Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 2024 PZC Minutes DRAFT Page 1 of 7 LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, August 21, 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 Chad Jensen, Vice Chair Kevin Kilroy David Oates Lincoln County Staff: Stephen Allen, Chief of Staff Austin Dunlap, Attorney Ken Kuluski, Planning Director Elizabeth Williams, Planner II Mikayla Hibbert, Planner I Katie Gipson, Planner I III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Karen welcomed everyone and thanked them for attending. Karen introduced the new Planning and Zoning Commissioner, David Oates. Chad made a motion to accept the agenda with the amendment to add the election of a Vice Chair after item 5. Kevin seconded. All in favor. Motion carried 4-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chad and Karen proposed amendments to the minutes. Karen requested that more detail be added to the minutes. Chad made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Kevin seconded. David abstained. All in favor. Motion carried 3-0. V. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Mikayla presented the Development Report for June 24, 2024 to July 28, 2024. Chad questioned what would happen if a permit was given for an auxiliary use barn that was later turned into a residential dwelling use. Ken explained the process of how violations are handled. Stephen offered to create a violation report to have presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Discussion regarding violations and how they are handled continued. VI. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Karen made a motion to elect Chad as Vice Chair. Chad accepted the motion. Kevin seconded. All in favor. Motion carried 4-0. Page 2 of 7 VII. 110 CUP 24 ALPENGLOW HILLS LOT 1 – 4 GUEST CABINS Katie presented the project for four guest cabins with a recommendation for the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. David questioned requirements for a minimum dwelling size. Katie clarified there is no minimum, however, there is a maximum size of 800 square feet. David requested further information on the sizing requirements of the septic systems. Chad expressed that he is highly opposed to the project. Kevin expressed that he is not so opposed to the guest cabins, but the long-term potential of the commercial use in a rural area. Karen expressed concerns over the potential aesthetics of the project with the contiguous property. Katie explained there was a proposal for buffering to be included. Discussion over the zoning and lot size continued. Karen expressed concerns over the potential inconsistency with the Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan and questioned its consistency with the economic development goals. Karen then proposed a condition to restrict the project from becoming short or long-term rental units. Katie clarified that guest cabins are designed for the use of paying guests. Karen proposed discussion for specifying the type of buffering. Brett Mosher, the owner and developer, explained that the purpose of the project is to try to fill the need of the housing shortage without it being a high-density commercial project. Brett expressed that the adjoining properties seem to contain similar uses. Karen questioned any future plans to further develop the property with higher density and if there is potential to restrict further development. Katie clarified that the four guest cabins is the maximum density allowed for the property at this time with the current regulations. Karen expressed further concern over the buffering of trees dying as there has been no irrigation installed and questioned the developer’s intent and willingness to spend money on an aesthetically pleasing buffering. Brett explained his plans for the buffering with a five-foot berm and five-foot trees on top to protect the privacy of those occupying the cabins. Discussion of aesthetic berms continued. Brett stated that the units are intended to be used for long-term rentals and there is potential for partnering with local agencies. Karen expressed concern over previous developers proposing similar projects to meet housing needs and then raising prices above what is affordable. Austin joined at 6:40pm. Discussion of affordability and subsidy potential continued. Karen expressed further concerns over lighting in reference to the lighting violations throughout the valley as well as fencing requirements. Fencing discussions continued. Chad questioned if this project was part of the intent of the subdivision from the beginning. Brett explained that there were three developers, and that this project with his intent with his own lot from the beginning. It was not brought forward in the sketch plan of the subdivision to avoid complicating the initial subdivision development proposal. Kevin questioned if this project is appropriate for the location and asked what stops the current proposal from being repeated and spread across the neighboring lots of the same subdivision? Stephen asked about the CC&Rs for the subdivision. Katie clarified that Lot 1 was intended for a different use from the rest of the subdivision lots, and it was designated on the plat as residential / commercial while the remaining lots are designated as residential. Karen requested information on where the snow removal is proposed as well as if there are restrictions on the number of people able to occupy the cabins. Brett addressed that he will be the one managing the cabins and clarified that the CC&Rs do help in regulating much of the care of the property and the aesthetics of the property. Karen asked if the project were denied, what would the development of the property change to. Page 3 of 7 Brett answered that the 1,600 square foot house and 1,000 square foot guest house that has been approved would be built out. Chad expressed a dislike of the proposal of a conditional use permit in a rural area and the opinion that the lot should remain a simple residential use. David questioned the future potential of the use of the property if it were ever to be sold. Katie clarified what is an allowed land use in a rural zone within a subdivision, and explained that other existing lots in the subdivision are designated as residential use only. Katie highlighted that the Lincoln County Land Use Regulations that pertain to this proposal were attached to the back of the packet that brings attention to the county regulations. Austin further clarified Katie’s explanation of the allowed commercial uses within a rural subdivision and then enunciated the options of the motions available to the Board along with a suggestion to not recommend denial based only on personal preferences. Stephen then clarified the options to reference the Land Use Regulations or the Comprehensive Plan as rationale for a recommendation of denial. Karen expressed the need for specific conditions of approval for the aesthetics of the lot and the contiguous properties. Chad motioned to recommend denial of the project based on it not being conducive with the rural zone, the county conditional use permit nor the long-range plan of Lincoln County. Karen seconded the motion. David abstained from voting. Motion carried 3-0. VIII. 105 CUP 24 TWIN PEAKS STORAGE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (TABLED FROM THE JUNE 19, 2024 PZC MEETING) Kevin motioned to untable 105 CUP 24 Twin Peaks Storage. Karen seconded. All in favor. Motion carried 4-0. Elizabeth presented the project with a recommendation for the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. The applicants were present. Elizabeth explained the discussion that occurred at the June 19th Planning and Zoning meeting; the original permit granted 18,000 square feet and change of storage; the new permit proposes 19,040 square feet of storage. Karen requested clarification on why the recommendation for a foundation system is concrete corners rather than a full concrete pad. Elizabeth clarified the applicants are proposing the anchoring concrete corners and the staff is recommending a full concrete pad foundation. Karen questioned whether or not the project is within an earthquake zone. Elizabeth answered that the fault line is not within the project boundary, but it is within seismic zone D-2. Karen then requested clarification of Condition of Approval 5. regarding the access road. Elizabeth explained WYDOT’s comments concerning the corner of Highway 89 and County Road 190, the high-speed zone and the Planning Staff’s recommendation to move the access to the east side of the property to address the safety concerns that have been expressed. Questions regarding the foundation system requirements of the IBC were turned over to Stephen Allen for further clarification in applying the foundation system options to the specific project in question. David expressed concern over the anchoring but agreed with the location of the proposed storage. Karen stated her concern over the violations on the property and stated that the color of the containers still does not seem to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to protect the scenic byway if they are still visible from the highway. Karen agreed that the Condition of Approval for the road access seems reasonable and does not seem to be an undue burden, and then also requested a more in-depth description of Condition of Approval number 4, requiring buffering for the project. David expressed his desire to see a more applicable drawing for the anchoring system. Chad questioned the potential of an access across the canal. Wyatt Earling, developer, reviewed conditions discussed at the June meeting and stated that the anchoring system drawings were engineered for the specific project and the specific seismic zone. Wyatt stated that they are open to installing 20 containers rather than 40, but explained they would need to redraw the site plan again. Wyatt Page 4 of 7 then restated that a full foundation would be a waste of concrete as the containers only place weight in the four corners that touch the ground. David questioned the recommendations from the fire department. Rick Earling explained that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Fire Marshal for the proposed project. Elizabeth helped further clarify the jurisdiction of the Fire Marshals. Chad clarified what the proposal includes in regards to existing buildings and proposed buildings along with the buffering. Further discussion regarding the buffering and foundation system ensued. Kevin assisted in clarifying what the proposal includes for the foundation system with the 2’x 2’ concrete corners along with block tie-downs. Karen questioned how the taxes would be handled in regards to a complete versus a partial foundation. Further foundation discussion ensued. Karen requested inspection of the foundation system upon completion to be required. Austin answered that the request is within the Board’s purview, but was unsure of the staff’s ability and resources to perform such an inspection. Chad again reviewed the project proposal along with the conditions of approval. Stephen clarified that the drawing of the foundation system was not specific to the project and was not stamped by an engineer, but is a general recommendation of an engineer. Stephen explained that the enforcement of the foundation would be through an engineer’s stamp and that the condition of approval would be to have a Wyoming Licensed Engineer’s stamped approval in accordance with IBC for foundation, anchoring, and snow load specific to the project to include all environmental necessities for using intermodal shipping containers for commercial storage and that the CSC safety approval placards remain affixed to the containers. Karen questioned the maximum number of containers allowed based on the current permitted square footage. Discussion of the engineering of the anchoring continued. Chad and Kevin expressed support for the project as long as it meets the conditions of approval. Karen motioned to make a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners with Findings of Fact A. through D. and Conditions of Approval 1. through 7. and add to the Condition of Approval number 4., “Plant trees at least five feet tall planted in intervals of 20 feet, sufficient to buffer the project, with irrigation.,” Condition of Approval number 6., “Provide Wyoming licensed engineered stamped complete drawings that indicate foundation and anchoring in accordance with IBC to include all environmental necessities for utilizing intermodal storage units.,” and Condition of Approval number 7., “That CSC Safety Approval placards remain affixed to the containers.” Kevin seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-1. IX. 102 PZ 24 LAND USE REGULATIONS AMENDMENT ROAD STANDARDS (POSTPONED FROM THE JULY 24, 2024 PZC MEETING) Elizabeth presented the project with a recommendation for the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Elizabeth stated that there were no recommended changes to proposals A., F., G., and H from the last meeting. Chad expressed concern about the use of the word “may” instead of “shall” in Proposal A without a stated basis. Discussion of the use of “may” continued. Elizabeth explained that the use of the word “may” gives the planning staff more flexibility in what to require based on the equipment and the terrain as an overall requirement would inflict a heavy burden on the developers. David expressed concern over the openness of the wording and proposals. Elizabeth clarified the proposal is to change the Land Use Regulations and is not specific to any projects as the applicant is the Lincoln County Planning Department. Kevin assisted in giving background for the reasoning of the changes and why the ADHOC committee was formed. Elizabeth explained that in the instance that the proposals were to be approved by the Zoning and Development Commission as well as the Board of County Commissioners, the proposals would then apply to all future projects and developments. Karen questioned the requirements for implementing a looped road. Elizabeth then clarified the requirements of the loop road being based on 15 or more lots as the potential build out for each lot is a house and guest house, but can still be required on subdivisions with less than 15 lots if determined necessary by the planning staff or the county engineer. Page 5 of 7 Karen recommended changing the wording from “and/or” to “and” for the inclusion of the county engineer in Proposal A. Anthony Keane, owner of property in Thayne, expressed concern as he has been trying to develop a piece of property and feels that the requirements of road type C are unreasonable considering the 300’ radius curve being proposed and requests that road types be aligned with subdivision types. Further discussion on the proposed road curve radius of Proposal E for road types occurred. Kevin expressed that a “one size fits all” plan is not suitable for regulating all developments. Karen questioned the potential to workshop of the different proposals in sections and asked if there is a pressing difficulty at hand that needs to be addressed or if it can be gone through in sections at a slower pace to better consider the proposals. Elizabeth expressed that the staff is willing to break the proposals into smaller pieces, though Proposals B. through E. should be discussed together. Kevin proposed to require developers to have a third-party acceptance from a certified engineer. Elizabeth proposed for the Commission to make a decision on Proposal G. and the staff can go back through the remaining proposals at a later time, as the Engineering Department was separated from the Planning Department back in 2020. Stephen recommended to have the staff withdraw the proposals and bring them back in sections as it has been a 2-year process thus far. Elizabeth explained the county’s concern is to protect the health and safety of the people of the county and therefore would like to keep moving the changes forward in a timely and appropriate manner without it being rushed. Kevin expressed the need to get the changes fixed in one shot and not rush through with mistakes. Elizabeth withdrew the application with the intent to return with the proposals in smaller sections for the Board’s consideration. Chad repeated the request that the Planning Staff clarify Proposal A regarding the word “may.” He requested that there be a clear basis of when they would or wouldn’t be needed. X. SKETCH PLANS XI. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Ken presented the potential to change the fee schedule for permits and for violations and requested input from the Planning and Zoning Commission along with noting that a property in Star Valley Ranch will be the first property to be enforced to restructure their septic to come into compliance with the regulations. Ken further updated the Planning and Zoning Commission on other violations that are in the process of being pursued. Ken noted that Wyoming agencies seem to have a nonchalant attitude in regards to enforcement in answer to Chad questioning the lack of enforcement of any $750 fines. Chad expressed the need for enforcement over the new trending violations especially with note to several RV’s hooked up to a single septic system. Ken explained the difficulties encountered in proving evidence to pursue violations, but highlighted the Planning Staff is pursuing enforcement. Kevin noted that Planning Staff does not have the time to continue revisiting inspections for violations. Discussion of potential for changes in the fee schedule occurred. Chad requested a follow up on the decision made by the Board of County Commissioners on Blake Angell’s property as well as the Trespass Ranch project. Discussion over the projects as well as previously mentioned violations continued. Ken stated that the Planning Office is a community agency that focuses on compliance, not a police agency that focuses on enforcement. Karen expressed that she disagreed with focusing on compliance rather than enforcement. Karen continued in expressing concerns over all planners being located in Kemmerer as well as the director and not visiting the sites that are being permitted. David brought to attention concerns over the four cabins and how it was proposed as rentals. Page 6 of 7 Karen expressed distaste for the aesthetics of shipping containers regardless of the colors matching the stick-built storage units. Further discussion occurred over storage containers and lighting. ADJOURNMENT Chad made a motion to adjourn. Kevin seconded. Motion carried 4-0. 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