HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft July 2024 PZC Minutes
Page 1 of 7
LINCOLN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, July 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 6:00 pm. A quorum was established. II. INTRODUCTION OF PZC MEMBERS
Planning Commission Members: Karen Anderson, Chair Allen Smoot, Vice Chair Chad Jensen Pam Price Kevin Kilroy Lincoln County Staff: Stephen Allen, Chief of Staff Austin Dunlap, Attorney Ken Kuluski, Planning Director Elizabeth Williams, Planner II
Mikayla Hibbert, Planner I III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Karen welcomed everyone and thanked them for attending. Stephen introduced the new Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Kevin Kilroy. Stephen introduced the new Planning Director, Ken Kuluski. Chad made a motion to accept the agenda with a possible executive session at the end. Allen seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
There was discussion on agenda item VII, 106 CUP 24 Alpine Trailhead. Karen stated that there was a request from the Developer’s Representative to withdraw this project from the agenda. Karen requested that this request be honored and that a motion be made to remove it from the agenda. Chad made a motion to remove item VII, Alpine Trailhead, from the agenda. Allen seconded. Motion carried 5-0. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chad nominated Karen Anderson as Chair. Allen seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Chad nominated Allen Smoot to be Vice Chair. Kevin seconded. Motion carried 5-0. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Karen questioned if anyone had any proposed changes to the June 2024 meeting minutes. Chad proposed
several amendments to the minutes. Chad made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Allen seconded. Motion carried 5-0. VI. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mikayla presented the Development Report for May 27, 2024 to June 23, 2024. Chad questioned if two septic systems were allowed on one lot. Mikayla responded that there are two septic systems allowed on one lot.
There were questions regarding if there was a minimum lot size needed to allow two septic systems. Mikayla responded that as long as all setbacks and isolation distances were met two septic systems can be allowed on the
Page 2 of 7
lot regardless of lot size. There were questions regarding the term, “tiny home” and if there was a definition. Stephen responded that there is not at this time. Karen made a request that this term be defined.
VII. 106 CUP 24 ALPINE TRAILHEAD Withdrawn. VIII. 104 MA 24 TRESPASS RANCH SUBDIVISION Elizabeth presented the project. Elizabeth stated that this project was tabled to allow planning staff time to reach out to necessary State agencies. Allen made a motion to bring Trespass Ranch subdivision out of tabling. Chad seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Elizabeth stated that due to conversations with Army Corp of Engineers there were Conditions of Approval added to address concerns. Karen asked for a synopsis of Elizabeth’s conversation with the Army Corp of Engineers. Elizabeth stated that the Army Corp of Engineers was able to confirm that there is an After the Fact
Permit for the development currently being addressed. Elizabeth continued stating that there were concerns shared by the Army Corp of Engineers if the activity does continue on the property that there could be the addition of EPA involvement. Elizabeth stated that the Army Corp of Engineers wanted to make sure that there were
wetlands on the plat and that it be designated for future owners to be aware of. Karen questioned if an After the Fact Permit meant that they were in violation. Elizabeth answered that the Army Corp of Engineers did not refer to it as a violation, but an After the Fact Permit. Karen questioned if the County thought that this was a violation.
Austin stated that the Army Corp of Engineers’ classification of it being an After the Fact Permit is all the County can consider it. Karen questioned if basements would be allowed for this subdivision. Elizabeth stated that instead of not allowing basements planning staff included Condition of Approval 7 which would require a small wastewater permit through DEQ and a licensed engineer prior to any building permit. This Condition of Approval also requires an engineered design for building setbacks and soil constraints for foundation design and drainage. Kevin questioned if wetlands are generally indicated on plats. Elizabeth stated that they are, but this Condition came from a request from her conversation with the Army Corp of Engineers. Kevin asked for clarification on the road standards and if the cul-de-sac would be 70 foot radius or 60 foot radius. Elizabeth stated that it would be a 70 foot easement and 60 foot built out. Karen questioned the acreages along the river and how Open Space is calculated in the average density.
Elizabeth stated that the averages of gross acreages from each lot and the acreage of the Open Space are averaged together for the average lot size. Elizabeth stated that Open Space and clustering is encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. Karen questioned the recreation classification of the pond. Elizabeth stated that the permit for the pond was done through the State Engineer's Office and the classification was that of their office. Karen questioned the equine center and the buildable area that is included for that area of Open Space.
Elizabeth stated that this area has to be used as specified, an equine center, and all buildings on this Open Space would have to be related to that use. Chad questioned where County Road 184 was located. Elizabeth explained that County Road 184, Grant Clark Court County Road, was where the south emergency exit is located. Scott Scherbel, the developer’s representative, stated that this is the second time this subdivision has been recommended for approval by planning staff. Scott stated that there were some Conditions of Approval that they were not in favor of. Scott stated that Condition of Approval 7, states, “Due to high groundwater levels, a landowner shall obtain an approved Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) septic system permit prior to applying for any Land Use Permit, including but not limited to Residential Use Permits. Land Use Permit applications shall require an engineered design by a Wyoming Licensed Engineer for building setbacks and soil constraints for foundation design and drainage.” Scott stated that they would request that the plat warning
read, due to potential high groundwater levels, a landowner shall obtain an approved Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) septic system permit prior to applying for any Land Use Permit, including but not limited to Residential Use Permits. Land Use Permit applications shall require an engineered design by a
Wyoming Licensed Engineer for building setbacks and soil constraints for foundation design and drainage.” Scott
Page 3 of 7
explained this request is due to the fact that there has been no evidence of highwater from the engineers who performed the Chapter 23 Study. Scott stated that there is no reason for Condition of Approval 9, with creating an
additional road according to the Regulations. Scott continued there is already a loop road in the subdivision and that meets the requirement of the County and Fire Code. Scott stated that if this additional road were to be created it would cut into the Open Space acreage, which is not the goal of the developer. Scott stated that the After the Fact Permit is close to being concluded with the Army Corp of Engineers. Scott stated that wetland locations were determined based on test pit studies based on the criteria of vegetation, soil composition, and moisture. Scott stated that all irrigation ditches and areas along the rivers and fringes of the rivers are considered as wetlands. Scott stated that all building developments will be at least 150 feet from the river. Scott stated that 129 acres to the west of the river is currently used for agriculture and farming and that there are no wetlands west of the river. Scott explained that the wetland restoration requirement is for the vegetation and soil to be back up to the wetland standards in a 3-5 year period that will include removing a limited amount of the fill material placed over the wetlands to allow the elevations to resume for the wetlands’ function prior to the
fill placement. Scott stated that the material excavated from the pond in Open Space No. 1 is currently stockpiled just to the south of the pond. Scott stated that the pond is permitted for recreation and fish have yet to be stocked in the pond.
Austin questioned the definition and standard of the term “high water”. Scott responded that the high water is determined by the standing water in a test pit that is to be dug during spring when the water table is at its height of the year. Scott explained that DEQ has required septic systems to be six feet above the high water
determined in spring, and if the water table is higher than six feet from the ground surface the septic system would need to be mounded. Chad requested clarification on the requirement for the double access road for the subdivision. Scott clarified the second access is for emergency purposes only. Scott explained that with the guest house allowance, any subdivision over 15 lots requires a second access approach to the county road. Scott stated that this requirement applies to the subdivision as it is 25 lots. Scott stated that the loop road is included as per the emergency fire code, but will not incur additional traffic as per the concerns of the existing residents. Tim Costen, developer, and Scott assisted in clarifying the difference between the two wetland maps included in the packet. It was also clarified that the pond is not currently lined. Karen asked about the possibility of reducing the number of small acre lots along the river. Tim clarified that the number and size of lot requirements were based on the Regulations along with meeting many preferences
that are not regulatory requirements. Tim stated that the target resident audience is similar to those of Double L Ranch. Tim stated that the residents of Double L Ranch occupy their homes an average of 4 weeks a year, limiting the amount of stress put on the roads and the school system while paying some of the highest real estate taxes in the County. Elizabeth explained the county staff’s recommendation for a turnaround at the gate of the emergency access as a Condition of Approval is for further safety in winter and to offer space for larger trucks to turn around
without using the crash gate. Karen opened the public hearing. Tyler Brog, neighboring property owner, expressed confusion on the location of the crash gate as the original planned location was to be closer to the end of County Road 184. Lisa Pachie, neighboring property owner, expressed concern over the excavated soil that is being trucked out of the proposed subdivision on a daily basis and questioned why the river corridor was being destroyed for people that will only occupy the area 4 weeks of the year. Fred Brog, neighboring property owner, requested the water quality be taken into consideration in regards to the pond and how it will affect the wells of surrounding properties. Greg Pachie, neighboring property owner, expressed concern over the flooding that occurs every year over the proposed Trespass Road along with the proposed lots 3 through 5.
Karen closed the public hearing. Scott explained the flooding from two years prior has now been mitigated by a return flow ditch along the south side of the property that will intercept the flood water in question at the lowest elevation. Scott stated that the concern of the pathogens from the Salt River and the septic fields has been addressed by the water expert in
Page 4 of 7
the DEQ report that explains that the travel of the pathogens over two years will only reach 74 to 81 feet before they die at the two year period. Scott explained that this has been taken into consideration in the 50 foot setback
from all property lines for septic systems. Scott continued stating that no wells are within 81 feet or even a couple hundred feet from the pond and will therefore not be affected by the pond or the septic systems. Scott stated that issues to the water wells will be more likely to arise from flood irrigation than any of the septic systems in the proposed subdivision or the pond. Karen opened discussion to the Board. Karen asked if the fencing concerns need to be addressed. Karen stated that the section of the Comprehensive Plan that addresses the protection of scenic resources of the county should be taken into consideration as the referenced section applies to the proposed lots along the river. Chad questioned the meaning of the recommendation form DEQ for “semi-regular” testing of the wells. Elizabeth answered that the meaning or purpose of “semi-regular” is still an unknown along with any updates from Weed and Pest.
Allen made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners for file 104 MA 24, Trespass Ranch Subdivision, with Findings of approval A. through C., Conditions of Approval 1. through 9., and a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to sign the Development
Agreement. Kevin seconded. Motion carried 3-2. This project will be heard at the August 14, 2024 Board of County Commissioners meeting in Kemmerer and via video conference in Afton. IX. 102 PZ 24 LAND USE REGULATIONS AMENDMENT ROAD STANDARDS Elizabeth presented Proposal A. Marlowe clarified that paving is required for higher density in the Mixed Zone. Elizabeth presented Proposal B. Kevin explained the changes to the road cross-section will add almost a 30% requirement of gravel. Marlowe added clarification to the 2 to 3% slope of the crown from the Road Type table and questioned if the 2% needed to be added to the cross-section diagram. Roy expressed that the road requirement should be based on the soils report. Kevin stated that the requirement for the potential of further engineering is included in Proposal B. Elizabeth presented Proposal C. Chad reiterated the need to adjust the 2% slope to the 2 to 3% slope in the diagram. Jason Wolfley questioned the allowance of hammerheads and the need for adjustments on existing roads. Chad answered that it would likely be a case-by-case basis. Austin concurred that it would likely be a case-by-case basis and that new permits are likely to request the road be updated to the new standards. Marlowe requested
further clarification on the allowance of hammerheads. Stephen assisted in explaining the allowances as per the fire code. There was discussion concerning possible motions. Elizabeth presented Proposal D.
Chad requested a timeline be added to point G of Proposal D. Specific articulation discussed for the proposed Condition of Approval. Kevin pointed out that if over 5 acres of soil is disturbed a Stormwater Drain Plan is needed from DEQ. Marlowe requested clarification on the use and allowance of hammerheads. Stephen did agree that there are some occasions where a hammerhead would be a better option than a cul-de-sac. Discussion of the proposal and possible motions among the Commission and staff occurred. Marlowe questioned the inclusion and allowance of bump-out requirements every 1,000 to 1,500 feet on a long dead-end road as per the Fire Chiefs. The need for including specific wording for bump-outs was discussed. Merritt Mavy clarified that the entire section on cul-de-sacs is prefaced with the word “if” which resolves the potential issues of including wording for hammerheads and bump-outs. The inclusion of bump-out wording in the proposal was further discussed. Karen expressed the need to have the wording done right and the potential need to have the proposal further workshopped while not wanting to further delay the proposal. Discussion on the wording as a Condition of Approval for staff to review and make recommendations on Appendix N Fire Apparatus Access Roads to include bump-outs to 1,000-1,500’ intervals.
Page 5 of 7
Marlowe drew attention to item J in Proposal D in regards to the wording “in the opinion of the County Commissioners” as potentially too objective. Marlowe expressed that it should be up to the developers whether or
not they have a pathway and then pathways need to have a 10 foot right-of-way. Chad recommended to strike the last line of item J “in the opinion of the County Commissioners.” Further discussion ensued. Elizabeth presented Proposal E. Chad reiterated the need for time frame requirements for the installation of signs and posts in point A of Proposal E. Chad recommended that the last sentence of the road sign paragraph read, “They can be picked up at the Planning Office and shall be installed prior to the Final Plat Inspection.” Scott expressed concern about the unnecessary added strain of the road design requirements based on the point of “Fewer than 10 lots and shall be less than 99 ADT” under the Mountain Terrain section. Elizabeth clarified the requirement being limited to “Mountain Terrain” that is defined as being lots on grades of 8% and over.
Marlowe questioned the potential of using AASHTO for road design requirements since it is already proposed to use AASHTO for bridge requirements. Stephen clarified that the county is independent and does not desire to follow all international standards that are not deemed necessary by the county.
Marlowe also expressed concern over the 300 foot curved radius requirement on looped roads. Elizabeth presented Proposal F. Karen questioned the long-term planning for rental units, Airbnbs and VRBOs.
Elizabeth presented Proposal G. No discussion or comments heard. Elizabeth presented Proposal H. No discussion or comments heard. Chad requested clarification on Proposal D and requested to table Proposal D. Kevin brought to attention the whole Road Design Amendment proposal stems from an issue with maintenance. Discussion ensued regarding the options for motions. Allen motioned to postpone 102 PZ 24 until August 21, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Karen seconded. Motion carried 5-0. X. 103 PZ 24 LAND USE REGULATIONS AMENDMENT SHIPPING CONTAINERS AS STORAGE UNITS Stephen presented the project with a recommendation to postpone the project for a minimum of 60 days. Karen expressed desire to see improvements on the aesthetics. Karen opened up Public Hearing. Merritt Mavy, a licensed engineer, helped clarify that shipping containers contain their own section of codes in the IBC and the ICC. Merritt Mavy stated that it was recognized that there were three potential reasons for the proposed rule in terms of safety, aesthetics, and potential personal prejudices. Merritt Mavy requested
clarification on the purpose of the rule, the distinction between 20 feet and 40 foot storage containers, and the proposed foundation requirements for the different sizes. Merritt Mavy stated that any proposed rule should be tied to the occupancy and or use that is tied to the risks of which many are addressed by the IBC for different occupancies and uses. Merritt Mavy stated that foundation requirements should take into consideration the different soil types throughout the valley. Marritt Mavy stated that there is also much potential for unintended consequences in accepting the rule as it is currently written. Merritt Mavy concluded that the rule should be clarified to ensure it is fair to all and unprejudiced. Karen expressed interest in codes for electrical and lighting as well as input on the aesthetics without being prejudiced. Merritt Mavy gave examples of code requirements in place in California that address canopies and covering to hide the storage containers from the view of the majority of the public.
Jason Wolfley questioned how the proposed code would affect the general public versus mixed and commercial uses as well as how it will affect businesses using shipping containers in a commercial capacity. Jason Wolfley continued that towns are recognized as having their own regulations and jurisdiction, but as IBC is international there is question as to why the towns do not have the same requirements. Stephen answered that
Page 6 of 7
towns are a separate law-making body from the county where the county does not have the jurisdiction to control how they are operated. The towns can make their own laws, but the county cannot create laws but rather
resolutions and recommendations that are not statutes. Jason Wolfley questioned if one has to abide by international codes, why all do not have to abide by the same codes. Chad motioned to postpone 103 PZ 24 for 60 days to be heard September 18, 2024. Karen seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Karen called for a 2 minute recess at 9:24 p.m. XI. SKETCH PLANS a. Minor Subdivision, Angell Subdivision Second Filing, Within T31N, R118W, Section 30.
Commissioner Allen Smoot left at 9:27pm, quorum remains. Elizabeth presented the Sketch Plan and noted that the proposed project does not meet the 5 acre minimum.
Marlowe clarified there is no 5 acre minimum, but a 5 acre average. Marlowe stated that the project has not exceeded the county requirements, but still meets the 5 acre average based on the chain of title. Marlowe explained that there have been past policies that would allow this subdivision.
Discussion clarifying subdivision rules occurred. It was stated that State Statutes changed in 2001, while the County Regulations were adopted in 2005. Scott assisted in explaining the concept of a parent parcel or parent tract. Blake Angell, developer, explained some of the background and history of the lots and the regulations. Karen requested the reasoning for Lot 4 being 6 acres instead of 3 acres. Blake Angell clarified the recommendation previously received by the Planning Office to have a cul-de-sac that touched Rita Rechtenbach’s property as well for safety in regards to Fire and EMS. Karen opened comments to the public. Dustin Hill expressed concern over the quality of homes to be placed on the potential lots of the proposed subdivision, and stated that the regulations should be followed as they are today rather than following regulations from the past.
Rita Rechtenbach, property owner to the south of the proposed subdivision, reiterated concerns that she had expressed in her letter and her desire to keep her property as is without additional traffic on the existing easement and shared access. Blake Angell addressed the concerns noted by Rita and stated that the proposed subdivision road would clean up much of the clutter currently on the property. Chad questioned the boundary change made for Smiths and Rechtenbachs. XII. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Connie Day expressed concerns regarding several trailers placed on a neighboring property that are hooked up and not permitted or using septic systems. ADJOURNMENT Allen made a motion to adjourn. Chad seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:13 P.M.
Page 7 of 7
The minutes from the July 24, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved on
the _____ day of _________________ , 2024.
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
Chair Dated Director Dated