HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary PZC Mins DRAFT
Page 1 of 12
LINCOLN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, January 24, 2024 6:00 P.M. Locations: Video Conference between the following locations: Lincoln County Courthouse, Commissioner Boardroom, 925 Sage Avenue 3rd Floor, Kemmerer, WY & Afton Planning & Engineering Office, Conference Room, 61 East 5th Avenue, Afton, WY I. CALL TO ORDER
Karen Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm. A quorum was established. II. INTRODUCTION OF PZC MEMBERS
Planning Commission Members: Karen Anderson, Chair Allen Smoot, Vice Chair (Absent) Tom Crank Chad Jensen Pam Price (Absent) Lincoln County Staff: Stephen Allen, Chief of Staff Austin Dunlap, Attorney Amy Butler, County Engineer Marcus Fleming, Planning Director
Emmett Mavy, Planner II Elizabeth Williams, Planner II Katie Gipson, Planner I
Mikayla Hibbert, Planning Tech / Office Specialist III. AGENDA INTRODUCTION BY STAFF
Marcus welcomed everyone and thanked them for attending. Marcus stated that the agenda would follow as outlined, in addition to adding a discussion regarding special meetings for proposed Land Use Regulation modifications under Other Planning Matters. Karen stated she would also like to add officer elections to Other Planning Matters as well. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Karen questioned if anyone had any proposed changes to the November 15, 2023 meeting minutes. Chad proposed two amendments to the minutes. Chad made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Tom seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. V. DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Katie explained that there are two Development Reports in the packet due to there not being a Planning and Zoning Board Meeting in December. Katie presented the Development Report for October 30, 2023 to November 26, 2023. She stated that there were 8 Residential Use Permits in North Lincoln County, 37 Small
Wastewater Permits, 0 South Lincoln County, and 1 Zoning and Development Permit. Karen questioned the size of the guest home that was permitted and listed first on the report. Katie explained that the biggest a guest home can be is 1200 square feet, which is dependent on the lot size, and that the other square footage that is shown in
the report is for the adjoining garage and shop. Katie presented the Development Report for November 27, 2023 to December 24, 2023. She stated that there were 0 Residential Use Permits in North Lincoln County, 0 Small Wastewater Permits, 0 South Lincoln County, and 7 Zoning and Development Permits. Chad questioned what a met tower was. Katie explained that it
Page 2 of 12
is a meteorological tower that collects weather data. Chad questioned where the met towers were located. Katie stated that they are all to the east of Kemmerer, north of Highway 30, extending to the Exxon site. Karen asked
Stephen if he would like to add anything. Stephen stated that the County is monitoring these met towers because they generally precede wind farms. VI. 2024 MEETING DATES Karen asked for any discussion regarding the tentative 2024 Meeting Dates that were provided in the packet. Chad made a motion to accept the 2024 Meeting Dates as provided. Tom seconded. All in favor. Motion passed. Chad questioned how much notice was needed to move a meeting date. Stephen responded that it is situation based. VII. 102 RZ 23 REFUGE WEST FOURTH FILING REZONE Karen stated that the first three projects for discussion tonight all correlate. Emmett stated that Karen was
correct, that these projects are all correlating to one another, and gave more information on the process and why the Commission will see the three different project numbers tonight all corresponding to one another. Emmett presented the project. Emmett stated that this is a request to rezone 18.65 acres from Rural to Mixed Use in order
to accommodate for smaller lot sizes than currently allowed in the Rural Zone. Emmett stated that there are five applicants. Emmett stated that the property is located within the Alpine Community Plan Area. Emmett stated that the associated files are 104 MP 23 and 113 MA 23. Emmett explained that this rezoning proposal involves
Lots 1-6 of the Refuge West 1st, 2nd and 3rd Filings. Emmett stated that this application is concurrent with a Conditional Use Permit- Master Plan, File # 104 MP 23. Emmett showed the Commission the existing Mixed Use Zoning in the area and stated that rezoning the requested parts would be an improvement. Emmett stated that Planning Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission send a recommendation of approval for File 102 RZ 23, a Rezone for Refuge West Fourth Filing, with Findings of Approval A. through E. and a Resolution of Approval. Karen stated that she did call Emmett for more information on the commercial and residential uses that could be used in the Mixed Use Zone, and how it is determined what one is included in the plat. Emmett stated that within the Mixed-Use there can be residential, commercial, or both uses included in the plat. Emmett stated that this particular project includes only residential use on the plat. Austin clarified that the use that will be included on the plat is determined by the applicant. Discussion continued.
Chad questioned if the developers have received a Will-Serve Letter from Alpine. Emmett stated that the Will-Serve Letter is included in one of the other associated files, but that there has been one given. Marlowe Scherbel, the developer’s representative, stated that he would like to add that in the current CCRs of Alpine Village Subdivision it requires an approved Master Plan and Rezone for the smaller lot sizes, which is why this process is taking place. Karen opened up Public Hearing for this project. Hearing no public comment, Karen closed the Public
Hearing. Chad made a motion to send a recommendation of approval for File # 102 RZ 23, a Rezone for Refuge West Fourth Filing, with Findings of Approval A. through E., and Resolution of Approval. Tom seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. VIII. 104 MP 23 REFUGE WEST FOURTH FILING MASTER PLAN Emmett presented the project. Emmett stated that this project is a Conditional Use Permit Master Plan for the 18.65 acres in the Refuge West 1st, 2nd and 3rd Filings. Emmett stated that the applicants for this project are the same five on the rezone application. Emmett stated that the property is located within the Alpine Community Plan Area. Emmett stated that the associated files are 102 RZ 23 and 113 MA 23. Emmett stated that this project and Master Plan is to approve the overall layout of the project. Emmett stated that this is a request to Master Plan
the 18.65 acres Lots 1-6 of the Refuge West 1st, 2nd and 3rd Filings. Emmett stated that the Master Plan is to split Lots 1, 2 & 6 to create three new lots for a total of nine lots ranging in size from 1.5 acres to 2.14 acres in all four phases. Emmett explained that what is now Lot 1, a 4.01-acre parcel, will become Lots 7 and 8 with 2 acres and 2.01 acres. Emmett explained that Lot 2, a 4.16 acre lot, will become Lots 9 and 10 with acreage of 2.02 acres and
Page 3 of 12
2.14 acres. Emmett explained that Lot 6, a 4.06 acre lot, will become Lots 11, 12, and a Common Area with lot sizes of 1.72 acres and 1.40 acres. Emmett stated that he may have gotten the acreage for Lot 6 wrong but the
average will be a 2 acre average from the split of Lot 6. Chad questioned the lot sizes. Emmett clarified that on page 2 under the proposed master plan the 3rd bullet point has the acreage of each lot. Emmett clarified that Lot 11 would be 1.72 acres and Lot 12 would be 1.40 acres. Emmett explained that the proposed Master Plan subdivision layout could be confusing where the roads are. Emmett continued that County Road 100 is on the bottom of the plat as you go north on Alpine Village Circle and then transition to Alpine Village Loop, and that that is how you access Lot 7 and 8. Emmett explained that Lots 11 and 12 can be accessed from Alpine Village Circle, but to access Lots 9 and 10 you go up right before you get to Lot 12 then transition over from Funk Fairway which is a private subdivision road that goes up to Lots 9 and 10. Emmett stated that what looks like a subdivision road in the center of this subdivision is actually an airplane taxiway.
Emmett clarified that these lots were created as three different Simple Subdivisions, so there was not a Development Agreement or a Chapter 23 Study done. There has been a Chapter 23 Study done since that will be discussed in the Preliminary Plat part of the project.
Emmett stated that planning staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission send a recommendation of approval for File 104 MP 23, a Conditional Use Permit Master Plan for Refuge West 4th filing, with findings of approval A-D, and Conditions of Approval 1-4.
Tom stated that Lots 11 and 12 are under 2 acres with Lot 12 being 1.4 acres; he asked about the buildable space on Lot 12 and shared concern about the topography on the north and east end of that lot. Emmett stated that he had done a site visit on that lot and determined that the buildable area was over one acre. Emmett stated that it is on city water, so he does not see any issue with that lot size. Karen asked about there being enough snow removal area with the increased number of lots. Emmett stated that this subdivision, and the roads in it have been in place for over 10 years and there haven’t been any known issues and it’s a very well-kept neighborhood. Emmett confirmed that the roads on the Master Plan have a 60 ft easement. Emmett explained that on the private subdivision road Funk Fairway on the east side of the lots, every so many feet, there is a new airplane taxiway which creates space for fire trucks to turn around. Emmett stated that these are wider than a normal subdivision road. Marlowe stated that no new roads are being constructed, and the only new construction is the taxiway.
Karen asked about homes with hangers that have living quarters and if they can have more than one septic or well system. Emmett explained that they will have central water through Alpine. Marlowe stated that would be a choice and they would have to go through the County for that. Marlowe mentioned they are two acre lots, so there would be room to do separate or shared septic systems. Ryan Erickson, with Sunrise Engineering, stated that in the eyes of DEQ it does not matter if it is one or two leach fields as long as it is sized for the appropriate gallons per day for the number of bedrooms.
Stephen questioned if there were any surrounding areas of the proposed subdivision that were tied into Alpine’s wastewater. Ryan answered that there are none in this area tied into the wastewater, but only using Alpines water. Discussion continued. Chad questioned if there could be both a hangar and a guest home on the lot in addition to the main dwelling. Emmett stated that there could only be two living dwellings, so if there is living space in the hangar then they cannot have a stand-alone guesthouse. Emmett continued that if there are no living quarters in the hangar then they could have all three buildings. Emmett stated that he believes that two septic systems would be a better design. Karen asked if there was any slope. Emmett answered that these lots are relatively flat. Karen opened up Public Hearing for this project. Hearing no public comment, Karen closed the Public Hearing.
Tom made a motion to send a recommendation of approval for File #104 MP 23 a Conditional Use Permit - Master Plan for Refuge West Fourth Filing, with Findings of Approval A. through D. and Conditions of Approval 1. through 4. Chad seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
Page 4 of 12
IX. 113 MA 23 REFUGE WEST FOURTH FILING PRELIMINARY PLAT Emmett presented the project. Emmett stated that this proposal is for a Major Subdivision Preliminary
Plat application to subdivide 11.90 acres into six residential lots with the average lot size will be 1.89 acres in the Mixed Zone. Emmett stated that the lots will share private subdivision roads off of Old Alpine County Road 12-100. Emmett stated that these lots will have Town of Alpine water connections, and individually engineered enhanced septic systems that meet Wyoming DEQ standards. Emmett stated that the property is located within the Alpine Community Plan Area. Emmett stated that the associated files are 102 RZ 23 and 104 MP 23. Emmett stated that they are asking the developer to widen the roads to 24 ft. Emmett went over the correspondence that was received on the project. Emmett stated that planning staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission send a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for File # 113 MA 23, a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, with Findings of Approval A thru C., Conditions of Approval 1 thru 5., and a recommendation for the Board Chairman to sign the Development Agreement. Karen questioned the expiration date that was included in the Will-Serve Letter from the Town of Alpine.
Emmett stated that they have started putting an expiration so that the letter is not open ended and makes it easier for them to track and plan. Karen asked Emmett to please explain why the Will-Serve Letter stated that the Town of Alpine’s water will not be used for irrigation and landscaping. Emmett explained that that is just a part of the
agreement with the Town of Alpine. Chad questioned what they were using for landscaping and irrigation. Emmett answered that he did not know, but that that can be addressed by the developer’s representative. Tom questioned if the water mains were already in that area. Tom questioned if the subdivision had to be
fenced due to the new state statute. Emmett answered that this subdivision would have to meet the state statute. Austin stated that there are different ways to meet this statute, and as long as they meet in some compacity they are fine. Discussion continued. Karen questioned if it should be added as a point in the Development Agreement. Emmett stated that they could add it as Condition of Approval 6. Emmett answered that the water mains already exist in this area. Karen questioned if the Board could require the soil cuts to be done in the spring for septic systems. Emmett answered that they cannot, but with the Chapter 23 Study being done and the enhanced engineered system he feels confident that they will be adequate. Marlowe Scherbel, developer’s representative, asked Ryan Erickson, with Sunrise Engineering, to come talk about the Chapter 23 Study done on the property. Ryan Erickson stated that there have been three Chapter 23 Studies done in this area, and that there is not shallow ground water issues in the area with the groundwater being
about 53 ft deep. Ryan stated for irrigation water there are existing wells on the property that will be used for any irrigation and landscaping. Ryan stated that Emmett was correct concerning the Will-Serve Letters from the Town of Alpine that they just wanted to have a control on the growth of the system and how long a will-serve letter would be good for. Ryan stated that there were very little nitrate number in the area, and the reasoning for the enhanced system is because of the two year travel time study that looks at the amount of time for harmful bacteria to reach the groundwater.
Chad questioned why using the existing wells for irrigation and landscaping is not included in the plat as a warning or a Condition of Approval. Discussion continued about the wording and adding it as a Condition of Approval. Tom stated that he does not think that it needs to be a Condition of Approval. Discussion continued further. Karen questioned if we could just use the language from the Mayor of Alpine’s Will-Serve Letter for the Condition of Approval. Marlowe commented on the issue of fencing the subdivision, and that it would be met one way or another. Marlowe questioned if the Board felt it necessary to add it as a Condition of Approval though, since all state statutes must be met. Discussion on fencing continued. Marlowe questioned the Condition of Approval to improve and widen road widths to 24 ft. Marlowe stated that there are no new roadways being created, just taxiways. Tom questioned why we would request the 24 ft road width when it is not a requirement in the Land Use Regulations. Emmett responded that it is a newer
standard that has come out of the Ad Hoc Road Design Committee and it is what the County would like to see moving forward. Marlowe stated that existing roads were not discussed in the Road Design Committee meetings. Marlowe stated that he would request that this Condition of Approval be removed as it is unnecessary and would destroy the landscaping already along the roadways.
Page 5 of 12
Brian Rowser, with Palisades Investments, LLC, stated that he would argue that the road expansion is not needed. Brian stated that each of these lots have roadway and taxiway on each side of them. Brian stated that
these additional taxiways, that are 100 ft wide, would have plenty of room for emergency services to turn around if need be. Brian stated that this subdivision involves two HOA’s that would have to be consulted if this Condition of Approval is approved. Brian stated that he would hate to request the removal of the mature beautiful landscaping to widen the roadways. Brian stated that he believes that the new accesses would decrease traffic on Alpine Village Loop, and that these will most likely be non-primary homes that would decrease traffic as well. Karen questioned Emmett if he would still request the 24 ft width roads. Emmett stated that he would still request the 24 ft width roads. Karen asked Amy if she had any comments on the requested road width from planning staff. Amy stated that she does not. Stephen rephrased the question asking if Amy sees any issues if the Board were to not require this existing roadway be widened to the 24 ft that planning staff is requesting. Amy stated that she does not see any issues with the subdivision using the existing 20 ft roads especially with all the additional roads and accesses in this area.
Karen asked the Board their thoughts about having the state statute as a Condition of Approval and if they thought it was necessary. Tom and Chad both said they did not. Chad questioned Emmett his thoughts on the Board not requiring the 24 ft width roads. Emmett stated
that the reason he was not asking for the cul-de-sacs is because of the extra taxiways. Emmett stated that he would be okay with whatever way the Board wanted to vote. Karen made a motion to send a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for
File # 113 MA 23, a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, with Findings of Approval A thru C., Conditions of Approval 1 thru 5. with revisions to 3. a. i, 1 and 2 to read 20 ft instead of 24 ft of paved travel ways and additionally to include point number 6 that would read landscaping irrigation for the project will be provided by a separate water service connection located on site, and a recommendation for the Board Chairman to sign the Development Agreement. Chad seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. X. 101 PZ 24 LAND USE REGULATION AMENDMENT Marcus presented the Land Use Regulation Amendment proposal. Marcus stated that this is a proposal to amend the Lincoln County Land Use Regulations in three sections that will address recent development issues including density, and lot design specifications. Marcus stated that tonight the Board must decide if this is a complete application to start the 30 day noticing.
Chad questioned where the wording for flag lots in section 6.11, D., 3 came from. Marcus stated that it was a collaborative effort from planning staff. Tom stated that a lot of the wording he proposed to Planning Staff in November was included in this section. Karen questioned if there was a definition for flag lot. Marcus stated that it is not defined, but planning staff hopes to add one. Tom questioned the different proposals included in this file. Tom questioned if they are each standing on
their own, or must move forward together. Stephen stated that staff made these proposals separate, so that they had the ability to stand alone; that one part of the proposal could move on if the Board didn’t want another to. Tom clarified that this is for the 30 day noticing. Marcus stated that this is correct and will come back before the Board after the 30 day notice. Tom stated that he thought that during the November meeting that the Planning and Zoning Commission came up with verbiage and made an approval then to start a 30 day notice on what was discussed then. Karen stated that she agrees that the language brought forth in that meeting was different than what is being proposed now. Stephen stated that with the new Planning Director coming on board, he recommended that Planning Staff come up with something together with him. Tom stated that part of the previous discussion included the problem with open space in past subdivisions and how to address that contributing to the average acre sizes. Tom continued stating that he does not see how this
proposal addresses this concern. Tom asked if the Board of County Commissioners have chimed in on what they would like to see. Emmett stated that this proposal takes out the average lot sizes, and just has a minimum lot size requirement. Emmett stated that the approval to start advertising today does not limit the Board’s ability to change
Page 6 of 12
or add anything when it comes back before them in March. Stephen stated that this proposal has been seen by the Board of County Commissioners.
Karen asked if there were any comment from the audience regarding this proposal. Rod Jensen presented the Planning and Zoning Board members in Afton with a handout titled, Star Valley / North Lincoln County Housing and Economic Metrics. Rod presented the contents of the packet (attached). The Planning and Zoning Board expressed gratitude to Rod for the presentation, and stated that they have similar concerns and hear and acknowledge his thoughts and concerns. Discussion continued. Marcus stated that what is being requested tonight is the approval to start the noticing. Marcus stated that making developers develop more infrastructure will allow them to get those smaller lot sizes according to the proposal. Tom made a motion to approve file 101 PZ 24 for a 30 day notice. Chad seconded. All in favor. Motion passed. XI. 114 MA 23 NORTH STAR RANCHES SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT Emmett presented the project. Emmett stated that this is an application for a Preliminary Plat Major Subdivision in the Rural Zone. Emmett stated that this project would subdivide 78.27 acres into 15 residential lots
with an average of 5.22 acres. Emmett stated there is a shared private road off of Perkins County Road 119. Emmett stated that there will be individual wells and septic systems for each lot. Emmett stated that Star Valley Weed and Pest required a weed management plan for the property. Emmett stated that Star Valley Conservation
District stated that there should be enhanced septic systems with no basements due to high ground water. Emmett stated that the State Lands and Investments stated in their correspondence that access across state lands require authorization from the state. Emmett stated that the lands under consideration are not owned by the state nor need to cross state land for access. Emmett stated that the Chapter 23 Study from Wyoming DEQ recommends safe and adequate individual wells and individual conventional septic systems marked on plat. Emmett stated that there is a long dead-end road with cul-de-sac, and the diagram included in the Staff Report labeled, Lincoln County Standard Drawings Bump Out Option #2, is not an adjudicated bump-out design in the Land Use Regulations. Emmett stated that the road travel way is 26 ft wide, and the cul-de-sac has a 70 ft radius. Emmett stated that planning staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission send a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for File # 114 MA 23, a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, with Findings of Approval A thru C., Conditions of Approval 1 thru 5, and a recommendation for the Board Chairman to sign
the Development Agreement. Marlowe Scherbel, developer’s representative, stated that the Lincoln County Standard Drawings Bump Out can be struck as that stamp doesn’t exist, and that the drawings were not adjudicated nor part of the Land Use Regulations. Emmett stated that the drawing has not been used in the regulations before, but it does give a visual of the dimension wanted for bump outs.
Chad questioned what was on the plat between lots 7, 8, and 9. Emmett responded that these are irrigation easements, in the Porto Pipeline Irrigation District. Emmett explained that the easement extends up west of the property line. Chad questioned why the lot lines were not the same on each side of the road. Emmett stated that he would allow the developer to respond to the subdivision layout. Chad questioned if planning staff was okay with the cul-de-sac. Emmett stated that a full platted bump out would be located on lot 9, and that staff approves of the layout. Emmett responded that having the wider bump out rather than a 60 ft easement allows extra space for turnaround. Tom questioned what the Land Use Regulations stated on cul-de-sacs, length of roads, and bump outs on cul-de-sac roads. Emmett responded that there is not a lot in the regulations, but that planning staff is working on a more detailed proposal that will be seen by the Planning and Zoning Commission in February. Emmett stated
that there has been a lot of discussion through an Ad Hoc Road Design Committee. Emmett continued stating that the hope is to add language regarding length of dead-end roads, and when bump outs are needed. Emmett stated that it would be up to planner discretion when dead-end roads would be allowed.
Page 7 of 12
Tom questioned if the current regulations say anything about bump outs. Tom questioned if we should be asking for the 20 ft width roads that are currently in our regulations or the 24ft width roads that are not currently
in our regulations. Tom questioned if a half mile cul-de-sac road requires a bump out. Emmett stated that these are not called out by regulations; however, due to looking out for the public’s health and safety, a road designed with bump outs is better long term. Tom questioned is there was an option for a looped road. Emmett stated that a looped road would be an option and preferred. Karen asked for clarification on the letter from the Office of State Lands and Investments. Emmett stated that the land on the other side of the County Road is State Lands, but the subdivision would never cross any part of those lands. Chad questioned why they were doing a bump out instead of a loop road. Marlowe responded that multiple roads around the lots makes less desirable lots, and that the bump out seems to be a better design. Chad questioned the Star Valley Conservation District’s letter regarding fences. Marlowe responded that
the agricultural land on the east sides 5 acre lots could run cattle. Marlowe continued stating that the State Statute is in conflict with wildlife friendly fences. Ryan Erickson, with Sunrise Engineering, stated the he performed the Chapter 23 Study in conjunction
with a professional geologist. Ryan stated that the water depth is almost 100ft deep. Ryan stated that one of the things that this study looks at is the two-year travel time, and that since the groundwater is deep in this area it would take longer than that two-year travel time for any unwanted bacteria to reach the groundwater. Ryan
concluded that is why there is not a requirement of an enhanced septic system Karen questioned if the non-enhanced system recommendation could change in the future? Ryan stated that the entire subdivision has a recommendation of conventional systems, but if a property owner has a perc rate that is not suitable for a conventional system then the septic system would have to be enhanced. Chad questioned the plat warnings about testing the wells. Ryan answered that this comes from DEQ and is something that every person with a well should do. Ryan stated that he doesn’t think it is necessary as a plat warning but recommended by DEQ. Karen opened up Public Hearing for this project. Hearing no public comment, Karen closed the Public Hearing. Chad made a motion to send a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for File # 114 MA 23, a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, with Findings of Approval A thru C., Conditions of
Approval 1 thru 5, and a recommendation for the Board Chairman to sign the Development Agreement. Tom seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. XII. 101 CUP 24 ALPINE AUTO CARE Emmett presented the project. Emmett stated that this project is a request for a Conditional Use Permit from Snake River Properties LLC. Emmett stated that the property is in the Alpine area in the Mixed Use Zone.
Emmett stated that the applicant would like to convert a commercial building used for Continental Construction since 1989, and make it an auto repair shop. Emmett stated that the main building would be half office space and half auto repair shop space. Emmett stated that the office space would be broken into two areas of upper office rented to businesses, and the auto repair shop will utilize office space on main floor. Emmett stated that where the existing shop is on the site plan is where the auto repair will be located. Emmett gave background on the property stating that this was originally roughly a 2 acre property that went through the Simple Subdivision process creating two lots. Emmett stated that the two lots have old highway accesses, and WYDOT has requested that any future business create one shared access on the south end. Emmett stated that the site plan shows the temporary driveway as well as the future approach that will become the main entrance. Austin clarified that the existing access will be abandoned when the new access is built. Emmett stated that he is correct, the condition from WYDOT is for the new access to not be built until the original access is abandoned. Chad questioned how the land was subdivided into 1.32 and 0.98 acres. Emmett explained it was allowed because it is in the Mixed Use Zone rather than the Rural Zone.
Page 8 of 12
Chad questioned what would happen if the shop and office space were used for different reasons other than those being approved tonight. Emmett responded that this permit is based on use, and so if the use changes,
then there would need to be a new permit. Emmett stated sometimes these new uses may just require a Zoning and Development Permit, but Auto Repair Shops require a Conditional Use which is why it is before the Board today. Chad questioned who would track the use of the land. Emmett responded that such as other violations, the Planning Office would look at it if notified. Emmett stated that the Assessor’s Office notices many violations and reports them to the Planning Office. Dusty Jones, the applicant, stated that the gentleman that will be running the shop has over 35 years of mechanic experience and owns a company in Teton County. Dusty stated that the other company in Teton County has been running for 20 years, and he’s never had a violation. Dusty stated that he will be in the upstairs office running his own company. Dusty stated he has been in communications with the mayor and several people of the public who really want this service in the area. Karen opened up Public Hearing for this project. Hearing no public comment, Karen closed the Public
Hearing. Chad made a motion to send a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for File #101 CUP 24, a proposal to establish an auto repair business within existing buildings, with Findings of
Approval A through D, and Conditions of Approval 1 through 15. Tom seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. XIII. 102 CUP 24 FLAT CREEK RV PARK
Emmett presented the project. Emmett stated that this project is in the Thayne Community Plan area and shares a border with the municipality. Emmett stated that this project is in the Mixed Use Zone. Emmett stated that this application is to make five changes to the existing RV Park. Emmett stated the requested modifications include: wanting to remodel and fix up Building 1 (red building is 3 sided seasonal equipment storage building) to make more useable, move laundry and bathrooms out of Building 2 (currently laundry, bathrooms and pumphouse) and leave it as only pumphouse / mechanical building, move laundry and bathrooms to building 3 that is currently an office, move the office to the green building and build little check-in office, construct Building 3 to be new laundry and bathrooms, and to construct Building 5 (10 unit storage facility) at back of property next to current storage area for tenants to rent out and assist in decluttering the RV Park. Emmett clarified this would be two new buildings added, and the three existing being modified. Emmett stated that the property does have an approved variance allowing it to have a 25 ft setback from the creek instead of the 50 ft variance that is in the
regulations. Emmett stated that that planning staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission send a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for File #102 CUP 24, a proposal to modify three buildings, and add two additional buildings, with Findings of Approval A through D, and Conditions of Approval 1 through 11. Emmett stated that the property owners were in attendance for questions. Emmett stated that the property sold about one year ago, and these are relatively new owners who want to fix up the property.
Chad questioned if the water is from the Town of Thayne or if there was an existing well. Emmett stated that there is a well by the entrance. Chad questioned if the 23 RV spots and four cabins are allowed to be used for rentals or long-term housing. Emmett stated that the previous approval will still be allowed, and that it is not being modified in this application. Emmett stated that the old RV Parks have no stipulation on long term stays, and there is no copy of the original permit. Austin questioned what the grandfathered use was. Austin stated that the term grandfathered use typically means some aspect of the project is not in compliance with current regulations, and was already in place when new regulations were imposed. Austin explained that once a use changes then it loses the grandfathered status. Austin questioned what exactly is grandfathered and if the proposed changes modify that use. Emmett answered that the size of land, with this density, in this location, would not be permitted today as an RV park with current
number of spaces. Emmett stated that he called it a grandfathered use to make it clear that the old permit is not being altered. Emmett clarified that only five things are being modified and they are not including the number of RV spots or cabins. Austin questioned why it would not meet current requirements today. Emmett responded that everything being altered in the request would not change the use of the property. Emmett stated that the current
Page 9 of 12
regulations require every spot to have a firepit, picnic table, and designated 10x20 parking area, and this RV park could not currently meet those standards, but those are not what is being modified. Discussion continued. Austin
questioned if the storage units change the use. Emmett stated that it would change the use if the storage units were available for outside rental, but these storage units are for tenants. Emmett stated that storage for RV parks are not addressed in the regulations. Emmett stated that this is not changing the fundamental use of the property, and that the storage is inconsequential to property not the primary use. Tom questioned if Building 2 that is going from a bathroom, laundry, and pumphouse to just a pumphouse, would be allowed to use the rest of the building for storage. Emmett answered that this is a very small building and would just be used as a mechanical equipment storage room. Tom questioned why there is more than one storage unit area. Emmett responded there is current storage for property equipment, and the other shown is for the proposed 10 storage units. Dave Allred, applicant, stated that the basic goal is to fix up RV park and make it more appealing. Dave stated that the RV and cabins can be month to month contracts. Dave stated that the storage units are for those
renting month to month, so the RV park is more cleaned up and presentable. Dave explained that they don’t want renters’ stuff to pile up as that affects desirable clientele. Dave stated that the storage units are not critical, but it would be nice to help keep the RV park clean. Dave explained why they were moving around the different
buildings. Austin questioned when the intended start date for these modifications would take place. Dave replied that whenever, weather permits they would get started. Karen questioned if the Board were to table the project if it
would create any hardship. Austin stated that if the Board is relying on him, he needs more time to be clearer on the grandfathered use. Chad stated that he sympathetic to the proposal, but he wants to be careful regarding a grandfathered use. Chad made a motion to table the project to allow further investigation on the grandfathered use until next months meeting. Tom seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. XIV. SKETCH PLANS a. MAJOR SUBDIVISION, THE SHIRE Emmett presented the Sketch Plan. Emmett stated that this project has two components. Emmett explained that there are two designs in the packet; the design colored with brown boxes is the approved master plan for The Shire in Etna. Emmett stated that the 4.8 acre project is in the Mixed Use Zone in the
Etna area. Emmett explained that the 12 units by the entrance to the east and west have been built and platted. Emmett continued that the next 4 units on the east have also been built and platted. Emmett stated that this Sketch Plan is to approve and change the Preliminary Plat for rest of the units. Emmett stated that the second design, not in color, is the desired permanent placement for the rest of the buildings in the Master Plan. Emmett stated that this is due to the actual logistics of the infrastructure of water and sewer, and roads and parking. Emmett stated that there are few changes from the original design, the same
number of units, the same plan, and the same road design. Emmett stated that the purpose of the Sketch Plan is to review the overall layout and changes presented. Emmett stated that the developer’s representative is present for questions. Chad questioned the septic system being used. Emmett stated that there is an approved UIC; each unit will have its own tank, and a combined leach field. Emmett stated that these are all approved directly through DEQ, and the construction for the UIC septic is already complete. Tom questioned if all units will be owned by one individual or broken into different lots to sell? Marlowe responded that these are townhouse style, so they can be owned separately. Marlowe stated the common areas, owning the land under the unit, and limited common elements, are the generally the common elements seen with these townhouse style units. Marlowe explained that a townhouse is described as owning the dirt under the unit. Marlowe stated that all central water and septic systems have been DEQ approved. b. MAJOR SUBDIVISION, HARMON SUBDIVISION FIFTH FILING
Page 10 of 12
Emmett presented the Sketch Plan. Emmett stated that this proposed subdivision is south of Afton. Emmett stated that there is one line to be deleted in the Sketch Plan Staff Report, under the
third paragraph under the proposal, the sentence should end at Rural Zone with the rest of the sentence deleted. Emmett stated that this subdivision has gone through a Minor Subdivision in the last year, and the new proposal is to split the two lots to the south from 11 acres to 5 and 6.5 acres and from 13 acres to 5 and 8 acres. Emmett stated that the two extra lots will trigger a Major Subdivision requiring a Chapter 23 Study. Emmett stated that the developer and property owner are present. Tom questioned if this was the same or different owners as the original proposal. Emmett stated that it is the same one as previously, but the previous had one additional owner who has since sold the property to Mr. Shifflet. Mike Shifflet, applicant, gave information on purchasing the land from the previous co-applicant. c. MAJOR SUBDIVISION, STAR VALLEY SPRINGS SUBDIVISION
Elizabeth stated that Brett Bennett, the developer’s representative, will present and answer any questions. Brett stated that the proposed subdivision is located on 49.5 acres that are both in the Mixed Use
and Rural Zone. Brett stated that 18 acres are in the Mixed Use, and 32 acres in the Rural Zone. Brett stated that 39.5 acres are within the Bedford Water District. Brett stated that this Sketch Plan proposal includes 27 lots plus a 10.5 acre parcel on far west of property. Brett explained that the attempt is to
not have the 10.5 acres in the Major Subdivision application. Brett stated that 23 of the 27 lots are in the Mixed Use Zone, and range from 0.51 to 1.17 acres which is consistent with table 6.1 in the Land Use Regulations with central water. Brett stated that there is nothing under 0.5 acres. Brett explained the layout with larger lots across Muddy String Road. Brett stated that the four lots in the Rural Zone are 5.27 to 5.42 acre lots. Brett stated that a Chapter 23 and traffic studies have been done previously, and will be consistent with the Star Valley Conservation District comments about using enhanced septic systems. Brett stated that the 10.5 acres west will be noted as remainder parcel, and he is unclear on the requirement of it being a lot but would like to leave it out of the subdivision. Elizabeth stated that the 10.5 acres needs to be in the subdivision with a lot number. If it were above 35 acres it could be exempted as a large tract, but with it being under 35 acres it needs to be in the subdivision with a lot number. Discussion continued. Karen called a point of order asking if
Emmett could speak on the matter. Stephen stated that Emmett could not. Brett questioned why it had to be in the subdivision, and where in the regulations it stated that. Elizabeth answered that it is based on state statutes and Definitions in Chapter 7, and it cannot be exempted since it is not above 35 acres. Brett stated that he will discuss the 10.5 acre lot with the owners. Brett asked the Planning and Zoning Board if they had any other insights on the layout of the proposed subdivision.
Chad questioned the 0.52 acre lots stating that they seem very small and asked if they would allow a house and guest house. Brett stated that for Mixed Use Zoning, and what the building envelope for that lot allows, there could possibly be a guesthouse. Stephen questioned if there has there has been a pre-application meeting prior to the Planning and Zoning Meeting tonight. Elizabeth stated that a pre-app had been done, and that due to the Mixed Use Zoning and being located within a water district the density is an allowed density. Discussion continued. Karen stated that this is a big modification from what was presented before and she does not see an issue with what is being presented. Stephen stated that planning staff states whether or not it meets Land Use Regulations, and besides that we cannot forecast what hiccups will be encountered. Marlowe stated that now is the time for the board to say anything they think may be a red flag or anything they want to see differently.
Page 11 of 12
Karen stated that she relies on the planner to help with these things, and she is not sure about the 10.5 acre remainder. Karen continued stating that this is significantly better than other proposals the
Board has seen, and she appreciate the attempts to modify from the previous proposal. Brett questioned Amy if there were any showstoppers or red flags with this layout from an engineering point of view. Amy responded that as far as the access on the county road, the credentials are still being met, and as far as the subdivision roads the planning office has direction of what they’re looking for on those. Amy concluded that she doesn’t see any red flags. Tom questioned if this should be a Master Plan. Brett stated that he would not like to do a Major Subdivision with phasing. Chad stated some concerns about the second house on such a small lot, and if that can be looked into and discussed before the Preliminary Plat. XV. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS
Marcus stated that the planning staff has been working diligently to make some changes to the Land Use Regulations, and in hopes of getting it public noticed in time for the next construction season he would like to schedule a couple of special meeting. Marcus proposed holding special meetings February 14th and March 13th.
Marcus stated these dates were picked because they were in between already scheduled Board of County Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. There was discussion about availability on those dates for special meetings. Due to availability, Karen stated that we will schedule for March 13th and notify Pam
and Allen of that date. Karen stated that in lieu of the fact that Pam and Allen were absent that she would move to table the agenda item to nominate officers to the next meeting. Stephen stated that it has been noted that nominations have been done historically in June and that we could wait to do it then. It was agreed upon to do nominations in June. ADJOURNMENT Tom made a motion to adjourn. Karen seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 P.M.
Page 12 of 12
The minutes from the January 24, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved
on the _____ day of _________________ , 2024.
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
Chair Dated Director Dated