Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 2024 PZC Minutes Draft DRAFT LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING NOTES Wednesday, October 23, 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 6:02 pm. 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 III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Karen Anderson requested comment and discussion from the board to move 111 CUP 24 HEINER STORAGE project up in the agenda. Stephen Allen explained the procedure to be followed for 111 CUP 24 HEINER STORAGE project. Kevin Kilroy made a motion to move 111 CUP 24 HEINER STORAGE project to the front of the agenda with public comment. David Oates amended the motion to add that the public comment be limited to new comments from those that did not comment at the previous meeting. David Oates seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0 that comments would be limited to three minutes with the request to not repeat comments. Karen Anderson motioned to add brief training sessions to the agenda under OTHER PLANNING MATTERS. Chad Jensen seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chad Jensen commented on wanting to see enforcement for violations taken more seriously. Chad motioned to accept the August minutes. Kevin Kilroy seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. V. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Katie Gipson presented the Development Report for August 27, 2024 to September 22, 2024. Karen Anderson requested further information on the permitting of cell phone towers and their restrictions. Karen Anderson questioned the definition of Tiny Homes. X. 111 CUP 24 HEINER STORAGE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (MOVED BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR A VOTE) Elizabeth Williams presented the project stating that the Board of County Commissioners requested the project return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a vote of approval or affirmation to the Board of County Commissioners. Chad Jensen requested clarification on the location of Steven’s Lane. Karen Anderson Page 1 of 6 DRAFT questioned the requirements for the buffering and requested clarification of Condition of Approval 4. Discussion regarding buffering continued. Rob Heiner, the owner and developer, presented further background information for the project. Kevin Kilroy noted that the Etna Overlay determined that storage units fit in the rural zone, yet the overlay encompasses the northern side of Etna and not the south side. Chad Jensen questioned the consideration of the use being a large industrial facility as was brought out in many letters. Elizabeth Williams clarified that Chapter 7.3 of the Land Use Regulations designated the proposed project as commercial and not an industrial use. Karen Anderson questioned the capping of the lights and ensuring that they meet the lumen requirements of Chapter 6 of the Land Use Regulations as well as any proposed signage. Chad Jensen requested information on the demand of storage units. Rob Heiner clarified it would be a total of 215 units rather than the 246 that are proposed on the drawing. Karen Anderson opened public comment. Joe Christenson, a neighbor to the project, requested that the Board make a recommendation of non-support without significant change to the project proposal. Cory Wolfley expressed concern over the amount of “storage unit pollution” throughout the valley. Megan Rumsey expressed concern over the growth of traffic and traffic lights that may come with storage units along with the potential of bottlenecking the main thoroughfare especially in the event of any accidents. Chad Jensen expressed concern over the length of time for the noise of the production of the buildings and expressed a desire to see a timeline set in place for completion. Karen Anderson requested further explanation on the After-The-Fact permit. Ken Kuluski explained the multi-agency cooperation with DEQ and that the county does not get involved with the reclamation process. David Oates expressed desire to see the project complete the infrastructure and improvement of the roads and the buffering before occupancy of the units. Karen Anderson questioned the reasonableness of adding timelines to the project for the private developer. Rob Heiner explained that it would be reasonable to have the improvements of the roads and buffering and infrastructure within the first year from approval. Karen Anderson requested a motion of support or nonsupport of the project. David Oates made a motion of support with the condition of no occupancy until the infrastructure, road improvements, buffering, and landscaping are complete. Kevin Kilroy seconded the motion. The vote was split with 2 in support and 2 in opposition. VI. 107 MA 23 ETNA RANCH SUBDIVISION Elizabeth Williams presented the project with an amendment to the plat at the request of the developer for lot 1-36 to be designated as Residential/Commercial and lots 37-96 designated as Residential only with a recommendation for the Planning and Zoning Commission to send a recommendation of approval with Findings of Approval A. through C. and Conditions of Approval 1. through 17. to the Board of County Commissioners. Chad Jensen requested clarification on DEQ’s recommendation in regards to the lot numbers. Elizabeth Williams explained the developer had renumbered lots and so the recommendation of needed engineered septic systems should be listed with new lot numbers. Karen Anderson requested a motion to un-table the project in discussion. Kevin Kilroy motioned to un-table project 107 MA 23. David Oates seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Elizabeth Williams directed attention to the summary of the traffic study that the project was initially tabled for. Karen Anderson requested clarification on the vagueness of WYDOT’s request for mitigation. Chad Jensen expressed concern over the phasing taking place over 35 years and having the county approve a project 35 years in advance. Marlowe Scherbel, the developer’s representative, expanded on the background information of the project. Marlowe Scherbel explained that each phase will require a new development agreement depending on the regulations in place at the time, the only thing being committed to would be the density and the road layout. Chad Jensen requested clarification on some of the road connections. Chad Jensen questioned Condition of Approval 15. in regards to the phases. Karen Anderson questioned the snow removal and EMS access on the proposed gravel roads along with required fencing. Kevin Kilroy questioned the requirements of having paved roads in such a large subdivision. Marlowe Scherbel clarified the road requirements and that the road maintenance would be handled by the HOA. David Oates questioned the control of runoff based on the slopes of the land. Page 2 of 6 DRAFT Ryan Erickson reviewed the summary of the traffic study and what is included in the studies and explained the mitigation questioned earlier. Karen Anderson requested further information on the water and sewer proposal. Karen Anderson questioned at what point are individual wells no longer feasible. Ryan Erickson explained that the groundwater levels in the valley are not depleting based on the number of wells. Chad Jensen questioned putting in place impact fees for fixing the existing issues at the intersection of Clark Lane and US Highway 89. Austin Dunlap requested further information on Condition of Approval 3 in regards to specifics for mitigation. Karen Anderson requested to have the wording adjusted in Condition of Approval 3. Discussion for mitigation continued. Karen Anderson questioned the need to create a Condition of Approval to abandon the field access for lot 22. Shay Scaffide, a real estate agent, expressed concern over the rapid build out of subdivisions since covid and brought forth the idea of a moratorium for a master plan to provide breathing room between such large projects. Shay Scaffide proposed the idea to withhold the project until WYDOT widens the road to fix the existing problems before they worsen. LouAnn Hendreson expressed concern over the county not taking into consideration the overall plan for the county. LouAnn Henderson expressed the view that the Etna Ranch Subdivision proposal does not seem to be in line with the county’s Comprehensive Plan. LouAnn Henderson also expressed concerns over the preservation of the county’s fresh clean air, rural peace, and quiet dark night skies along with safety concerns from traffic counts and concern over the existing postal service issues. Megan Rumsey from Alpine, expressed concern over the longevity of accountability and expressed the opinion that this development needs to have its own water and sewer system and brought forward the issues Hoback is having with nitrates as an example. David Cambell, a neighbor to the development, expressed concerns over passing responsibility of correcting the issues at the intersection of County Road 115 and US Highway 89 along with concerns regarding water and the fluctuating pressure of the wells. David Cambell expressed concerns of the targeted residents in the proposed subdivision and expressed the need for working residents rather than more snow birds. Sharee Cambell expressed the concern for the need for affordable housing and workers and for the ability for people’s kids to be able to affordably live in a safe area. Cory Wolfley, a neighbor to the project, expressed concern over irrigation rights from the canal as well as the number of proposed wells. Kevin Kilroy expressed concerns over the access points in phases 1-5 and proposed a condition be put in place to not build past phase 5 until the US Highway 89 access is fixed. Discussion regarding potential conditions for accesses continued. Karen Anderson requested a motion to be made. Discussion continued regarding the wording of Condition of Approval 3. Kevin Kilroy made a motion to recommend approval of 107 MA 23 Etna Ranch Subdivision with Findings of Approval A. through C. and Conditions of Approval 1. through 17. with a modification to Condition of Approval 3. to state “Approvals of phases 2-5 can be completed, no further phases including phases 1 and 6 can be completed until the US Highway 89 turning lane has been constructed. Chad Jensen seconded the motion. Marlowe Scherbel brought forward that if phase 1 is able to be completed, a previous access agreement with Alpenglow would be able to be fulfilled. Motion carried 4-0. VII. 112 CUP 24 THE DOG HOUSE VETERINARY OFFICE Mikayla Hibbert presented the project with a recommendation for the Planning and Zoning Commission to send a recommendation of approval with Findings of Approval 1. through 6. and Conditions of Approval A. through D. to the Board of County Commissioners. Chad Jensen requested clarification on the use and the required permit. Stephen Allen clarified that they are currently operating under an authorized Temporary Use permit. Tina Lyman, owner and developer, explained further information for the project and included that there will be no dog boarding and that it is for small animal use only. LoAnn Henderson spoke in support of the proposed project. Karen requested a motion be made. Chad Jensen motioned to recommend approval with Findings of Approval 1. through 6. and Conditions of Approval A. through D. to the Board of County Commissioners. Kevin Kilroy seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Page 3 of 6 DRAFT VIII. 103 PZ 24 LAND USE REGULATIONS AMENDMENT, SHIPPING CONTAINERS AS STORAGE UNITS (MOVED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 PZC MEETING TO OCTOBER 23, 2024 PZC MEETING FOR LACK OF A QUORUM) Stephen Allen presented the project with a recommendation for the Planning and Zoning Commission to send a recommendation of approval with Conditions of Approval A. through C. to the Board of County Commissioners. Chad Jensen requested clarification on requirements for stacked shipping containers. Karen Anderson requested verification on what is considered as shipping containers being “together” versus separate. Chad Jensen questioned how the proposal is congruent with the Comprehensive Plan of the county and his disagreement with Finding of Approval B. Karen Anderson questioned the location and quantity of the “data plates.” Karen Anderson expressed the opinion that the goal should be to restrict the use of shipping containers rather than encouraging their use. Austin explained the need for standards to be put in place when the use of the shipping containers is opened up to the public. Shay Scaffide questioned why shipping containers are being allowed as storage units and expressed her discontentment with them. LouAnn Henderson requested an enforcement position in the Planning and Development Office. Attisyn Chadwick expressed concern over restricting the use of containers in a residential capacity, with requirements for a foundation makes them more expensive and she expressed the view that they are more affordable and may be one of the solutions to the housing crisis. Stephen Allen clarified the process for violations in order for the county to pursue them and be able to follow up with complaints. Karen Anderson questioned the determination of temporary versus permanent. Stephen Allen explained further how enforcement is intended to work moving forward with the new Eagle View maps that will come into play in the new year. David Oates questioned adjusting community plans for each community with overlays and density. Karen Anderson expressed agreement with Chad in regards to the incongruency of the shipping containers with the Comprehensive Plan especially with thought toward protecting the scenic byway and the aesthetics of the shipping containers. Karen Anderson expressed concern over the timing requirements of temporary to permanent use and needing to know the use behind the timing needs and expressed disagreement with Finding of Approval B. David Oates requested information on blanket requirements versus case-by-case basis especially in regard to the dictation of the aesthetics. Further discussion of shipping containers regarding commercial versus residential use continued. Karen Anderson motioned to table the proposal in hope for more defining and less ambiguous language for 3b. and expressed desire to find another community with more binding language on the aesthetics of the containers. Chad Jensen seconded the motion. Motion fails with a split vote 2-2. David Oates motioned to approve the proposal as written with Conditions of Approval A. through C. and change 3b. to say “painted with natural earth toned colors.” Chad seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-1. IX. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Karen Anderson proposed having a training 20 minutes before the meetings to practice motions. Discussion on timing for training and workshop meetings continued. Austin Dunlap assisted in explaining financial and legal liability on motioning to deny. Kevin Kilroy expressed the opinion of the need to have the developer accountable for their own inspections rather than having the planners inspect the infrastructure. Karen Anderson proposed having the county fund a separate position within the Planning Department for a Compliance Officer. XI. SKETCH PLANS Marlowe Scherbel presented the sketch plan for Bar VT Ranchettes 2nd Filing. Chad Jensen requested clarification on the averages of the lots. Mikayla Hibbert presented the sketch plan for Suncrest View. Chad Jensen questioned the wording in regards to the road requirements. Karen Anderson requested clarification in regards to the proposed cul-de-sac. Tony Keane, property owner and developer, explained some of the topographic limitations for the property and requested that the guest house restriction be removed. Attisyn Chadwick explained the use and installment of sprinklers to limit the need for EMS response and requested reconsideration of the restriction on the guest houses. Page 4 of 6 DRAFT Kevin Kilroy presented the idea of tightening the curve radius to lower the grade and stated that the one-size -fits-all approach does not always work. Discussion on road requirements continued. Marlowe Scherbel presented the sketch plan for the Golden Acres Subdivision. Kevin Kilroy questioned why they were not hooking on to the Grover water system. ADJOURNMENT David Oates motioned to adjourn the meeting. Chad Jenson seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:43p.m. Page 5 of 6 DRAFT The minutes from the August 21, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved on the _____ day of _________________ , 2024. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Chair Dated Director Dated Page 6 of 6