinking About Our Future 2-7