Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 2024 PZC Notes Draft Page 1 of 3 LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING NOTES Wednesday, September 18, 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 David called the meeting to order at 6:07 pm. A quorum was not established. II. INTRODUCTION OF PZC MEMBERS Planning Commission Members: Karen Anderson, Chair (Absent) Chad Jensen, Vice Chair (Absent) 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 III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Due to the lack of quorum, Stephen stated that we can continue with the meeting but with no motions could be made. Stephen explained that the first project, Heiner Storage, would move forward to the Board of County Commissioners with no recommendation. Stephen stated that the Land Use Regulation Amendment could not have a motion made, and it would not move forward to the Board of County Commissioner until it comes before a quorum at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Stephen stated that we could hear the Sketch Plan as normal because there is no motions on Sketch Plans. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No comments were made. V. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Ken presented the Development Report for July 29, 2024 to August 26, 2024. VI. 111 CUP 24 HEINER STORAGE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Elizabeth presented the project to the commission. Kevin asked Elizabeth to give an overview of the correspondence received from the public. Elizabeth stated that the correspondence seemed to be centered around that storage sheds do not belong in the Rural Zone. Elizabeth explained that according to the Land Use Regulations that storage sheds are an allowed use in the Rural Zone which is why Planning Staff recommends approval. Elizabeth explained that Planning Staff’s recommendations are based solely on if the project meets the Land Use Regulations, and that is why it then comes to the Planning and Zoning Board to look at the other aspects. The developer, Rob Heiner, presented the project to the commission explaining that they hope to help meet the current need in the community. David questioned the buffering plans on the northeast side where there is a shed currently that would restrict the buffering. Rob stated that they plan to put a privacy fence along that area. David questioned where retaining walls would be placed. Rob stated that there would be a retaining wall in the Page 2 of 3 north and east. David questioned the height of the fence on the west side. Rob stated that it would be a 6 foot tall fence. Kevin stated that there may need to be shoulders added to Stevens Lane to help with the traffic influx. Noah Christensen, a neighboring property owner, stated that he has concerns about how these storage units would affect the community of Etna. Noah stated that he received notification from the County of a subdivision, where the proposed storage units now are, that stated these would be Rural and for residential lots. Noah stated that he did not have any opposition at that time because they were residential lots being created. Noah explained that following the subdivision when the developers purchased the lot and let another neighbor know the intended use for the lot is when he had some major concerns. Noah stated that the correct process had not been followed explain that all of the prep work and starting to build storage units before the Conditional Use Permit was approved have occurred. Noah stated that permit number 277 RUA 22, was supposed to be for an personal use auxiliary building when in reality it looks and is being used for commercial storage. Noah also stated that there has been an illegal gravel pit for three summers as well. Noah explained that he has copies of all the contacts that he made to the Planning Office to provide of the violations he has reported. Noah stated that the developers have already dug down their property 10 to 20 feet for the storage units that will impact the water table, septic systems and wells in the area. Noah stated that there is already a lot of traffic on the road and he does not want that to be increased from the storage units. Noah stated that Premier Storage and Rob and Eric Heiner all the same and will be operating as the same entity. David reiterated that Noah’s concerns were the increase in traffic, the eye sore, and lighting issues. Noah stated that was correct. David stated that there is a state regulation on lighting and if the lumens exceed the allowed limit, then it would be a violation. Stephen stated that we also have a lumen tester to address this concern. Bryan Nichols, a neighboring property owner, stated that he has some major concerns. Bryan explained the history of the lots and subdivision of the lots. Bryan stated the existing personal storage building is being used as commercial storage. Bryan stated that there was an online posting from Eric Heiner selling soil and gravel from the property. Bryan stated that he has several people who may be willing to sign stating that this is true. Bryan stated that he is concerned over the traffic increase from the storage units. Bryan stated that he is upset over the storage units taking away from the beauty of home. Bryan stated that the storage units are directly taking away from his quality of life and affecting his family. Bryan explained that the eye pollution from the storage units is unacceptable. Bryan stated that this area is a part of a Scenic Byway, and the development being allowed in the Scenic Byway is taking away from the beauty. Bryan stated that from Thayne to the community of Etna is seven miles. Bryan continued stating that there are nine different storage units along that seven mile stretch. Bryan stated that because of the increase of traffic his kids are no longer able to catch a bus because of the danger. Bryan stated that due to the internet line being cut due to Premier Storage he was without internet for two days which affected his business. Bryan stated that the Sheriff’s office was contacted due to two meth labs in the storage units. Bryan stated that the storage units are creating a lot of trash that blows onto his property. Bryan stated that the snow removal and drainage is not adequate due to them digging down the property to build the storage units. Bryan stated that his daughter has been followed home several times from men coming from Premier Storage. Bryan stated that his daughter was told by the developer’s son that the storage units were built for the developers family’s fun money. Stephen asked the developer if he had a DEQ permit to operate a gravel pit with sales. The developer stated that they are not currently. Stephen stated that if they are operating an illegal gravel pit then that would be a violation. There was further discussion on the definition of a gravel pit and a mining operation. David stated he would like more clarity for what the retaining walls will look like, and the buffering especially in the northeast corner with the existing building. David said that the lighting is also an issue. Snow drainage, traffic impacts, and the possibility of a gravel pit were also concerns brought up for Staff to look into. VII. 103 PZ 24 LAND USE REGULATIONS AMENDMENT, SHIPPING CONTAINERS AS STORAGE UNITS (POSTPONED FROM THE JULY24, 2024 PZC MEETING) Stephen Allen presented the project to the commission. Merritt Mavy, a structural engineer, expressed concern over how the first portion of section J is worded to address any ambiguity. Merritt Mavy also noted that use, occupancy, and risk are not addressed in the proposed regulation amendment. Page 3 of 3 David stated that a lean liquid concrete would not meet the requirement for earthquake zones with the amount of weight of the shipping containers. Merritt Mavy explained how lean liquid concrete would meet the written requirement as a work-around and proposed that it be addressed. Merritt Mavy also expressed concern over the lack of clarity of who the regulation applies to, especially in reference to farmers selling in a commercial capacity. Stephen Allen explained the intent of the regulation amendment and questioned the appropriateness of the intent. Further discussion of intent and clarity ensued. Stephen Allen requested proposals or suggestions on how the use, occupancy, and risk could be addressed. Merritt Mavy recommended associating the foundation and anchorage requirements to the proposed use and the risk category. Merritt Mavy referenced the ASCE that has four risk categories. Merritt Mavy questioned who was doing the research and if the county was using a consultant. Austin Dunlap questioned if risk category one was permanent or temporary. Merritt Mavy answered that risk categories do not consider permanent versus temporary in the determinations, they are based on the use and the occupancy and he referenced the four risk categories of ASCE 7-16. David Oates expressed concern over the design for snow load. Merritt Mavy recommended having requirements for unaltered shipping containers and having different requirements for shipping containers that are being altered. Merritt Mavy then expressed that the proposal does not address site and soil conditions. Jason Wolfley brought to attention the fact that there are no inspections in Lincoln County for houses and questioned what the drive was for regulating metal storage containers. David Oates expressed concern over the safety of public access and stated that private accesses like that of homes are not as high of a concern. No further discussion occurred. VIII. SKETCH PLANS Chase Jensen, developer of the Grover Meadows Subdivision presented the sketch plan review. Kevin Kilroy questioned the location and use of the building permit that had been issued. Chase Jensen answered that it was for his personal home on lot 3 of eight acres. Mikayla Hibbert expressed that the project was in line with the LURs and that she would be happy to answer any questions. No further discussion occurred. IX. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.