HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 2024 PNZ MinutesPage 1 of 10
LINCOLN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, May 22, 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 ORDERKaren called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. A quorum was established.
II. INTRODUCTION OF PZC MEMBERSPlanning Commission Members: Karen Anderson, Chair Allen Smoot, Vice Chair Tom Crank
Chad Jensen Pam Price (Absent) Lincoln County Staff: Stephen Allen, Chief of Staff / Interim Planning Director Austin Dunlap, Deputy County Attorney
Elizabeth Williams, Planner II Katie Gipson, Planner I Mikayla Hibbert, Planner I
III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Allen made a motion to adopt the amended agenda. Chad seconded. Motion carried 4-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTESKaren questioned if anyone had any proposed changes to the April 17th meeting minutes. Karen proposed two amendments to the minutes. Tom made a motion to approve the April 17th minutes with
the requested amendments. Allen seconded. Chad abstained. Motion carried 3-0.
V. DEVELOPMENT REPORTMikayla presented the Development Report for March 25, 2024 to April 28, 2024. Chad questioned the definition of Barndominium. Mikayla answered that a Barndominium is a barn with
living quarters and that Planning Staff can look at adding a definition to aid the Planning and Zoning Commission. Karen requested Planning Staff to develop a definition for Barndominium. Chad motioned to direct staff to create a definition of Barndominium. Tom seconded. Motion carried 4-0. Austin joined the meeting at 6:14pm.
VI. 104 MA 24 Trespass Ranch SubdivisionElizabeth presented the project with a recommendation to table the project to the July 24, 2024 meeting. DRAFT
Page 2 of 10
Karen questioned if tabling to July 24, 2024 was okay. Austin answered that Planning Staff has the ability to table one time and this would not exceed the limit to table.
Karen questioned if public comment needed to be honored despite a tabling. Austin answered
that public comments can be held and if chosen not to hold the Public Hearing, the project would need to be re-noticed. Karen requested comments from the Board on whether or not to table the project. Chad requested reasoning for the requested tabling. Elizabeth answered that there were concerns with the county road,
road engineering and ditch easement concerns.
Karen questioned how the Public Hearing should be conducted if the Planning and Zoning Commission plans to table the project. Austin answered the Chair has the opportunity and the legal responsibility to have public comment, and that could be satisfied with one Public Hearing, but additional commenting at the upcoming meeting is up to the Chair’s discretion.
Karen stated that she would like to have public comment, commission discussion, as well as further
public commenting and discussion at the upcoming meeting the project would be tabled to the July 24, 2024 PZC meeting. Tom and Chad agreed to have public comment and discussion at both meetings. Chad questioned if open space was included for the 5 acre average. Elizabeth answered clustering is encouraged which is why open space is included in the average.
Karen clarified open space is never to become a lot for sale.
Chad asked if it was typical to assign open space a lot number. Elizabeth clarified it is not. Chad asked if the county road access in an email is one of the issues needing to be addressed by tabling.
Elizabeth answered yes among other concerns.
Chad found it odd that many county roads are being loaded up with road traffic, yet this area is the one in concern rather than the high traffic on other county roads. Elizabeth clarified it is not road traffic that is the concern, but the fences encroaching on the Right-Of-Way and finding solutions with neighbors.
Allen suggested including pond permitting in the staff report and that it is out of county control.
Elizabeth agreed to attach pond permits. Karen questioned the buildable area in open space 2. Elizabeth answered open space is allowed to be buildable by regulations in Chapter 7 for open space design. The buildable area in open space is not a residential use, but to be used as an equestrian
center.
Karen brought up public concern about disposal of manure. Elizabeth clarified it is an allowable use by the regulations. Karen stated concern about 5 acre average seeing as the proposed subdivision is not targeting affordable housing. Karen asked why lots are still at 3 acres especially on the river corridor. Lots 1-10
propose diversion from the pond to weave the Salt River through the lots to improve aesthetics. Karen
questioned why all these lots are proposed on the most scenic corridor in the county. Elizabeth answered that the density is allowed by the land use regulations and plat warnings have been added based on past plat warnings for the high ground water concerns. A test hole was done in November. Condition 6 addresses that a DEQ permit must be pulled meeting the 6 foot difference
between groundwater and septic in order for the lot to be considered buildable.
Karen felt that some of the initial concerns from even the sketch plan have not been addressed and has concern over losing that corridor. Karen questioned the use and purpose of the pond permit with the river being so close with major concern for lots 1-10. Diversion of the river changes the use of the DRAFT
Page 3 of 10
river and what is put into the river. Karen would like to know how the open space will be irrigated. Tom questioned the purpose of the two different acreage numbers shown for each lot and which
number is being used for the 5 acre average.
Karen asked for any other questions or concerns from the Board and encouraged staff to review previous staff reports and minutes regarding the proposed project. Karen opened comments from the Developer. Scott Scherbel was the developer’s representative. Developer Tim Costen was also present. Scott
stated the Commission previously approved development with a vote of 3-2 with the 2 votes against
being for the 5 acre lots and river frontage concerns. River frontage concerns have been addressed in removing ⅓ of the lots from 15 to 10 and the lot size going from 2 acres to 3 acres. Acreage in parentheses is the usable acreage whereas the full acreage includes the amount of the acreage in the road. Septic concerns of 50’ setback from river in original proposal. Buildability is enhanced with the
added acreage to each lot. Septic movement is 74’ in 3 years in this area while E. coli dies within 2
years. Setback from the river is 150’ for septic which is double the septic movement to address the concern of pollution of the river. Every 3-5 years the river will flood periodically. A diversion ditch along the south side of the road should address this concern. County regulations allow the proposed density. Developer would like to have an equestrian area and shop in the open space that is not
residential. Open space is for scenic and aesthetic purposes and the pond has been permitted and is not
being illegally used; it is permitted for recreation, fishing, and irrigation. Property has irrigation rights provided by the state to irrigate the open space. There will be no increased traffic on the county road as it will only be used as an emergency access. Scott recommended adding a condition that the south part of the looped road be reserved as emergency access only with no residential traffic. Flooding is not a
high volume turbulent flooding but sheet flooding that starts over half a mile away to the south.
Flooding will not wash away the road so there should not be a need for an engineered road. No wells will be within the 74’ travel time. Ditch easements are within the road easement as is not currently shown but can be added. The pond is and will be used as has been permitted. While all subdivisions in the county have added road traffic, it will also bring benefits of income and better shopping. The larger
the lot, the harder it is to keep up the aesthetics. The main channel of the river is now on the east side
while this project is on the west channel. The aesthetics will not be highly impacted down by the river. Scott requested a recommendation of approval with the few added conditions for the emergency road. Tom asked for clarification on buildable open space not being residential, but does it open up opportunities for commercial use.
Scott answered it will not be commercial but for subdivision uses only.
Karen questioned who will maintain the equestrian center. Scott answered the HOA. Austin asked if there are limitations on the size of the equestrian center and the shop. Scott answered the limitations will be decided by the HOA to determine what is appropriate.
Tom asked for clarification in the Development Agreement on what will be allowed to be built
on the open space. Scott stated it is a limited use and all buildings will have to go through the county building permit process. The purpose of the equestrian center would be to provide extra stabling for any lot owners that own horses. Equestrian center is more of a concept than a building which is why there is no
absolute definition.
Karen clarified the three permitted uses of the pond are recreation, fishing and irrigation. It is the Board’s responsibility to follow and support the Comprehensive Plan which includes protecting the river corridor and scenic byway. They need to think about the potential build out as all 25 lots have potential DRAFT
Page 4 of 10
to build out two residences and two septics per lot. Consider making one enhanced septic system requirement per lot with the main house and guest house tied to the same septic with one individual well
per lot. Sprinkler systems cause nitrates from fertilizers to go into the river.
Scott stated the 150’ setback as determined by the County Commissioners meets the goals and requirements and expectations of the Comprehensive Plan. Its current use as an agricultural property with a sprinkling system causes runoff and E. coli to go into the river, there would be less of this as a residential use than as a ranching use.
Karen questioned fencing plans.
Scott clarified the property is already fenced. No further discussion amongst the Board. Karen opened the public hearing. Tyler Brog, neighbor of the project stated that the county road is a concern with the road easement being 33’ from fence post to fence post and the road being 18’ wide. Trespass should go out to
the east on Prater Lane. Snow removal is another concern as there is nowhere to put the snow with the
fence blocking it off. The return ditch will not carry enough water. Tyler proposed monitoring wells, but if the wells go bad where does that leave the land owners. Tim Costen stated the county road is not the desired exit but is required by the county for emergency access in the case of a fire as the road will be gated with the fire department having the key.
The current neighbor fences are within the right of way and encroach on snow removal. Willing to work
with everyone to address concerns. Karen requested a reminder on where the subdivision sits on the restriction of basements. Tim tried clustering, it did not work but they did not add back in those lots. Karen asked about taking lot 6 and putting it back into the average acreage since it’s not
buildable.
Elizabeth clarified it is up to DEQ to determine it as buildable or unbuildable for septic permits. Thomas Salem has not been receiving any notices in the mail and has had to receive information second hand even though he is within 300’ of the project. Snow removal is a concern as the snow will just be pushed to the gate, there may be issues plowing from the county road turned to a private road.
Thomas would like the concerns addressed to be put in writing.
Joe Eggleston’s concern was if the property has a right to irrigation. There is some degree of flooding every year and have had a ditch run over in previous years not able to handle the flooding which affects their farming of alfalfa. The valley and the river is changing, there is now more water in the slough than in the river. Everything needs to be offset 25’ from the irrigation pipe for when it breaks
including the fence.
Mark Luthi had concerns about the emergency route and ensuring lot owners will not be using that road. Kent Jenkins, neighbor of the project, had concerns about the groundwater where he was the highest property near the river and still had high ground water. There was concern over the locked gate
being blocked by snow in the winter in the event of an emergency as that is where the snow removal is
stored. Fred Brog had concerns about water flow as all the drainage comes from the west hills, that area becomes like an aquifer. He has always had good water and is concerned that the more people they bring in it will mean the possibility of contamination with no one to fix it once the lots are sold.
Joe Eggleston was concerned about the 25 wells that will be needed for the 25 lots.
Scott clarified the county road easement is 60’ wide that is fenced at 33’ by the neighboring properties as the fences are within the easement causing no room for snow removal. The snow should be pushed on the north 24’ of the easement to not block the gate. The designed ditch is to begin at the swell DRAFT
Page 5 of 10
to pick up all the water from the flood zone based on the topography to carry 14 cubic feet per second which should be more than efficient to mitigate the flooding. The pipeline is within the 60’ road
easement but there is a 17’ distance between the pipeline and the as-built road.
Karen closed the public hearing. Allen asked if there is enough time to table the project until the next meeting in June and still public notice it. Elizabeth answered the request to table the project to the July meeting is for time to reach out to
the State Engineer’s Office and DEQ as well as internal discussion on the roads.
Stephen stated the public noticing requirement has already been met. Karen asked if the project is tabled is a reason required. Austin said no they just need to certify what date to pick it back up. Chad motioned to table the project to the July 17, 2024 PZC meeting to allow staff time to
review and do more necessary research. Allen seconded motion. Motion carried 4-0.
Karen would like to require the project to be re-public noticed for the July 17, 2024 meeting. VII. 116 MA 23 Elk Flatts Subdivision Mikayla presented the project. The developer’s representative was present.
Chad questioned the access point.
Mikayla clarified access is on East Etna Road on Co. Rd. 110. Marlowe added it is north east of nordic ranches with a subdivision road continuing into the Stewart Creek subdivision. Chad asked about existing houses.
Mikayla stated there are no houses but there are 3 auxiliary buildings, one being a barn permitted
in 2021 and the other 2 being under 800 square feet and were not required to be permitted. Karen asked about enhanced septic requirements. Mikayla clarified septics will be permitted through DEQ as it is within the well-head protection zone, this is a Condition of Approval. The septics will not be permitted through the County.
Karen asked for developer’s comments.
Marlowe stated the road is designed according to county standards and regulations. Ryan Erickson presented on Chapter 23 Study and Well-Head Protection Zone. Septic systems are required to be designed by a Wyoming licensed professional engineer. Ryan Erickson with Sunrise Engineering showed a map of a very large Well-Head Protection
Zone that is more than should be required. Engineered systems are required within Well-Head
Protection Zones, the treatment system should be designed to reduce the nitrates to less than 10 and provide removal of pathogens. The system will be left up to the engineer and DEQ but will need to meet those requirements, systems are not required to be an enhanced system. Chad questioned item 5 on the fault lines through lot 6 and 7.
Marlowe said this plat warning was requested by the Planning Staff.
Chad wondered if there is an actual drop or typical fault line. Marlowe showed the southeast corner is the foot of a hill but there is no abrupt fault line; we know there are fault lines through all of Star Valley without being visually obvious. The plat warning is to remind all lot owners of the fault lines.
No further questions for the developer. No public comments. Move to discussion among the
Board. No discussion among the Board. Allen motioned to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners with Findings A. through C. and Conditions 1 through 6 and a recommendation to sign the Development Agreement. DRAFT
Page 6 of 10
Tom seconded. Motion carried 4-0.
Project will be heard at the June 5, 2024 BCC Meeting.
Chad questioned road requirements. Mikayla clarified it to be a 26’ roadway width. VIII. 117 MA 23 Bedford Meadows Estates
Elizabeth presented the project.
Tom questioned cul-de-sac and 60’ access easement being the only access for the neighbors. Elizabeth clarified the property in question is owned by the current developer and is not being proposed to be developed at this time. Karen questioned existing wells on the properties.
Elizabeth will need to check with the State Engineer.
Discussion among the Board. Marlowe addressed the access question by Tom. There is a second access to the east neighboring property called Buttercup Lane through the Sunrise subdivision. Tom questioned utility easements or lack of on the plat.
Marlowe said they are not shown on the plat, but are listed in the 4th paragraph with easements
granted to the utility companies. The easements can be added to the final plat. Karen would like to have the easements to be listed on the plat as a Condition of Approval. Discussion of how to word the Condition of Approval for easements. JoAnn Warner, northwest neighbor across the street from the proposed development, was
concerned about culinary water from Bedford and how the subdivision will impact the water supply as
well as the number of septics on 8 lots and how it will affect the groundwater. JoAnn expressed concern about the county road access on Co. Rd. 123 and wondered if roads are adequate for emergency vehicles. Can the 5 acre lots be re-subdivided. Chad responded that the lots cannot be further subdivided at this time.
Marlowe verified lots are not planned to be subdivided again and a requirement can be added to
the plat. Taxes are market based. If everything sells low, taxes will drop. If prices go up so do taxes. Robert Hood with Sunrise Engineering as the engineer for the Bedford Water and Sewer district presented a 2019 study and improvements allowed for 180 connections to be added to 320 existing connections. Bedford has the capacity for the connections proposed by this subdivision.
Karen inquired if guest houses affect the water availability and how that will be handled.
Robert said the guest houses do affect the availability, but are currently easily handled by the water district as they continue to make improvements to remain ahead of demand. Chad asked about irrigation and culinary availability. Robert referenced rules stating if there is irrigation available those are required to be used; if
irrigation is not available, Bedford Water will allow the connection. The water system was reconstructed
in 1990. Marlowe asked if this system is closed with no room for growth and expansion. Robert said the district is open to adding additional connections and making improvements with fees established at a $5,000 connection fee, currently in the process of updating fee policy to save
money for as needed improvements.
JoAnn asked if the irrigation company pays for it or the developer. Marlowe answered that nothing changes with the amount of water in irrigation just allocated to 8 lots instead of one, no additional water is needed. This project will have a Water Right Distribution Plan. DRAFT
Page 7 of 10
Septic systems were addressed by the Chapter 23 study with no problems found. Wyoming Licensed Engineer must design the septic system. The engineer and DEQ have indicated no pollution should
occur. Development will bring additional traffic. The county road is adequate for emergency vehicles
with a 60’ easement, it is a chip and seal road. County will do improvements when deemed necessary in the event the road is less than adequate. No further questions for Marlowe. Karen closed the public hearing and opened discussion from the Board.
Stephen stated the county is under contract to redo the Master Transportation Plan this year.
Karen questioned having a chip sealed road as a Condition of Approval. Elizabeth clarified the county road is chip sealed, the subdivision road is only required to be graveled. Karen requested to add no further subdividing as a point 6 Condition of Approval.
Discussion on phrasing of Condition of Approval.
Karen went over proposed Conditions of Approval points 5 and 6. Allen motioned to recommend approval to Board of County Commissioners with Findings A. through C. and Conditions 1 through 4, add condition 5 to add easements to the plat and condition 6 to add no further division of any lots and recommend Commissioners to sign the Development Agreement.
Tom seconded.
Discussion on 10’ easement versus just easement. No further discussion. Motion carried 4-0. Project will be heard at the June 5, 2024 BCC Meeting.
IX. 201 MS 24 BJ Graham Subdivision Elizabeth presented the project. Karen asked if the Development Agreement addresses the weeds. Discussion over Development Agreement. Chad asked about Passey subdividing next to the
proposed subdivision.
Elizabeth answered that Passey has requested to subdivide but the paperwork has not been processed, Silver Spur is awaiting final plat. Chad asked about the letter from Bedford Water. Elizabeth verified the letter from Bedford Water has been received and can be added into future
packets.
Marlowe addressed Chad’s question about the canal easement. LUR’s require setback easements to be shown for buildings. There is a historical maintenance easement but LUR’s only require the setback easement. There are no recorded easements for most ditches and even canals. As long as it comes into the property and leaves property at the same place, the state doesn’t seem to care where it is
in between, though, the ditch owners might.
Property owner’s were present. No public comments. Public hearing closed. Move to discussion among Board members. Karen asked how fencing will be handled. Elizabeth offered waivers from neighbors can be included in the packets. The fencing is existing
on this subdivision and there are waivers from the Passeys and the neighbors to the south.
No further comments from the Board. Allen motioned to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners with Findings A. through C. and Conditions 1 through 4 with a recommendation to sign the Development Agreement. DRAFT
Page 8 of 10
Chad seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
Project will be heard at the June 5, 2024 BCC Meeting. X. 102 PZ 24 Land Use Regulations Amendment Road Standards Stephen Allen presented the project. Requested motion to find file complete and accept to move forward with a 30 day commenting period.
Chad commented on the amount of “mays” in the proposal.
No discussion from the Board. Allen motioned to accept the packet as complete. Tom seconded motion. Motion carried 4-0. Project will be heard at the July 24, 2024 PZC meeting.
XI. 103 PZ 24 Land Use Regulations Amendment, Shipping Containers as Storage Units
Stephen presented the project. Chad asked for motivation behind the proposal. Stephen answered it has been a concern discussed by the County Commissioners over the last few months. Commercial storage containers will be sent to State Fire Marshalls for inspection and allow
for the county to hold them to the IBC code.
Karen asked if there is a way to also discuss the aesthetics of the containers and possibly the age. Stephen answered aesthetics can be discussed before the 30 day commenting period. Discussion on clarification between personal / residential use compared to commercial use. Chad asked if they currently need a permit.
Stephen answered no unless usage is changed.
Karen asked about their use as tiny homes. Katie answered that living quarters need to be permitted regardless of square footage. Karen would like to discuss lighting and aesthetics regardless of zoning for commercial use. They will still be subject to a $750 fine per day for violations or require lot owners to remove them.
Address grandfathering.
Chad asked if the enforcement is also for residential use. Stephen clarified 2 or more is commercial, we do not want to restrict home owners from having their own personal storage. Tom asked if there will be a difference in permitting rural versus mixed zones on number and
size.
Stephen agreed commercial versus industrial should be discussed on the number of units. Karen asked if there will be a distinction between shipping containers and bully sheds. Stephen said they are addressed separately. Karen asked if additional discussion can be had before the project is submitted for a 30 day
commenting period.
Stephen said real discussion does not happen until the July 24, 2024 PZC meeting if the packet is accepted. Allen motioned to approve the packet with points discussed as attachment. Chad seconded motion. Motion carried 4-1.
Project to be heard at July 24, 2024 PZC meeting. XII. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS DRAFT
Page 9 of 10
Stephen explained that the county is budgeting to have the P&Z Commission attend the WyoPass
Conference. There are two conferences available, one in August another in June of 2025.
Mikayla added the August conference is a half day in Cheyenne. The one in June is a 2-3 day
conference, the location has not been determined.
Further discussion about the two WyoPass conferences.
Stephen thanked Tom Crank for his service, next meeting will be his last attendance. The county
is still looking at new candidates but they cannot live in a municipality. The county is still looking for a
Planning Director as well.
ADJOURNMENT Allen motioned to adjourn. Tom seconded motion. Motion carried 4-0.
Adjourned at 9:13pm
DRAFT
Page 10 of 10
The minutes from the May 22, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved on the _____ day of _________________ , 2024.
_____________________________________ _____________________________________ Chair Dated Director Dated
DRAFT