Historic Building Standards for the Sawtooth National Recreation Area

              Sawtooth National Recreation Area
Sawtooth National Forest
HISTORIC BUILDING STANDARDS PROJEC.􀀁􀄠
SCOPING PAPER
2/1/96
THE PROJECT The Forest Service is initiating a project to document historic building design standards
to insure that development, construction, and remodeling of facilities on private land
within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) preserve and maintain the historic,
western ranching and pastoral scene. ·
THE PURPOSE Public Law 92-400 established the SNRA In 1972, and directed the Forest Service to
develop and administer private land regulations that apply to all private land within the
SNRA. Current direction and policies concerning facilities within the SNRA were devel­oped
in 1974, and are included In 36 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations} 292, Subpart
C, Private Lands. The existing regulations had been successful in meeting the intent of
Congress until the mid-1980s. In recent years, there has been a major shift in the size,
type, and design of buildings being proposed within the SNRA, demonstrating the need
for clarification with·written and illustrated standards.
THE NEED
The shift in building proposals is due to many factors: the fact current standards included
in the regulations for use by the Forest Service and the public are not uniformly interpret­eel
by all: an increase in challenges to easements by property owners: a desire by some
property owners to bring modern architecture into this rustic, western setting; and some
landowners are not always familiar with the legislative purpose of the SNRA.
The Forest Service plans to achieve several goals with this project:
1 - Respond to public concern and interest in developing written and
illustrated standards for construction that·clarify the standards we have
been using. These standards will be used to evaluate requests for
certlflcaUon under the private land regulations.
2 - Provide clarification to existing regulations, adding writen and illustrat­ed
standards and guidelines for appropriate development to assist the
Forest Service in consistently administering the laws mandated by Con­gress,
and describe historic features and values of the SNRA related to
contemporary use. This ·will contribute to future developments preserving
and enhancing the historic western ranching atmosphere.
3 - Offer better service to landowners, architects, real estate agents, and
prospective property owners seeking to build or remodel facilities by
providing clear, written and illustrated examples of acceptable design
standards.
THE PROCESS The Forest Service has collected Information from a variety of sources to develop
written and illustrated proposed historic standards for construction. Forest Service
cultural resource specialists, through research of historical buildings and facilities in
this area, have compiled the history of activities, land uses, buildings, architectural
design and materials traditionally found within the SNRA.
.:.·
PUBUC
INVOLVEMENT
ISSUES TO
DATE
WRITEN
COMMENTS
TIME FRAME
A series of personal interviews has been conducted by the Forest Service with people
who volunteered to share their knowledge and lnfonation regarding the historic
values of this area. These volunteers are people with long ties to Sawtooth Valley and
the SNRA.
Census information, county records, and national home building statistics have been
researched to provide a foundation of data Forest Service records and private land
certification background from 1972 to the present have been reviewed. As a result of
careful review of all these materials, the proposed historic standards for construction
on private land within the SNRA have been developed.
Seeping is the first step in sharing,these proposed historic standards with the public,
other agencies, tribes, and anyone potentially affected by this proposal. The proposed
standards are only a draft at this point, and review Is needed to ascertain if they are
valid, appropriate, comprehensive, and easy to understand. Comments received on
these proposed standards and related issues will be considered by the Forest Service.
A range of possible alternatives will be drafted addressing the proposed standards
and any related issues identified during the seeping process. From this, the Forest
Service will develop an Environmental Analysis (EA), as part of the National Environ­mental
Policy Act (NEPA) process. An assessment will be prepared and made avail­able
for public review and comment
Depending on interest, public meetings may be scheduled and conducted to share
and discuss information as it is prepared and available for review and comment.
Once the final decision has been made, the .standards and guidelines will be added
to the 1987 Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as an
amendment.
To date, there have been four primary issues identified. These include the size of
. buildings, location of buildings on the property, building materials, and contemporary
design elements including non-traditional window shapes and architectural features.
This list is by no means all [nclusive. One of the purposes of this seeping phase is to
confirm that these are issues and to determine if there are other issues related to
historic standards that need to be considered.
To be the most helpful, we would like to receive your written comments regarding
the enclosed •proposed Design Standards and Guidelines for Construction on
Private Land within the SNRA" no later than March 1, 1996. The Forest Service is
interested in learning if the list of "Issues To Date• is complete. Are there other issues?
Are the issues listed valid? Specific comments and suggestions regarding the en­closed,
proposed "Design Standards .••. • will also be very helpful. If you do not have any
specific comments but agree with the proposal, the Forest Service would greatly
appreciate hearing from you.
Research and inventory work was initiated in the summer of 1994 by Forest Service
staf. This seeping document and draft copies of the proposed historic standards will
be distributed for public review and comment in February. It is anticipated that the EA
and Decision Notice will be completed and made available for review by March, with
the final decisions being made, later in the spring.
·􀀄􀐠
BACKGROUND
l'l ''.i t:' ,, ,(
􀀘􁠭-_.,./,) #I
MORE
INFORMATION
The SNRA is a very special place as demonstrated by the public's long term interest
and demand that Congress give this area special classification. Public Law 92-400,
passed by Congress In 1972, designated this as the Sawtooth National Recreation
Area The Act directed that the SNRA be managed by the Secretary of Agriculture, and
that the Forest Service establish regulations seting standards for the use, subdivision,
and development of the private land within the SNRA. Private land Regulations were
implemented in 197 4. In addition, the Forest Service has acquired 78 easements in
order to Insure protection of the values for which the SNRA was established.
The SNRA was established in order to protect the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral,
fish and wildlife values and the enhancement of the recreation values within the Area
The landscape is typified as pastoral, agricultural in theme. Simple log buildings are
typically clustered together in ranch compounds. These buildings are separated from ·
their neighbors by considerable length, surrounded by large pastures. Since 1974, the
Forest Service has endeavored to manage the SNRA as a showcase of cooperation
between private landowners and public land management practices.
The Area consists of approximately 756,000 acres (305,953 hectares) of public land
and 2,000 acres (8.903 hectares) of state and private lands. There are approximately
700 private property owners within the SNRA. Although small by comparison, a majori­ty
of the private ownership is located In the valley bottoms and Is often bisected by
main travel routes. The result is the private lands form the foreground views for most
of the SNRA, as seen by thousands of visitors each year.
Emphasis on preserving the Area's historic value was evident when the land use
classification system included the majority of private inholdings In the agriculture
classification. Recent construction requests received by the Forest Service demon­strate
that further clarification (written and illustrated) of the existing standards Is
needed. This can contribute to a common understanding of historic standards by the
public and the Forest Service.
For additional Information, please contact:
Sawtooth National Recreation Area
Star Route
Ketchum, ID 83340
(208) 727-5000
Attn: Alison Nelson, Project Leader
•·
PROPOSED
DESIGN STANDARDS
AND GUIDELINES
FOR
CONSTRUCTION
ON PRIVATE LAND
WITHIN THE SNRA
SAWTOOTH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
USDA FOREST SERVICE
STAR ROUTE
KETCHUM, /DAHO 83340
FE"JJRUARY 1996
I
<!>
<!
Design Standards and Guidelines for Constn1ction
on Private Land Within the SNRA
Febnmry 1996
Background Infonation
These design standards and guidelines for constntction on private land within the
Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) clarify and illustrate existing historic
building design standards. They contribute to future developments preserving and
enhancing the historic western ranching atmosphere, for which the SNRA was
established by Congress. These standards have been developed in response to public
requests for clarification of existing standards, and to assist the Forest Service in
consistently administering the laws mandated by Congress. They will be used as part
of the certification process for compliance with the SNRA Private Land Regulations.
The SNRA was established by Congress in 1972 with Public Law 92-400 (Act). The
Act directed that the SNRA be managed by the Secretary of Agriculture, with the
Forest Service as administrative agency. The Act directed that the Forest Service
would develop and administer private land regulations that apply to al private land
within the SNRA. Private Land Regulations were developed in 1974, and are
included in 36 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 292, Subpart C, Private Lands.
These regulations state that private property within the three designated communities
of Sawtooth City, Stanley, and Lower Stanley, are to be governed by individual
community development plans and implementing ordinances.
.,
1. Building Shape: Simple rectangular or combination designs will be used.
Some examples:
., .-,so
Building Size: Federal regulat\􀀾􃹮ns developed in 1972 with the establislunent of the
SNRA set a minimum size of􀁛􅬠 square feet for a single family resid ence. There has
< not been a limit on maximum size. A maximum size of 1,580 squa re feet of living
space for a single family residence is added in these 1996 standards. This size limit
was established using the following statistics.
Forest Service apprai sal records and census records indicate the average size of historic
homestead residences within the SNRA was 600 square feet. Custer Cou nty records
show the average size for a single family residence withjn the SNRA in Custer County
is 1,580 square feet. U.S. Bureau of Census national data includes median single
family residen ce size, from 1,3 7 5 square feet in 1971 (earliest record) to ·1 ,940 square
feet in 1994.
1
.:>
􀁦􆘠
2. The height of buildings in open valley areas is not to exceed 20 feet. In vegetated
areas, the height of buildings is not to exceed on-site tree height, with a maximum of 30
feet. Buildings may be I to 1 112 story.
20'
-
:;--.:"
·
-=---=-
·
·.
--·----
.. - .. .. ..
-· --·-·--· ........ 􀀎􀸠
lf+il
..
􀀇􀜭-=-􀀈􀠠 --=: ·- _:: __ p.� -- -:--·
·
-
·
.
..
. .
-
-
·
- .-
.
... ·· :: .:._ 􀁧􆜭-.: . ...
=----- -· -· ·:-.. .
. - ·-- ....
-·---·· -:=-. . .
􀀂􀈀􀀃􀌀􀀄􀐠
• • . •
..7"
:..:.
.. .
..
- 􀁥􆔠 .;,: -
..... ____ .. ....
· 􀀲􃈭
-·--­
·- - -
-􀀋􀬭------ -1
j
30'
The main lodge of a guest ranch may be 1 1 /2 story to 2 stories, dependent on The
surrounding landscape. Approval on a case by case basis. For example:
.
i􀀂􀈠
f. I
-..
2
.
,
3. The exterior of buildings to be constructed of wooden materials including logs,
shakes, rough lumber, etc. For example:
Board and Baten
Box Comer
Square Notch
4. Roofing material to be shake or wooden
shingle, composite shingle or metal.
Wood Shingle
Metal
3
Saddle Notch
􀀁􀄠
􀀁􀄠 .
Composite Shingle
􀀁􀄠
5. Naturally weathered exteriors are preferred. However, if exterior stains are used,
tones should blend with the natural suroundin g landscape . Generally, darker
earthtones, such as brown, are acceptable.
6. Main ridgeline of roofs are to be contiguous, with the only break a chimney or
stovepipe. Porches, additions, and doners that are below, or even with, the main
ridgeline, are acceptable.
􀀍􀵍Main ridgclinc
Multiple ridgelines that are uneven or broken are not acceptable.
For Example:
4
.,
7. Windows will not dominate wall surfaces. Windows are to be traditional rectangular
or square, primarily using divided panes. Large windows to incorporate divided panes.
Maximum undivided window smface area will be 25 square feet. Overhangs and cov­ered
porches are encouraged. For windows incorp orated into roofs, gabled and shed
doners are encouraged. Shed dormers are encouraged on building sides with !:,Tfeater
visibility. Some examples:
EB
1-i-
..
DO
DO
E8
-f.-
-l-.
Dormers:
Gabled Donner
nr­
LJ ._ .
mm .m
Shed Donner
circular or triangular are not 􀀊􀨀􀀋􀬠
Windows of non-traditional shapes such as "'- 0 acceptable. Some examples:
5
!.
8. Vegetation for landscaping to be comparable in form, line, color, texture, and scale
to the characteristic landscape of the building site, utilizing native plant materials.
Open sagebn1sh/grassland: Characterized by open, sweeping, horizontal fons and
lines. Landscaping shall retain the open character of the existing sagebrush/grassland.
Vegetative landscaping needs to reflect the major horizontal elements with the use of
native shrubs, forbs and grasses. The introduction of vertical elements such as trees
are to be avoided. Limited exceptions may be considered on a case by case basis.
'
·- ... . ··· - . . . . . --- ... ::.· .
. :.:.:· ·::􀀽􃴺:􀀾􃸺::- · ·- --- --· - -
"' ,... .. -,..
• ,.,.. -- •• ..... J l.- I cu,..l=-..,. • ... , . ..,. - - -
-·- ..........
.
􀁯􆼢" . "'" .,....,.,.. .. .. .. .. --· . --·
. ..,. .. _.. - - ....... .,..
.. - - -
-- .,.. -
--- .. .
...... - -..\. .
- .., •"'-"'u1ol-
---
--· 􀁭􆴭--
- -.-.. -
Open sage/grassland transition: Characterized by open, sweeping horizontal fonns and
lines with variable size patches of trees. Also includes open space areas adjacent to
forested areas. Patterns of vegetative landscaping shall be in character with the natural
suroundings, using native trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses.
.., .-.. .. -..
. .. ,. . ..., . .. ,_
- . -
I I , •::
.... ., .., --· ••
----
.. ---·
., . •u•-􀁰􇀠 - .,.."- ---􀁔􅐠
,,_ '-"'-'""-·.,.,..- ""-'"''-. .. .. ·- 􀁓􅌠 . . .. ..
...... -"'+- 􀁮􆸠
..,. -- -· "-•-..
Forested: Removal of live trees and other vegetation is limited to what is
necessary for construction of access roads, building pads and utilities. Vegetative
landscaping shall utilize native trees and shntbs.
6
. ,
9. Architectural styles, elements and modem characteristics that are decorative,
n.on-traditional, or that add mass are not acceptable.
Some examples:
""\..-...
7
-.:.
BUILDING CLUSTERING ON LANDS CLASSIFED AS AGRICULTURE:
Outbuildings are to be clustered around main residence of compatible construction, as
to reflect traditional spatial patten1ing. These clusters will be contained within 1%
contiguous land, maintaining 99% open within each property. If prop erty is allowed to
be split, then each split maiptains the same ratio. For example:
99%
8
,-[]lo/􀀇􀜱1
I
E:]
I
L􀀓􁌭--j
·􀀍􀴠
.,
February 22, 1996
Mr. Paul Ries
Area Ranger
[ .;, i h \Varm Springs A \'Pnl􀀊􀩥e
United States Forest Service
Sawtooth National Recreation Area
star Route
Ke􀀁􀅣chum, Idaho 83340
Dear Paul:
Thank you for inviting us to comment on the Sawtooth National
Recreation Area (SNRA) Historic Building Standards Project.
As owners of 'property within the SNRA for 21 years, we support
reasonable standards which allow the United States Forest Service
(USFS) to fulfill its responsibilities under Public Law 92-400,
36 code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Subpart c, and the 19B7 SNRA
Management Plan. our record of cooperation with the USFS attests
to that.
Having reviewed the document entitled "Proposed Design Standards
and Guidelines for Construction on Private Land Within the SNRA,11
we believe that several of the proposals are substantially more
restrictive than needed to permit the USFS to carry out its
duties. Moreover, should those particular proposals'be adopted,
they would severely penalize those who own property within the
SNRA.
Public Law 92-400 broadly authorizes the USFS to "assure the
preservation and protection of the natural, scenic, pastoral, and
fish and wildlife values and to provide for the enhancement of
the recreational values associated therewith (in the SNRA)." 36
CFR, Subpart c, 292.16, (c)(2), narrows the charter, specifying
that the "development, .improvement and use of property will not
mat:erially detract from the scenic, natural, historic, pastoral,
and fish and wildlife values of the area." The 19B7 SNRA
Management Plan appears to be generally consistent with the
aforementioned documents.
Webster's New World Diction􀂹􋥲ry defines materially as "to a great .
extent; substantially; considerably." By that or other generally··
accepted definitions, we do not believe that the USFS is
authorized to establish and administer some of the proposed
·􀀉􀤠
•,
-2-
standards and guidelines. A one-size-fits-all approach which
facilitates uniform interpretation is simply unwarranted,
especially when it infringes on the property rights of private
citizens.
With that preface, here are our comments on the proposals:
BUILDING SIZE
With one exception, nothing in Public Law 92-400, 36 CFR, Subpart
C, or the 1987 SNRA Management Plan specifies that single family
residences be limited in maximum square footage. The lone
reference to maximum square footage is contained in 36 CF,
Subpart c, 292.16 (d) (xvii), which states that in Designated
Communities (Sawtooth City, Stanley and Lower Stanley) "Existing
plus new buildings or structures cannot occupy more han 30
percent of the land surface on any lot less than 20,000 square
feet in area. on any lot, larger than 20,000 square feet,
existing plus new buildings cannot occupy more than 6,500 square
feet." No such restrictions apply to land categorized as
Residential. It seems obvious to us that the provision for
maximum square footage may have related to lot size, but was not
considered incompatible, per se, with SNRA values in 1974 when
the standards were established. Nor, in our judgement, is it
today.
While we believe that there should be no restrictions on maximum
square footage, as such, we can envision circumstances when the
proposed square footage of a single family residence would be
considered too large by most reasoned and reasonable people. The
proposal you cited recently in the Mountain Express to put nearly
40,000 square feet under roof would, in our minds, qualify as
excessive if it was located in plain view in an open field
between, say, Highway 75 and the sawtooth Mountains. On the other
hand, on what basis would reasoned and reasonable people object
to the existence of such a dwelling if obscured from public view?
Even if a rational case could be made for limiting the maximum
square footage of new single· family residences, the proposed
limitation of 1,580 square feet is far too restrictive. For
example, it makes no provision for siting (shouldn't dwellings
which are largely or completely shielded from public view be held
to a less stringent standard than those in full public view?) or
for family size (who could argue that a 1,580 square foot
residence is adequate for a family of eight?). The proposed
standard also fails to appreciate that optimal real estate
economics call for the value of a residence to bear a meaningful
relationship to the value of the land on which it is situated. If
adopted, the proposed size restriction for single family houses
would likely reduce the market value of a number of private
properties in the SNRA. Given reduced funding, we would be
·􀀅􀔠
-3-
astounded if the USFS is prepared to compensate a property owner
whose investment plunged when he or she is limited to
constructing a 1,580 square foot residence on a parcel of
undeveloped land costing, say, $500,000.
Moreover, to attempt to justify the proposed standard on-the
basis of the current average square footage of single family
homes within the SNRA in custer County is, in our opinion,
arbitrary and irrelevant.
The central point is that above 750 square feet, the size of a
single family dwelling is not, per se, incompatible with SNRA
values. Maximum size restrictions should be imposed only when a
reasonable case can be made that the square footage of a single
family dwelling, beyond 750 square feet, would materially detract
from SNRA values. A prime consideration should be how visible the
property and improvements are to the public.
BUILDING SHAPE
See our central point regarding Building Size.
DUILDING HEIGHT
See our central point regarding Building Size.
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
See our central point regarding Building Size.
NATURALLY WEATHERED EXTERIORS
See our central point regarding Building Size.
ROOF RIDGELINES
See our central point regarding Building Size.
Additionally, this proposal does not take into account the
inherent conflict that would exist in attempting to align the
roof ridgeline_ of a new addition (limited in height to one and
one-half stories per a proposed standard) with the roof ridgeline
of the existing (and approved) building which is two stories in
height.
WINDOWS
See our central point regarding Building Size.
<.!-
-4-
VEGETATION
See our central point regarding Building Size.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
See our central point regarding Building Size.
Additionally, this proposed standard does not take into account
the inherent conflict of expanding an existing (and approved)
structure of modern design with an add-on of traditional design
(required by a proposed standard). Not only could that
combination be unsightly, it could diminish the value and
marketability of the property. By its actions, we believe that
the USFS could be financially liable for the consequences.
BUILDING CLUSTERS
See our central point regarding Building Size.
Paul, we appreciate the tough job that the USFS has in attempting
to please everyone, and we are sympathetic with your desire to
clarify the standards as a means of lessening the conflict. But,
as we said at the outset of our response, we believe that a
number of the proposals go far beyond what is necessary to
accomplish what the law asks the USFS to do.
Rather than trying to impose standards and guidelines which
needlessly trample personal property rights, set up the federal
government to compensate people for diminished property values
and possibly provoke a backlash that undermines 24 years of
positive accomplishments, we urge the USFS to redouble its
efforts to do two things:
1. Within the existing standards and guidelines to protect SNRA
values from material detractions, consistently make decisions
which most reasoned and reasonable people will support.
The USFS doesn't need airtight regulations to do this; but it
does need to exercise common sense.
What do we mean by common sense? Rejecting a proposal to build a
lighted tennis court in public view of the Sawtooths, denying
permission to allow mirrored windows on a house which is visible
from the road, or refusing to sanction the construction of a
10,000 square-foot, four-story English Tudor house on the banks
of the Salmon River. Few would second-guess the wisdom of such
decisions.
What we don't mean is denying someone with property largely or
completely shielded from public view the right to install a
.,
-5-
window larger than 25 square feet, to build a 3,000 square foot
home or one that doesn't replicate a 19th century homesteader's
cabin, or to add a room which has a roof ridgeline that is offset
from the existing structure. These are the kinds qf decisions
that drive sane people crazy.
And what about the decisions in between? Life isn't black and
white. It includes shades of gray, so we urge the USFS to use its
best judgement and remember that nothing in Public Law 92-400 or
36 CFR, Subpart c, states that it's the USFS's responsibility to
recreate life within the SNRA exactly as it was 100 years ago. It
directs only that development not materially detract from.the
·
scenic, natural·, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife values
of the area.
·
2. Enforce its decisions, always.
Paul, you also requested that we ask questions and respond to
issues we believed had not beeD addressed in the document. Here
are our comments:
Given the importance of the proposed standards and guidelines to
owners of private property in the SNRA, and considering that a
number of the property owners do not reside permanently in the
area and may be difficult to reach, we request that the USFS
extend the comment period for the seeping Document until April
30, 1996.
Please indicate whether the SNRA headquarters is within the SNRA. - ;:,;
Please describe why the average square footage of single family
residences in Blaine County was not included in the calculation
which led to the USFS recommendation that square footage of new
construction be limited to 1,580 square feet. Please describe the
average square footage of Blaine County single family residences
and the impact if combined with the average square footage of
single family residences in custer County.
Please clarify if proposed building size limitations include
additions to existing single family residences which, when
combined, would exceed 1,580 square feet. If so, does the
limitation apply to additions to existing ·single family homes
which have been approved by the USFS.
According to the Seeping Document dated February 1, 1996, the
USFS has "acquired 78 easements in order to insure protection of
the values for which the SNRA was established.11 What aoout
private property on which easements are not held? Because
easements on these properties have not been acquired during the
last 24 years, does it follow that the USFS believes they are not
candidates for protection? Our conversations with the USFS over
􀀅􀔠 .
.,.: .
- 6 -
the last 21 years suggest this is the case. We have been told
more than once by agency personnel that the USFS has no interest
in acquiring a scenic easement on our property because it is not
sufficiently visible to the public. We can accept that decision,
but only if the USFS exempts us from both current and future
standards for the development of private property in the SNRA.
The principle is simple: either our property and the private
property of others are capable of materially detracting from SNRA
values, or they are not. If they are, then they should be subject
to USFS standards and guidelines after having been awarded scenic
easements. If they are not, then scenic easements should not be
acquired and the owners of such property should be free to
develop their land subject to local requirements. The USFS needs
to resolve this conflict.
Public Law 92-400 states that rracquisitions of lands or interests
therein (the SNRA) for access to and utilization of public
property, and for recreation and other facilities, shall not
exceed five per centum of the total acreage of all private
property within the recreation area as of the effective date of
this Act.rr Please specify the total such acreage acquired to
date by the USFS and the percent of total private property in the
SNRA that this represents.
We look forward to participating in the process.
Sil)7Jly
/ / fl6 /J--􀀆􀘀􀀇􀝮n:;v�wr Robert and Donna-Marie Hayes
cc: Alison Nelson
. ,
5/29/96
Sawtooth National Recreation Area
Sawtooth National Forest
Historic Buildings Standards Project
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBUC SCOPlNG
The following is a preliminary, general summary of the comments from the more than 100 letters and 40-plus
phone calls received in response to the public seeping phase of this project. These were summarized, by
general categories, in an effort to provide a "flavor" of the type of subjects and comments submitted by the
public. No attempt is made here to agree or disagree with what has been received.
Again, the purpose of the seeping phase is to help ii1e agency determina what issues r.e9d to be addressed
in the environmental analysis process. The Individual comments received wiiJ be reviewed In detail by Forest
Service specialists working on this project, and a list of issues will be developed.
GENERAL RESPONSES
A number of people expressed full support for the proposal, and thanked the Forest Service for the good job
they were doing, while others supported the proposal with reservations and suggestions for changing certain
parts of the proposal. Several commented that there is a need for more specific, written and illustrated
guidelines for the current regulations and the need to clarify terms such as historic, western ranching. and
pastoral for consistent interpretation. They also suggested that these guidelines and standards apply to the
housing for Forest Service, Fish and Game and State Highway employees. A number of people listed several
Forest Service buildings in the SNRA that would not meet the proposed standards and guidelines. Some
reservation was expressed that the proposal, if implemented, would result in •cookie cutter• style buildings.
On the other hand, some people suggested that there is not a need for more specific interpretation of the
existing regulations and others expressed outright opposition to the proposal. Some suggested that the
regulations were writen using general language to allow flexibility and that the Forest Service should enforce
existing regulations rather than add regulations that cannot be enforced. Several commented that this
proposal is too restrictive and goes beyond existing laws and regulations.
Several people requested that public meetings and/or hearings be conducted during the time of year when
most landowners would be in the area and could participate. Some people also requested that the period
for submitting comments on the seeping document be extended by two to three months. Tours of the Valley
to view private and Forest Service homes where participants can apply the standards and guidelines were
suggested.
It was stated that the Forest Service should make sure that what is being proposed does not conflict with what
the counties require. Relief was expressed that the Forest Service acknowledges the planning and zoning
ordinances set forth for Stanley and Sawtooth City. Comments also suggested that the new standards and
guidelines must relate to the land use categories of Agriculture. Mineral. Residential and Designated Commu­nities.
A number of people expressed the opinion that the proposal goes beyond the law. resulting in a •taking of
private property rights" and that people need to be compensated for this •taking•. Concern was also ex­pressed
regarding the effect these standards and guidelines could have on property values - people made
investments when they purchased the property and if they can't build what they had planned to build, they
feel the value of their property will have decreased.
1
􀀂􀈠
!
It was suggested that the Forest Service should incorporate outside consultants. preferably architects,
landscape architects and other professionals, as part of a review board for evaluating future projects on the
SNRA. Offers were made by some professionals to serve on a review board as well as to assist the Forest
Service with the current effort of developing written and illustrated historical building standards and guide­lines.
It was also expressed that the use of outside consultants may be a violation of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. Suggestions were made that decisions regarding private property owned by Forest Service
employees should be made by·personnel outside the local agency.
Several respondents state that the Forest Service has no authority to regulate development on private
property. It was also suggested that the proposed design standards are too restrictive and contribute to
fueling the •anti-government• fire.
Some expressed interest in restorat:on of historic buildings and the need to document SNRA history.
Comments were listed that said private property previously purchased already has restrictive covenants that
govern individual subdivisions. Some people stated that their scenic easements do not contain language that
addresses the types of restrictions being proposed with this project.
A number of people mentioned that one of the reasons people invested in private land within the SNRA is
that so little has changed over the years and the regulations and scenic easements help preserve the beauty
of the area. Several people mentioned they wanted to keep the "Ketchum/Sun Valley• architecture out of
Sawtooth Valley and Stanley Basin. Some fetters also commented on their dissatisfaction with what Is taking
place on some properties encumbered with scenic easements.
A few people suggest that standards should be different for those residences visible from Highway 75 as
compared to those not visible from the Highway and hidden in the trees.
Some letters point out that homes recently certified by the SNRA do not conform to the proposed changes
in maximum home size. height, ridgelines and design elements.
A number of people commented that the Jaw e􀄙􁥴tablishing the SNRA allows for adaptation for ct:langing needs
and technology. They felt that the law allows the flexibility to accommodate modern needs, as historic size
was no longer appropriate for new residences. They suggest a blend of historic values with appropriate
environmental considerations and modern techniques by taking into consideration technological advances
which permit design and construction of facilities that are environmentally sound and energy efficient. Some
people suggest !3d that while it is appropriate to preserve and maintain the historic values of the SNRA, it was
inappropriate to freeze the SNRA in time.
Some offered that the intent of the original legislation was not to specify a narrow historic period or geographic
areas as a basis for determining acceptable architectural styles for future building construction. The intent
was to stop the development of numerous small subdivisions which threatened to mar the majestic scenic
values, and eliminate future subdivision of parcels and limit density.
MAXIMUM SIZE LIMITATION
People submitted comments on both sides of this particular subject. Some there that there was no need to
set a limitation on the maximum square footage and that each residence should be evaluated on 􀀃􀌠 case by
case basis, taking into consideration the overall setting. Others felt that there needed to be a max.mum size
limit. A range of maximum size limit was offered from 2,000 to 4,000 square feet.
Some people commented that they were pleased with the decision to make some changes and stated that
they favored smaller and more rustic buildings. Others suggested that the function and purpose of houses
built today is different than they were when the Valley was originally settled.
2
Other comments advised that people purchasing private land within the SNRA need to have a home of
adequate size for guests and family to enjoy the scenery and recreation opportunities. They felt the proposed
1,580 square foot limit does not allow room for family, guests, and seasonal recreation equipment.
Some suggestions were made that the maximum size should be expressed in terms of ground floor space.
or footprint, rather than square footage. It was also suggested that a more definitive description of what "living
space• means may help people understand the proposed 1 ,sao square foot figure. Also, does this figure
include basements, decks, porches, garages, roof overhangs, and so forth?
It was also suggested to determine the maximum size of residence based on a percentage of land covered
in the lot or acreage.
Some stated that the atempt to limit square footage is a not so cleverly disguised effort to control use of
private property without paying for tha1 prerogative. They oferthat aray restrictions that will substantially affect
the value of private properties will effectively eliminate that class of buyer who desires better homes.
Some people commented that the maximum size should not be determined by statistics derived from
dwellings constructed over an indeterminate time period and during multiple economie situations. They offer
that standards should be based upon tangible and supportable evidence and then modify as the agency sees
fit based on the area, weather swings and life styles.
It was mentioned that the Forest Service had set a minimum of 750 square feet in 1974 that would allow for
homes larger than the average historic homesteads, which were 600 square feet. They suggest allowrng
flexibility to accommodate modern needs, as historic size is no longer appropriate for new residences.
Some input indicated that there is nothing in PL 92-400 or the Private Land Regulations that references a
maximum size or Jiving space for a single family residence.
A number of people stated that limiting the size of new home construct(on may decrease the value of
undeveloped land and Increase the value of larger homes already built.
Some commented that the economy of the SNRA and Stanley Basin is based on tourism and tourists cannot
be adequately serviced without the residents providing service to them. They suggest that the resident labor
force needs more than 1,580 square feet for a family home.
WINDOWS
A number of people commented that small windows were used in historic homes because that was all that
was available. The single pane windows available contributed to heat Joss, and building materials and
windows had to be transported on primitive roads. Larger and insulated windows are available today. which
allow less heat loss, contribute to solar gain, and allow enjoyment of the spectacular views within the SNRA.
They felt the goals of the SNRA can be achieved while allowing for larger windows.
It was also suggested that irregular shaped windows contribute to the interest of the building design. Others
suggest that windows that follow the roof line are not obtrusive. Some offered that the reason people
purchased the particular piece of property they did was tor the view and limiting the size of windows would
not allow them to allow the view they purchased. Others suggested that better definitions/descriptions
needed to be provided, i.e., windows will not dominate wall surfaces, etc. Also. does the term "divided panes•
include snap in grids or embedded grids?
·
Some people commented that non-traditional window design, when used minimally, allows a bit of character
to a generic log cabin. They offer that the proposed historic log cabin look, in quantity throughout the valley.
would render more of a tract housing look than historic look.
3
·􀀇􀜠
!>
?
Several people commented that skylights were not addressed and wondered if these were not allowed or just
not encouraged.
OTHER DESIGN FEATURES
Many people felt that the proposed standards and guidelines regarding root lines were far too restrictive.
resulting in •tess interesting• buildings.
Some comments stated that the proposed building shapes were irrelevant by offering that before the ranch
era the Native American period were round, conical shapes.
A number of people objected to the proposal that building height be limited to 1 1/2 stories. Many suggested
that two stories would be more appropriate. Some suggested 1 1/2 stories for buildings located in the open
valley and two stories for buildings in timbered areas. It was also expressed that the design standards show
a lack of local knowledge of winter conditions - 20' height limit would not allow for roof pitch for self removal
of snow. Otber input Indicated that standards which do not include an A-frame design in heavy snow country
do not make sense. They offer that A-frame design is found in all types of mountain development.
It was also suggested that carports make good sense for capitalizing on open space rather than creating a
need for new buildings.
Comments suggested that natural earthtone colors are acceptable. although brown is not the only dominate
earthtone in the SNRA. They offered that seasonal earthtones are a major component of the scenic beauty
of the area.
Some people expressed concern that wooden or shake roofs contribute to fire hazard.
Some comments suggest that additional design elements including native stone exteriors and fireplaces. sky ·
lights, sliding glass doors, and cold roofs need to be addressed.
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
A number of people commented that some people have chosen to ignore the scenic easements and
regulations and that the Forest Service needed to enforce the existing restrictions.
It was mentioned that the proposed standards are too restrictive and may be hard to enforce.
It was suggested that there be coordination between the Forest Service and the counties to insure that
requirements do not conflict.
Others commented that adding new reguiations will not address the problem of violations of existing rules.
They feel the Forest Service should improve their easement administration review process and work harder
at providing more consistent administration of the existing regulations.
Several people asked the question about what will happen to existing buildings that violate the new stand­ards.
AGENCY AUTHORITY
Several people commented that the government cannot add restrictions or reduce private properly rights
without just compensation. Other comments mentioned that the Forest Service does not have any statutory
authority to enforce restrictions. zoning codes. or land use regulations on property without easements.
4
·􀀊􀨠
Some commented that the Forest Service has no authority to regulate any use on private land.
Some people suggested that aesthetics should be left to the individual and that design standards as
proposed are an ill-advised attempt to control building shapes and designs beyond any authority contained
in existing laws, regulations or easements.
SAWTOOTH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BUILDINGS
A number of people commented that the SNRA headquarters building north of Ketchum does not meet the
historic standards. Also, several comments were directed towards Forest Service housing at Stanley and the
State Fish Hatchery
not meeting these standards and guidelines. They feel that the Forest Service isn't setting the right example
and that the agency needs to comply as well.
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Several comments stated that the Forest Service did not address native stone for facing foundations and
fireplace chimneys.
Many people supported the use of logs, board and batten, rough lumber and wooden shakes. However, a
fair number of people strongly feel the Forest Service should not encourage or propose wooden shake roofs
because of the fire hazard they present. These people commented that many agencies. including the Forest
Service, strongly advise against the use of shake roofs in wildland areas. Concrete, asphalt composition or
other manmade materials for roofing materials are very acceptable from an aesthetic point of view and can
have a distinct advantage over wood in terms of fire resistivity.
Some people suggest that if building materials are available that meet appearance requirements. they should
be 􀃍􌵬llowed, specifically metal siding as this type of material requires less maintenance and is not damaged
by birds.
Some input suggests that the requirement of wooden exteriors precludes the construction of fireproof
buildings.
LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY
Several people svggested that building sites not visible from the highway. or adjoining neighbors, should be
given different consideration from sites visible from these two standpoints.
Some people felt that if clustering included a residence and barn or stables, the facilities should be far
removed from each other - need to consider sanitation, environmental and aesthetics. Geologic, hydrologic
and topographic factors, not clustering considerations, must be fully analyzed to assure proper siting.
It was suggested that the clustering criteria, as proposed, is too confining. A 1 0% criteria, leaving 90% open
is more realistically appropriate.
Others suggested that building in open meadows should be curtailed and forced back into trees or valleys.
VEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING
Many comments suggested general agreement with the proposals for vegetation and landscaping. Some
expressed concern that anybody who wanted to plant a tree would have to get permission to do so.
5
·􀀃􀌠
{>
Others suggested that landowners should have the freedom to determine what fits in with the natural
surroundings or add to the natural beauty of the SNRA. Some commented that the use on non-native
materials may be appropriate in some projects since homesteaders did plant ornamenral and fruit-bearing
trees on these historical properties.
It was suggested that it would be appropriate to get specific input on landscape design and materials from
professional landscape architects and designers.
Some commented that the landscaping design flies in the face of all the Forest SeNice has done 1n the past
as large easements have been paid for tree planting in open areas.
Comments were ofered that the strict limitations on tree removal needs to be expanded. They stated that
there are valid reasons to remove iive tmes -forest hf.:alth. f:􀁲􇈹9 !"!az􀁩􆦷··d rerfuction. It was stated that the proposal
may be contradictory to what the Blaine County Fire Department is requiring for new homes with regar9s 10
having trees close to houses.
OUTBUILDINGS
Some people felt that the current standard, no more than two outbuildings with total of 400 square feet, is
too restrictive. It is suggested that this be reconsidered to have structures that would house two vehicles and
storage. Comments offered included 800 square feet to house tractors and winter equipment, such as snow
machines and snow blowers. 􀄆􀙥esidents do not want to add this type of structure to their residence because
of risk of fire.
OTHER COMMENTS
A suggestion was made by the Castle Trust to trade for the land now occupied by the SNRA headquarters
building north of Ketchum tor property they currently own up Boulder Creek.
It was offered that part of the current problem is attributable to the Forest SeNice transferring and reass1gn1ng
employees before they can get an understanding of the problems and solutions.
Some felt that the proposed changes seemed to be aimed at small landowners and give no concern to large
property owners. They suggest that past experience shows that money talks and the regulations go out the
window in the face of wealth and notoriety.
Comments were submitted that stated the destruction of sconeay c.nd nir qt•ality in the SNRA by snow
machines has far greater impact on the historic, pristine and aesthetic qualities in the area than any buildings.
Some people felt that something n􀄇􀝥eds to be done about the use of sno􀄈􀡭mobiles in the SNRA.
6
.,