HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 18, 2025 PZC Draft Minutes
Page 1 of 6
LINCOLN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING NOTES Wednesday, June 18, 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 6:00 pm. II. INTRODUCTION OF PZC MEMBERS
Planning Commission Members: Karen Anderson, Chair Chad Jensen, Vice Chair Kevin Kilroy David Oates (absent) George Collins Lincoln County Staff: Ken Kuluski, Planning Director Elizabeth Williams, Planner II Mikayla Hibbert, Planner I Katie Gipson, Planner I
Amy Butler, County Engineer Austin Dunlap, Attorney III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Kevin Kilroy motioned to adopt the agenda as presented. Chad Jensen seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (NONE) V. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Katie Gipson presented the Development Report for approved permits from April 28, 2025 to May 25, 2025. Discussion followed. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
VII. 602 PZ 25 LAND USE REGULATIONS AMENDMENT ROAD STANDARDS Proposal A. Modify language in Chapter 6.16 Road Standards. Marlowe Scherbel asked why the County would not require all roads to be designed by engineers. Amy Butler, County Engineer, responded that the Board of County Commissioners do not want to give up County control of roads. Chad Jensen proposed modifications to clarify when requirements “may” be required. Kevin Kilroy recommended adding “conservation district” to soil report to clarify what soil report was being referenced.
Page 2 of 6
George Collins made a motion to send a Recommendation of Approval for Proposal A with modifications (see attached Findings of Fact with modifications highlighted in blue). Chad Jensen seconded the motion. Motion
carried 4-0. Proposal B. Replace Standard Grading Sections Chapter 6.16, Pages 20-21 with Typical Section drawing. Ryan Erickson of Sunrise Engineering requested that the Typical Section drawing allow backslope to be steeper than a 2:1 slope. Amy Butler responded that a 2:1 or less slope allows for re-seeding the slope, and that a steeper slope would likely occur in mountainous terrain, which would be professionally engineered and could be addressed individually. Scott Scherbel had questions about side ditch depth, and if material will make a difference for slope requirements. Scott questioned why roadway width requirements have increased to 26 feet from 20 feet.
Kevin Kilroy made a motion to send a Recommendation of Approval for Proposal B with modifications (see attached Findings of Fact with modifications highlighted in blue). Chad Jensen seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Proposal C. Add Cul-de-Sac drawing to follow Typical Section drawing in 6.16.
Scott Scherbel suggested the word “Travel” be added to the phrase, “Edge of Surface” and requested that there be a right-of-way radius for the return curve defined. Marlowe Scherbel asked if there is only one style of cul-de-sac since Appendix N (International Fire Code) allows many types of turn arounds. Austin Dunlap said that this was adding this Typical Cul-de-Sac drawing to the Land Use Regulations. Amy Butler clarified that this would be a typical cul-de-sac depiction, and that further turn arounds are discussed in Proposal D. Chad Jensen motioned to send a Recommendation of Approval for Proposal C with modifications (see attached Findings of Fact with modifications highlighted in blue). George Collins seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Proposal D. Modify language in Chapter 6.17 General Road Design Requirements Karen Anderson asked for clarification of point C which specifies that the maximum length of a road ending in a cul-de-sac will be 1,000 feet. Elizabeth Williams explained that due to the proposed widening of the road to 26 feet, Planning Staff felt 1,000 feet was a good middle ground even though Appendix N limits dead-end fire roads without special approval to 750 feet in length.
Kevin Kilroy discussed pedestrian/bicycle paths and wanted the paths to be referenced in an overall plan. Scott Scherbel requested a definition of a loop road and clarified that a cul-de-sac is a type of turn around. Scott expressed concern with Proposal D 6.17 B. regarding connectivity continuity and wanted to know what language the County was going to use when asking for connectivity. Scott also said he would like items L and M under item C. Scott stated he would like to see the word Right-of-Way for radius in item 6.17. C.a. Scott would also like to see a definition for “adequate snow storage.” Scott stated that a one lot subdivision would create a non-conforming road for 6.17.E. Scott asked why the County Commissioners get to decide the pedestrian and bicycle paths, and stated he like clarification of pathway width and right-of-way width. Marlowe Scherbel stated that in 6.17.B. connectivity to landlocked lands creates unknowns and may unknowingly
help someone subdivide that otherwise wouldn’t have been able to do so. Marlowe Scherbel expressed that he would like a connectivity plan for the County.
Page 3 of 6
Karen Anderson expressed concern about the variety of opinions between Planning Staff and Developer Representatives.
Chad Jensen stated that he thinks it is a starting point and we need to move things forward. Ken Kuluski mentioned that those presenting public comments this evening had a financial reason to be here and were not disinterested parties. He clarified that County Commissioners can add more stringent requirements to Appendix N, or any other requirements because of County needs. Ken Kuluski stated that each project is brought forward for review in a case by case basis for connectivity and that County Staff is creating a connectivity plan for internal use. Karen Anderson asked for clarification of 6.17.J. regarding pedestrian way/bicycle path requirements. Austin Dunlap recommended that Planning & Zoning Commission allow public comment to emphasize one or two of the items, and then focus on what they think is most important.
Chad Jensen motioned to send a Recommendation of Approval for Proposal D with modifications (see attached Findings of Fact with modifications highlighted in blue). George Collins seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-
1. Proposal E. Amend language and Road Type Table in 6.18 Subdivision Road Design Specifications Chad Jensen stated that their needed to be revised language for the Mountain Terrain section. Kevin Kilroy asked for clarification of whether the grade meant road slope or site slope. Elizabeth Williams clarified that the terrain exceptions are for the road, not the site slope. Chad Jensen recommended clearer language, which was then adopted in the motion. Scott Scherbel recommended language revisions on Grade Exceptions, which was then adopted in the motion. Scott also commented that this was the first public meeting for this project. Scott asked why private local roads have changed the number of lots to 19 instead of 24, and why the curve radius has increased so much.
Scott also asked why mountainous terrain lots were limited by lots and Average Daily Trips (ADT). He argued that requiring a 300 ft curve radius would prevent roads from hugging mountainous terrain, and that the design speed for 30 mph is too restrictive because it requires the larger curve radius. Scott questioned where the numbers were coming from. Kevin Kilroy stated that design speed creates challenges from a developer point of view.
Elizabeth Williams responded the overall reason for the changes to the Land Use Regulations is because fire departments and EMS responders are telling us that current road design requirements create situations that are dangerous. In an emergency they can’t get to the scene, or access is compromised because of steep icy roads, blind corners, narrow roads, and cars that may be coming out of an area at the same time. Elizabeth Williams clarified that the reason this is before the Board is to determine if there are some areas that shouldn’t be developed. Amy Butler responded that the 30 mph design speed is based on state statutes and speed limits, explaining that subdivision roads in state statutes are 30 mph by default. Amy Butler continued stating that mountainous terrain, above 8% will be designed by professional engineer who can do lower design speeds of 15 mph curves with this
new proposal and can design a road that hugs topography. Amy Butler explained the reason for limiting the number of lots and average daily trips in mountainous terrain is based on conversations with fire fighters and EMS responders.
Page 4 of 6
George Collins stated he was at the meeting with fire chiefs and EMS responders in Kemmerer, and that they have concerns with slope and snow issues and stated it does matter how many people are on the road as it creates
more obstacles for fire crews to deal with. Chad Jensen motioned to send a Recommendation of Approval for Proposal E with modifications (see attached Findings of Fact with modifications highlighted in blue). George Collins seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-1. Proposal F. Add and modify definitions to Chapter 7.1 Scott asked about the restriction of flag lots and minimums on guest houses. Elizabeth Williams explained that restrictions on guest houses are because there are impacts to the community, for example with more bedrooms there are more septic impacts which could cause water quality to be compromised.
Kevin Kilroy motioned to send a Recommendation of Approval for Proposal F with no modifications. George Collins seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
Proposal G. Change “Office of Planning & Engineering” to “Office of Planning & Development” throughout the Lincoln County Land Use Regulations No discussion. Chad Jensen motioned to send a Recommendation of Approval for Proposal G with no modifications. George Collins seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Proposal H. Modify Lot Design Specifications, layout to clarify flag lot limitations Scott asked why flag lots are a problem. Kevin Kilroy asked about dimensions of flag lots. Elizabeth Williams showed an example of flag lots in Valley of the Burm Subdivision. She pointed out that what is currently in the Land Use Regulations is the statement in 6.11.D.3. “Flag lot design is discouraged.” Elizabeth Williams explained that the reason flag lots are discouraged is because it is difficult for fire trucks and other vehicles to access these types of lots, and that it is usually done as a work-around for mountainous terrain or wet terrain. Elizabeth
Williams explained that in mountainous terrain a flag lot allows a builder to build a lot where a road would not be buildable because the slope exceeds the allowed grade based on our Land Use Regulations. Elizabeth Williams stated that giving parameters of no more than two lots, and with the parameters of the length can be no more than three times the width helps limit these to make them safer. Chad Jensen motioned to send a Recommendation of Approval for Proposal H as presented. George Collins
seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 - 0. VIII. SKETCH PLANS (NONE) IX. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Chad Jensen asked if the letters from the Fire Warden, Fire Chiefs, and EMS responders had been addressed. Elizabeth Williams responded that this LUR Amendment is a starting point, and that the comments brought up in the letters bring up many issues that could be future LUR Amendments. She explained that the Fire Chief’s comment that a driveway should be a Fire Access Road and then be under our Land Use Regulations for grade would be an excellent thing for us to look at for safety. Re-appointment decision: Austin Dunlap announced that both Karen Anderson and Chad Jensen were re-appointed.
Page 5 of 6
Karen Anderson stated elections for the board will happen at the July Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Kevin Kilroy motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. Karen Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
Page 6 of 6
The minutes from the June 18, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved on the _____ day of _________________ , 2025.
_____________________________________ _____________________________________ Chair Dated Planning Director Dated