Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 2025 PZC Minutes Draft DRAFT LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING NOTES Wednesday, January 22, 2025 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 & Development Office, Conference Room, 61 East 5th Avenue, Afton, WY I. CALL TO ORDER Karen Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm. II. INTRODUCTION OF PZC MEMBERS Planning Commission Members: Karen Anderson, Chair Chad Jensen, Vice Chair Kevin Kilroy David Oates George Collins Lincoln County Staff: Stephen Allen, Chief of Staff (Absent) Austin Dunlap, Attorney Ken Kuluski, Planning Director Elizabeth Williams, Planner II Mikayla Hibbert, Planner I Katie Gipson, Planner I III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Karen Anderson requested to add the Road LUR Workshop under Other Planning Matters. Karen Anderson also mentioned the proposed PZC Board training on February 19th prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission Board meeting. Karen Anderson brought up the need to discuss the method of delivery of the packets. Chad Jensen made a motion to adopt the agenda as proposed with the adjustment of moving item 10 to item 8, making Blue Ribbon Barn the second project on the agenda. David Oates seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chad Jensen mentioned a needed adjustment for sentence two of the second paragraph on page two to change the word from “neither” to “both.” November minutes were approved. V. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Katie Gipson presented the Development Report for November 25, 2024 to December 29, 2024. Marlowe Scherbel requested year-end numbers comparative to previous years. Katie Gipson answered that those numbers will be presented at the first board meeting in February. VI. 2025 MEETING DATES Kevin Kilroy motioned to accept the meeting dates as presented. Chad Jensen seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Page 1 of 7 DRAFT VII. 109 MP 24 MOUNTAIN ESTATES MASTER PLAN Elizabeth Williams presented the project with a recommendation of approval for Mountain Estates Amended Master Plan with Findings of Approval A. through C. and Conditions of Approval 1 through 14. Karen Anderson questioned if there were any differences between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the packets. Kevin Kilroy questioned the density of the current approved Master Plan. Elizabeth Williams answered that the current approved Master Plan had 80 town homes and the new plan proposes 52 town homes. Single family lot sizes have increased in comparison to the current approved Master Plan. Karen Anderson requested clarification in the difference of the number of phases stated in the presentation as 12 and the statement on the plat of 13. Elizabeth Williams clarified that there are 13 proposed phases. Karen Anderson questioned why the utility tract is proposed to be completed in the last phase instead of in the first phase. Karen Anderson requested to have the project shown on the GIS map to show the well area. Karen Anderson requested further input from both Elizabeth Williams and Austin Dunlap on the infringement on the north neighboring properties of the well-head protection zone. Elizabeth Williams explained that there is a Condition of Approval requiring that the entirety of the well-head protection zone be moved onto the project property or the developer will need to obtain an easement from the affected neighbors. David Oates questioned the encroachment of the well-head protection zone on lot 5. Marlowe Scherbel offered clarification that only the septic needs to be outside of the proposed well-head protection zone. David Oates expressed concern over the high density that is proposed and offered that there should be a condition of approval that does not allow second dwellings on the ½ acre single family lots. Chad Jensen stated concern over size of the lots and the number of septic systems. Chad Jensen does approve of the proposal to have the roads paved, but questioned why the current approved Master Plan keeps being brought back for modifications along with a question of the total number of septics between the 68 lots and the town homes. Elizabeth Williams explained that each town home would have a single shared septic system that would be permitted through DEQ. Chad Jensen brought forward the concerns mentioned by Star Valley Ranch. Austin Dunlap asked if the central well has been permitted by the State Engineer’s Office. Elizabeth Williams referred the question to the developers. Karen Anderson questioned a need for a UIC for the high density area and the central well area along with the required setback of 200 feet. Karen Anderson stated a recommendation to add a condition of approval to move the utility tracts and percs to phase 1. Austin Dunlap asked what the current approved Master Plan phasing timeline was like. Elizabeth Williams answered that it is currently under 3 phases. George Collins asked if anyone had performed a permeability study on the ground and if it was done with the understanding of having so many septics on so little space. Elizabeth Williams stated that the study was completed based on the density of the entire Master Plan and has been submitted to DEQ and referred further explanation to Ryan Erickson. Karen Anderson expressed a need to have the State Fire Marshall review the plan with the potential of having a backup well. Karen Anderson requested further explanation on the other requested access point and whether or not Star Valley Ranch would be willing to grant it. Elizabeth Williams explained that an access permit on Vista West Drive has not yet been obtained by the developer, but that Star Valley Ranch does have a permitting process for them to obtain said access and it is currently unknown whether or not it will be granted. Derk Izatt, the developer of the project, explained that the average lot size of the lots in Star Valley Ranch is under half an acre and that many of those lots are on standard septic. Derk Izatt explained they are trying to make it a nicer development than what is currently approved by enlarging the lot sizes and by requesting enhanced engineered septic systems. David Oates requested further information on the septic systems. Derk Izatt referred the septic questions to Ryan Erickson as the project engineer. Chad Jensen asked about a plan for a storage tank and whether or not Derk Izatt had made application to the town of Star Valley Ranch for an access point on Vista West Drive. Derk Izatt stated they will do whatever required within reason and referred the specifics to Ryan Erickson and explained that he has started working through the process to gain an access point through Star Valley Ranch. Chad Jensen requested that the concern of the storage facilities be addressed. Derk Izatt explained that the storage facilities have already been permitted and sold. Kevin Kilroy asked why they have chosen not to annex into Star Valley Ranch and use their water. Derk Izatt explained that they had applied for annexation in 2018 and were denied. Derk Izatt stated the dimensions of the well-house are 16’ by 20’. Karen Anderson requested further information on the 200 foot well-head protection setback. Derk Izatt did explain that the well had already been drilled before being made aware of the 200 foot setback and that they are now currently Page 2 of 7 DRAFT in the process of obtaining the necessary easements from the neighboring properties to the north. Karen Anderson requested an explanation on the length of the phasing. Derk Izatt explained that it is market based and more logical to leave the undeveloped areas open for farming. Derk Izatt also stated that the original Master Plan was for 3 phases and the current approved Master Plan is set for 5 phases. Marlowe Scherbel, representative and surveyor on the project, explained that the major changes in the Master Plan was that in 2018 they were permitted for condominiums that have now been changed to town houses and they added a second access to Muddy String. Marlowe Scherbel explained that the utilities will still be part of the project, but it is only in the last phase that the utility tract becomes its own lot and further explained that the market tends to drive the phasing. Marlowe Scherbel explained that the well setback becomes 500 feet in the event of having a UIC permit with a public water system and that it is only the septic systems that are not allowed within the 200-500 foot setback from the well. Marlowe Scherbel further explained that full buildout and impacts typically take about 20 years based on Star Valley Ranch and the town of Afton. Marlowe Scherbel helped to further explain the lack of comments from the State Fire Marshall among other agencies. Austin Dunlap asked about whether or not the existing Master Plan has a DEQ approval in place. Marlowe Scherbel answered no as it was not required at the time of the previous approval for the overall Master Plan as it was done in individual phases instead. Karen Anderson expressed a desire to see approved UIC permits for all 52 units before beginning the project rather than each on a phase-by-phase basis and how the 500 foot setback would apply. Ryan Erickson, the engineer on the project, explained the requirements of the Chapter 23 study required by DEQ, the state, and the county. Ryan Erickson continued in explaining that the water system will also need to be permitted through DEQ with the requirements of either two wells or one well with adequate storage for fire protection and that the water storage tank would need to be 50-60 feet in diameter. Ryan Erickson stated that the water system and fire safety is required to be designed and constructed prior to final plat. Karen Anderson had questioned the need for a back up generator for the needed booster pumps for the water system and fire safety. Karen Anderson questioned the root of the problems that Star Valley Ranch has been experiencing. Ryan Erickson explained that the problems they are facing are due to the condition of the pipes rather than the source of the water. Karen Anderson requested input on whether or not a second well would be beneficial to the project and if so why? Ryan Erickson moved on to explain that each of the 52 units will have their own septic tanks with each of the 13 buildings being on one leach field with there being a total of 81 septic systems on 75 acres. Ryan Erickson further explained the Chapter 23 study process. David Oates questioned the lifespan of the UIC systems. Karen Anderson requested that the potential issues of guest homes be addressed. Ryan Erickson explained that the study was done looking at a potential of 5 bedrooms across the board per lot and per unit which is typically above average. Austin Dunlap requested clarification on what happens to the Chapter 23 study from DEQ in the event that the project proposal is rejected. Ryan Erickson answered that a new Chapter 23 study would need to be performed to match the current approved Master Plan with higher density. Ryan Erickson reviewed the traffic study performed for the proposal, including the need for the construction of new turn lanes, similar to the requirements discussed for Etna Ranch. Ruzena Rok, a member of the Star Valley Ranch council, stated that they are currently working on replacing all of the water lines for the town and that they have multiple water storage tanks and wells and are on the final phase of the project. Ruzena Rok stated that there are still concerns over the potential access on Vista West Drive as it is not a paved road and they are currently having the town engineer look at impact assessments and are hoping to further discuss the road access at the next town council meeting in February. Ruzena Rok then cited quotes from the Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan as well as from Chapter 6 of the Lincoln County Land Use Regulations to reference how this proposal does not seem to fit in with the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Use Regulations. Ruzena Rok also questioned the establishment of a Homeowners’ Association and expressed concern over the extended amount of time the development and construction would be taking place even in phases. Chad Jensen questioned if Star Valley Ranch would be interested in annexation. Nancy Hodge, a resident of Star Valley Ranch on the corner of Sugarloaf Drive and Vista West Drive, expressed concern over the traffic study not including Vista West Drive and the different types of traffic that is common on Vista West Drive. Nancy Hodge also expressed concern over the potential for lot owners in the proposed subdivision to create an access on Vista West even without approval from the town of Star Valley Ranch and questioned what would be put in place to prevent Mountain View residents from accessing, using, or Page 3 of 7 DRAFT occupying Star Valley Ranch land. Nancy Hodge further expressed concern over the rentals of the town home units raising the rate of crime, and air and noise pollution. Karen Anderson did state that there will be a wildlife perimeter fence around the subdivision that will help with the separation between Mountain View and Star Valley Ranch. Jim Buckley, a resident of Star Valley Ranch on Sugarloaf Drive, expressed a need for buffering around the storage units along with the noise brought along with the construction. Jim Buckley expressed the need for denial of having Mountain View Estates connect to Vista West Drive. Jim Buckley questioned whether or not all houses will be built by the developer or not. Karen Anderson questioned whether or not there was blare or glare from the lighting on the storage units. Kirsten Merrill, a resident of Star Valley Ranch, questioned the locations of the soil testing as the soil types change drastically. Kirsten Merrill also expressed concern over the water supply for the subdivision and if it will be adequate, as well as concern over the impact on the schools, medical facilities, wildlife, social services, and law enforcement. Kirsten Merrill questioned some of the reasoning behind the enhanced engineered septic systems. Kirsten Merrill expressed personal distaste for the proposal of the project. Kevin Kilroy questioned why Star Valley Ranch has yet to enforce requiring enhanced systems.Kirsten Merrill stated that enforcing enhanced systems is a discussion among the council members of Star Valley Ranch. Katie Toolson, a council member of Star Valley Ranch, expressed opposition to the proposal, the annexation, and giving Mountain View Estates access to Vista West Drive. Rachel Vickers, a resident of Star Valley Ranch, expressed concern over the potential access on Vista West Drive with heightened risks to the safety of those that walk and bike that road. Rachel Vickers also questioned if any of the board members were related to any of the owners or developers of the project and if so would that not be a conflict of interest? Bill West, a resident on Prater Canyon Road, questioned why a new subdivision on Prater Canyon Road was able to do five acre lots, but this new proposal is doing 9.5 acre lots. Mara Apsitis, a resident of Star Valley Ranch on Aztec Drive, expressed concern over the existing traffic on Muddy String and the potential for it to get worse with new development. Elizabeth Williams reviewed the process for each phase of the Master Plan as each phase will come back before the Board of County Commissioners for approval. She explained that no lot can be sold until that lot has been final platted at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. Karen Anderson questioned the last sentence of Condition of Approval number 10 in reference to the approval. Elizabeth Williams clarified the approval refers to each phase. Chad Jensen questioned what is currently allowed based on the current approved Master Plan from 2018. Elizabeth Williams explained that the 80 town homes are currently approved and allowed, but the developer would need to come forward with a subdivision plat and Chapter 23 study from DEQ for the development. Karen Anderson stated that regardless of the recommendation made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the project will move forward to the Board of the County Commissioners meeting on February 5th at 10am. Chip White, a resident on County Road 118, questioned the vision for the valley while expressing not wanting to hinder developers. Karen Anderson encouraged the audience and commenters to speak with the County Commissioners. Karen Anderson requested clarification on a number of the Conditions of Approval. David Oates expressed a preference for the new proposal over the approved 2018 Master Plan, but would like to include a Condition of Approval for no guest houses on lots less than 1.25 acres. Further discussion over water and fire safety requirements ensued. Chad Jensen recommended that there be a plat warning stating that there be no approaches to Vista West Drive. Further discussion over proposed changes to the Conditions of Approval occurred. Karen Anderson proposed to add a Condition of Approval stating that no other development may be built until the UIC permit has been issued by DEQ along with a Condition of Approval to have approval from the State Fire Marshall before the final plat. Karen Anderson asked if it was accurate to say that the central well is approved or is not approved? Karen Anderson proposed to have parks and utility tracts moved into phase 1. Karen Anderson reviewed that Condition of Approval 10 will add “of that phase” at the end, Condition of Approval 15 would state no guest houses allowed on any lot under 1.25 acres, Condition of Approval 16 would state that plat warnings will be placed that there will be no direct access to Vista West Drive, and that Condition of Approval 17 will state that no other development may be built until the UIC permits have been issued by DEQ. Page 4 of 7 DRAFT Chad Jensen made a motion to recommend approval with Findings of Approval A. through C. and Conditions of Approval 1. through 14. with the additions of 15. no guest houses will be allowed on any lot less than 1.25 acres, 16. plat warning will be placed that there will be no direct access to Vista West Drive, and 17. no development may be built until the UIC permits are issued by DEQ. Kevin seconded the motion. Karen Anderson questioned whether or not the town homes would be affordable housing. Derk Izatt answered that they are not intended to be affordable housing. Motion carried 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission reconvened at 9:10 pm. X. 601 RZ 25 BLUE RIBBON BARN - REZONE Ken Kuluski presented the project with a recommendation of approval to advertise for the project to be heard at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 19, 2025. Chad Jensen questioned how the project was open for public comment and why it needs to be re-noticed. Karen Anderson questioned the difference between the new sheet and the sheet included in the packet. Ken Kuluski clarified that the Rezone must be presented separately from the Conditional Use Permit and that the Conditional Use Permit will not move forward without the approval of the Rezone. Discussion regarding the definition of “contiguous” and “spot-zoning” occurred. Greg Berdar, the developer of the project, gave further background information on the proposed project. Karen Anderson questioned the size of the existing building. Greg Berdar answered that the existing building is 3,000 square feet and stated that the State Fire Marshall has been out to the property. Timothy Stewart, the developer of Bridger Mountain, Bridger View, and the Star Valley Ranch RV Park, gave background on the surrounding properties and stated that Blue Ribbon Barn has been operating without a “special use permit” for 3 years. Timothy Stewart expressed that it would be a better option to rezone 5-10 acres around the existing structure than to rezone the entirety of the 78 acres. Mike Kocha, a resident of Star Valley Ranch, expressed that there’s no real need to rezone the property to Recreational. Chip White, a resident within 300 feet of the rezone, questioned if the rezone would affect the ability of the property to build an RV park as well as if the Dana Ditch would be affected. Chip White expressed concern over the amount of traffic the rezone would bring or encourage. Robert Eckert, a neighbor of the proposed project, questioned if a spot rezone was similar to a variance and if the property was eligible for a variance. Robert Eckert expressed concern over the potential of the rezone bringing about an RV park and the potential for increased traffic on County Road 118. Chad Jensen made a motion to recommend approval for the Planning Staff to advertise for 30 days with Findings A. through C. Kevin Kilroy seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. 201 MS 25 BAR VT RANCHETTES 2ND FILING Mikayla Hibbert presented the project with a recommendation of approval with Findings of Approval A. through C. and Conditions of Approval 1. through 5. Kevin Kilroy questioned whether or not this proposal would allow the properties to be subdivided again. Marlowe Scherbel, representative of the project, gave some background to the reasoning and intent of the project and brought out that the property is within the Airport Safety Zone. Chad Jensen questioned the proposed access points. Marlowe Scherbel clarified the one existing access and one new proposed access and explained that the net acreage is what is considered as usable acreage. Kevin Kilroy made a motion to recommend approval with Findings of Approval A. through C. and Conditions of Approval 1. through 5. David Oates seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. 202 MS 25 GROVER MEADOWS Mikayla Hibbert presented the project with a recommendation of approval with Findings of Approval A. through C. and Conditions of Approval 1. through 7. with amendments to Conditions of Approval 5., 6., and 7. Chad Jensen questioned the definition of a “waste ditch.” Marlowe Scherbel clarified that it was a return ditch to the Salt River. Chad Jensen requested clarification on the jurisdiction of the laterals. Austin Dunlap requested Page 5 of 7 DRAFT clarification on setbacks from ditches. Chad Jensen requested a review of the decision of the required trail from the Sketch Plan. Mikayla Hibbert explained that the Planning Office will be requesting for a 10 foot wide cleared and compacted pathway to be developed within a 20 foot easement on the east side of lot 3 in Condition of Approval 4. Austin Dunlap requested the location of the 20 foot ditch setback requirement in the Land Use Regulations. David Oates requested further information on the ongoing boundary adjustment. Chase Jensen, the developer of the project, expressed concern over Condition of Approval 4. and proposed to move the trail system to the property on the east of the proposed subdivision and that the easement be split between the two property owners. Kevin Kilroy expressed agreement that constructing the trail seems pointless when it’s not currently accessible. Marlowe Scherbel questioned if the other side eventually develops will it also need the 20 foot easement or is it only being required on this project as it’s the first to be developed. Chase Jensen requested to strike the 60 foot easement extending the property east of the cul-de-sac from bullet point 6a. Kevin Kilroy proposed to have a condition to have an easement in the event of future development as a trigger event. David Oates questioned if the easement would be removable after plat approval. Further discussion on connectivity and the proposed easement occurred. Chase Jensen proposed to also strike bullet points 6c. and 6d. as the ditch has not been in use since 1902. Austin Dunlap questioned the maintenance of the ditch in question. Mikayla Hibbert further explained the need for Condition of Approval 4., and bullet points 6a., 6c., and 6d. Marlowe Scherbel questioned the need for setbacks for all small ditches and laterals. Further discussion over setbacks for lateral ditches occurred. Tom McKinney commented that there is no culvert under the County Road 182 for any water to flow further west and therefore no need for a setback on the low spot being considered a ditch. Tom McKinney continued that it seems inappropriate to require a private land owner to develop a public walkway that will not be maintained with public funds or tax dollars if eminent domain is not being declared. Chad Jensen proposed to have the developer provide a 10 foot wide easement for a potential future pathway located within the 20 foot wide easement for the powerline north trail. Kevin Kilroy agreed that a pathway easement would be beneficial. The Board ag eed to strike 4 and keep 6c., and to omit 6a. and 6d. Chad Jensen motioned to recommend approval with Findings of Approval A. through C. and Conditions of Approval 1. through 7., with Condition of Approval 4. removed and Condition of Approval 6 points a. and d. omitted. David Oates seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. X. 601 RZ 25 BLUE RIBBON BARN - REZONE (Moved forward in the meeting.) XI. SKETCH PLANS (None) XII. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Ken Kuluski presented the proposal to have a PZC Commission training on February 19, 2025 at 4pm. and to have a 2 hour training workshop for the road LUR on Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 2pm. Further discussion over the specifics of the trainings occurred. The board agreed unanimously to have the packets emailed and to pick up hard copies at the branch office they attend in. ADJOURNMENT David Oates motioned to adjourn the meeting. Karen Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. Page 6 of 7 DRAFT The minutes from the January 22, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved on the _____ day of _________________ , 2025. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Chair Dated Director Dated Page 7 of 7