HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 2024 PNZ Minutes
Page 1 of 6
LINCOLN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, June 19, 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 called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. A quorum was established.
II. INTRODUCTION OF PZC MEMBERS Planning Commission Members: Karen Anderson, Chair Allen Smoot, Vice Chair
Tom Crank (Absent)
Chad Jensen Pam Price 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
Chad made a motion to accept the agendas presented. Allen seconded. Motion carried 4-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Allen made a motion to accept the final copy of the April 17, 2024 minutes. Pam seconded. Chad
abstained. Motion carried 3-0.
Karen questioned if there was any discussion for the May 22, 2024 meeting minutes. Municipal requirements for Planning and Zoning Commissioners were questioned by Chad. Stephen clarified the requirements originating from the County by-laws. Allen motioned to approve the May 22, 2024 minutes. Pam seconded. Motion carries 4-0.
Austin joined the meeting at 6:08 pm.
V. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mikayla presented the Development Report for April 29th to May 26th. No questions were posed from the Commission.
VI. 105 CUP 24 TWIN PEAKS STORAGE Elizabeth presented the project with a recommendation of approval with Findings of Approval A.
Page 2 of 6
through D. and Conditions of Approval 1 through 5. Developers were present. Chad questioned what was permitted in the original Condition Use Permit.
Elizabeth answered the permit was for stick-built storage units with not all of the permitted
buildings being fully built out, the original permit did not specify the size of the property. Chad expressed his distaste for storage units and requested the status of the previous discussion on the foundation system under the storage containers. Elizabeth clarified that stick-built storage units were to be on concrete slabs and storage
containers were to be on corner stones.
Discussion regarding foundation requirements continued. Karen expressed concern over the impact proposed in the Rural Zone as per Chapter 1 of the regulations. Elizabeth explained there is a lack of a “low impact” definition in the regulations and the county
requests the consideration and recommendations of the Board for these unclarified definitions.
Stephen expressed that Staff is forced to move the project forward based on the allowances in Chapter 3 and brought forward the point of this project being on the scenic byway. Allen questioned the safety of the Highway access and the buffering requirements in regards to the size of the trees used for buffering, as well as recommendations for the colors of the storage
buildings.
Elizabeth explained the requirements in the WYDOT manual and the difference with the existing access to clarify the conditions proposed by the planning staff. The trees are required to be a minimum of four feet tall, but the width between the trees is not defined. The Board is allowed to make whatever recommendations they deem necessary.
Chad questioned the addressing of the code violations and the lack of public comment on the
project. Elizabeth clarified the proposal for the Conditional Use project would help to bring the property into compliance if approved. There is no existing proposal for a phase three, if there were one to be proposed, it would be an additional Conditional Use application.
Karen questioned the access requirements.
Elizabeth explained the need for the project to meet the requirements of WYDOT. The lighting violation was addressed and corrected by Emmett Mavy. Karen suggested having the lighting checked after the storage containers are put in. Wyatt clarified that they would be decreasing the footprint of the units being a total of 36 units
less than had already been approved in 2015. There are 76 units approved to the west of the canal, with
only 55 built out, with 20 shipping containers proposed for a total of 75 units. 75 units have been approved to the east of the canal, none have been built out, but they are proposing 40 storage containers for 35 units less than have been approved. Wyatt addressed the corner stone foundation concerns in expressing the structuring of the shipping containers puts all the weight on the corners and would mean
the whole center of the concrete pad would be wasted materials. The access that WYDOT suggested
closing is not the access that is in use for the storage units. The access off of the highway has been in use for a long time, it would be preferred to not move it if it is not required. Chad questioned the ability for Twin Peaks to add a third phase if there is room for more storage containers.
Wyatt answered he did not know if there was more room, but if more were to be put in, they
would be stick-built. Chad questioned if the containers in violation are currently rented. Wyatt answered that they were, and were put in between October and November of 2023.They
Page 3 of 6
are currently on railroad ties. Karen asked about the property being within any flood plain areas or earthquake zones.
Rick explained how the rope between the corner stones would assist in stabilizing the foundation
system for any seismic activity based on the recommendation of Merritt Mavy Chad reiterated Allens questions and concerns regarding the color of the containers. Rick and Wyatt clarified the intention is to paint them if it is required. Karen requested clarity on the reduction of the footprint.
Wyatt answered that the original permit allowed 76 of 10’ by 12’ stick-built units on the west
side of the canal and 75 of 10’ by 12’ stick-built units on the east side of the canal. The reduction is of traffic, containers and people as the new proposal is for 40 metal containers of 8’ by 40’ at 320 square feet per unit on the east side of the canal compared to 120 square feet per unit and 20 containers at 8’ by 40’ on the west side of the canal. The original approval was for 75 units with the 76 units for 151 units
in total at 120 square feet per unit would be a total of 18,120 square feet in units. The new proposal is
for 60 containers at 320 square feet per unit at a total of 19,200 square feet in storage containers. Karen expressed her concerns of protecting the scenic by-way in how the metal units would affect that as well as the impact of the color on that view. The lighting was also brought into question. Wyatt answered that lighting would be installed every 4 to 5 units on the front of the containers.
Chad questioned the illegal building and how this proposal fixes that violation.
Wyatt answered that the building in question is one of the permitted buildings combined with another storage building, eliminating the space in between them. This violation is still being worked on with Elizabeth. Elizabeth helped clarify that the Conditional Use permit being proposed does not address the
violation of the unpermitted building. The only violation being addressed in the meeting is the violation
of the shipping containers. Karen questioned the snow removal plan. Rick answered that everything slopes away from the building and the snow is always pushed to the south away from the buildings.
Karen questioned the drainage from the snow on top of the shipping containers with a flat roof.
Rick answered that the runoff hits the ground and runs down the slope away from the building. With structural recommendation from Merritt, there is no drainage in between the containers with them tied together, eliminating the gap in between the units.The area surrounding the containers is all gravel. There was no discussion from the Board and no comments from the public.
Allen was of the opinion that the existing units on Highway 89 to the back by the canal with the
stick-built buildings being in the front and the storage containers should be painted to match the buildings. The buffering with trees should still be planted and the access still needs to be addressed. Karen felt that the use was not appropriate for the scenic byway that needs to be protected. The stick-built look is more aesthetic for the rural area. The color along with the metal material is not a nice
aesthetic in comparison to nicely built stick-built units.
Chad agreed with Allen’s suggestion to build stick-built units along Highway 89 and move the 6 containers currently on the property behind the canal so that they are not visible from the Highway. Austin brought forward the concern that this new proposal is a significant change from the project being presented and would need to be tabled in order to rework the project so that it is re-public
noticed to the neighbors.
Pam noticed that the word aesthetics does not match the proposal being presented. Discussion for tabling and public noticing requirements took place among the Board and County Staff along with the parliamentary procedure for tabling.
Page 4 of 6
Karen motioned to table the project to the August 21, 2024 meeting. Allen seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
VII. 109 CUP 24 KEARSLEY NURSERY Elizabeth presented the project with a recommendation of approval with Findings of Approval A. through D. and Conditions of Approval 1 through 2. The applicants were present. Chad questioned the current use of the property versus the proposed use and expressed concern
over the reserved retail space and what could be permitted in that space in the future. The question of
how to ensure what use is allowed there is posed. Elizabeth went over what would be allowed with a Zoning and Development permit and that any higher use would require a Conditional Use permit that would come back before the Board. A Condition of Approval could be added to specify what use would be allowed in the reserved space. The existing
building permitted as a residential building is part of the proposed project. The residential permit was
due to the living quarters on the upper level provided for staff. Chad requested to have the developers explain why they permitted it as residential and what their intentions are. Karen questioned the recommendation of fencing compared to making it a requirement in
regards to it protecting the wildlife or the plants being grown.
Ben addressed the phasing with the existing building being intended as a maintenance building for equipment as well as employee housing. Retail is not intended in the existing building, but in the east corner of Highway 89 and Highway 239. The retail space would be preferred to be something that compliments the nursery, if a restaurant is proposed it would come back through the Planning
Commission. The northwest corner of the property has an existing fence that protects the deciduous trees
from wildlife damage. The Evergreens and Conifer trees that receive minimal damage from wildlife are intended to be in the main part of the property and therefore that area is not intended to be fenced. Temporary fencing for seasonal times for shrubs and flowers would be up by the retail space therefore the fencing would be temporary and dependent on where specific plants are being held.
Chad questioned the vision when it was originally permitted or when that vision was formed.
Ben clarified the retail has never been intended to be in the southwest corner where the existing building is. The State Fire Marshal was contacted to re-address the existing building. Allen questioned if the intent was to replace the existing nursery in Thayne. Ben answered that it will be replacing the existing nursery as the property it is located on is being
leased.
Karen questioned if the living quarters are for seasonal employees or year round. Ben answered that the building is for seasonal employees that the Department of Labor requires living quarters to be provided. Karen asked if that is part of phase 1 of the shop as well as fire access.
Ben provided that they have access off of Highway 239 and that there are two doors on the south
side as well as additional access through the shop. Karen requested information on how many employees are allowed in the living quarters and what the square footage is. Ben answered that the square footage is right at 1,000 square feet and under the criteria of the
Department of Labor, 50 square feet is required per employee. It is intended to have between 2 and 4
employees there at all times. Rent cannot be charged under the Visa regulations. Karen asked to clarify that 20 employees can be there, but is not intended. Snow storage was also brought into question.
Page 5 of 6
Ben added that semi trailers come in and are able to turn around without backing up. The fencing to be removed on the site notes was existing fencing from the previous owner that only ran about
halfway through the property and was removed just to clean it up. The snow removal is to the south of
the parking lot along Highway 239. The condition for the retail space to be related to the nursery and greenhouse was included in the application. Karen opened comments to the public. Curtis presented the concern of Kearsley’s access through Laker Lane with questions if it is to be
used for high traffic retail access.
Dawson also posed the concerns of maintenance if Laker Lane is in use for retail access. Elizabeth clarified that Kearsley's has a 33’ easement with the right for ingress and egress and their commercial access on the Right-of-Way cannot be restricted as per the county regulations. Road maintenance is not addressed in the regulations for anything other than Minor and Major Subdivisions.
Ben added that the customers for retail are intended to be kept to accessing from the southeast
corner of the property. Traffic is to be directed through the approach off of Highway 239, however, Laker Lane is used to access the north of the property to harvest and plant trees Allen was of the opinion that the proposal is a good project with a good layout and did not think there would be any issues with customers turning down Laker Lane as their access is long before.
Karen expressed hope for the sign to be in compliance with lighting regulations and hopes it
helps bring more appeal to the project. Chad asked to have a Condition of Approval added to have the future retail space limited to uses related to the nursery and greenhouse businesses as wells as to have signage for the entrance off of Highway 239
Allen motioned to recommend approval with Findings of Approval A. through D. and
Conditions of Approval 1 through 2 plus Condition 3 that retail must be nursery and greenhouse related and Condition 4 for the entrance signage. Chad seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. The project will move forward to the July 3, 2024 County Commissioners’ Meeting held in Kemmerer.
VIII. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS
Allen proposed to start the complicated projects with the map up to assist in finding roads.
Karen requested an update on Tom Crank’s position.
Stephen answered that there is a gentleman still contemplating the position and the County is
hoping to have an appointment by the first meeting in July. The County is still advertising for the
Planning Director’s position
Karen requested clarity on procedures for establishing a quorum in regards to when the
Commission is to email the Planning Staff whether they are to attend or not to attend the meeting..
ADJOURNMENT Allen motioned to adjourn. Pam seconded motion. Motion carried 4-0. Adjourned at 7:56pm.
Page 6 of 6
The minutes from the June 19, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved on the _____ day of _________________ , 2024.
_____________________________________ _____________________________________ Chair Dated Director Dated