Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZC Minutes 4.22.261 LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING NOTES Wednesday, April 22, 2026 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 p.m. II. INTRODUCTION OF PZC MEMBERS Planning Commission Members: Karen Anderson, Chair Chad Jensen, Vice Chair Kevin Kilroy David Oates George Collins Lincoln County Staff: Austin Dunlap, Attorney (Absent) Ken Kuluski, Planning Director Mikayla Hibbert, Planner II Katie Gipson, Planner I Sydney Jasperson, Secretary III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Kevin motioned to adopt the agenda, David seconded, motion passed 5-0 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chad made some editorial comments, David motioned to accept the minutes with the changes, Karen seconded. Chad Abstained. Motion passed 4-0 V. DEVELOPMENT REPORT Katie presented the development report for approved permits from February 23rd of 2026 to March 29th of 2026. There were seventeen North Lincoln County permits, one small wastewater permit, and two zoning and development permits. The county is now passed the ‘no-dig’ point of April 1st, Katie stated that the board will be seeing more septic inspections and applications going forward. VI. SKETCH PLANS A. Minor Subdivision, Alpine Valley View Third Filing, Within T36N, R119W, Section 15. Ken presented the Sketch Plan for Alpine Valley View, third Filing, located 3.1 miles south of Alpine. This proposed plan will divide 13.26 acres into two residential commercial lots, with an average lot size of 6.62 acres, with access off Highway 89 with a WYDOT permit. Due to the project being a Minor Subdivision there is no chapter 23 study. They will have individual wells and septic systems that follow current state and county standards. Marlow Scherbel took over to answer questions. There were no questions. 2 VII. ACTION ITEMS B. 112 CUP 26 Garrett & Amy Miles and 95326 US 89 Revocable Trust Mikayla presented 112 CUP for Garret and Amy Miles and the 95326 US 89 Revocable Trust for two parcels of land in The Narrows, south of Thayne. Historically known as the Silver Stream Lodge property, this plan proposes three uses that each require a conditional use permit in the rural zone. The first proposed use is the development of a commercial recording studio, the second proposed use is the construction of four guest cabins, both will be on the parcel to the north. The third proposed use is the replacement of a non-conforming structure on the southern parcel. The original structure was a hope that was destroyed by fire and proposed to be rebuilt as a non-conforming structure as it does not meet the Salt River setbacks but could be allowed through a conditional use permit. Planning staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission send a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for Project 112 CUP 26 with findings of approval A – D and conditions of approval 1-6. Karen asked about a restaurant being on the property historically, Mikayla answered that she could only find guest cabins and a liquor store. There were questions from Chad about the impact to the Salt River, regarding the setback of 150 feet and allowing a new building to be erected in the space. Mikayla clarified that it would be rebuilding the original home and allowed only as a non-conforming structure through a CUP. Karen had questions about the existing flora and fauna of the land and how it has changed, if the project would impact the landscape at all. Mikayla clarified that they could make that a condition of approval. Garrett Miles and Richard Dodge from Studio i Architects came up to answer questions. Karen asked for clarification on the nine cabins, Richard clarified that what they were looking at were trees and showed where the cabins were. Chad asked what the intention was with the recording studio and the cabins. Garrett answered that it was his belief that he was being called to create a space for Christian artists, specifically choirs and symphonies, to come and create music while immersed in an inspiring landscape. Garrett explained that the cabins would house the visiting artists, maybe even visiting relatives. There were questions about the barn, Garrett answered that the barn is to house small livestock like goats in a rescue capacity. David asked a question about septic, Richard responded that they were going to be installing a Presby system. David was opposed to a Presby system. Karen had questions about the stilts of the cabins and the trees. Richard responded that the stilts are 9 feet from the ground, and they will have a berm of trees to obstruct view from the road. Their goal is to create an all encompassing experience that inspires the artists. Karen called for a motion, Chad motioned recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners, with findings A -D and conditions of approval 1 -7 with the added condition that the buildings be lowered to 5 foot tall, Kevin seconded, motion passed 3-2 and will move to the May 6th Board of Count Commissioners meeting. C. 701 MA 26 Etna Village Post Townhomes Ken presented 701 MA 26 Etna Village Post Townhomes which was a Master Plan Phased major subdivision unit for twelve residential dwellings. They will be townhomes, previously referred to as apartments to be constructed under internation residence code instead of international building code to be sold individually. Approved earlier through file 103 CUP 23 and 510 ZD 25 which was their permit to construct, after they got their WDEQ permit. This project has an underground injection control system permitted by WDEQ, that will be continuously monitored. This project is 2 +/- acres located 2.3 miles northwest of the town of Star Valley Ranch. Planning staff recommends the Board 3 of Planning and Zoning Commission send a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for file 701 MA 26 Etna Village Post Townhomes as a subdivision master plan with findings of approval A-C and conditions of approval 1-10. Some of the conditions of approval have already been met, including a review by the fire Marshall and a six-foot tall wooden privacy fence. The Etna will be providing water. Planning Office will include ‘as built’ plans for future developers. Chad had questions regarding septic injection, Ken clarified that when there is a shared leech field with high flow DEQ calls it injection control. Kevin asked why it was approved in 2023, Ken explained that the developer was originally going to keep ownership of the property but has since changed to allow individual ownership. Karen asked if the board had any questions for Ken, they had none, Karen called the representative up to answer more questions. Brett Bennett of Alpine Architectural Studio then took over for questions; he picked up Kevin’s question about the project’s existence. Brett explained that since the building codes have changed, the plan will not be reviewed by the state, but there are still fire suppression measurements like sprinklers. Ryan Erickson from the Center of Engineering of Water and Wastewater took over to clarify the UIC (Underground Injection Control). If there is over 2,000 units of waste per day for use pushes a property into the UIC category. Chad asked who would be conducting the monthly inspections, Ryan clarified that it would be a UIC organization to check sponge depth and have it pumped every so years and submitted to DEQ. Chad had a question about seeing more of these projects in the future and if the county is truly benefiting. Ken responded that there is a potential for the overlays to be changed based on what the county general populace has for input. Marlow Scherbel had comments about the PUD process that involves two to eight units per acre. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of County Commissioners has not approved anything greater than 6 units per acre because of snow storage, parking and other on-site needs. Karen had a question for Brett about signage and lighting, she stated that there was a prior agreement to have only one. Brett and Karen discussed that there were initially two monument signs placed at both entrances to the development. They agreed to remove one sign. Chad had comments about no landscaping within 10 feet of the leech field and what they would look like, Marlowe explained it would be similar to the Bank of Star Valley with a zero-scape like rocks. Karen called a point of order to direct back to discussion amongst board members. Hearing none Karen called for a motion, Chad motioned to send a letter of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for 701 MA 26 Etna Post Townhomes a major subdivision planned unit development with findings of approval A -C and conditions of approval 1 – 10, Kevin seconded. Motion passed 5-0 to go to the Board of County Commissioners May 6th. D. 601 RZ 26 Etna South Rezone Ken presented 601 RZ 26, Etna South Rezone. This project is approximately 48 acres with parcel sizes ranging from 1 – 12 acres. This would be a rezone from rural to mixed use to accommodate the commercial use of properties. The rezone is combined with the conditional use permits 101, 102,103, 104, 105, 106, and 107. All are located two miles northwest of the town of Star Vallet Ranch. The Planning Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission send a recommendation of approval for file 601 RZ 26 a rezone for Etna South with findings of approval A – E and a resolution of approval. All the following CUP’s are contingent upon the rezone being approved by the Land Use Regulations, while still allowing the applicants to appeal the decision to the Board of County Commissioners. This plan is a portion of future planning to expand Etna and help it to grow. The applicants have all entered into an agreement for road maintenance and road extensions to encourage 4 more growth. All following CUP’s are concept plans, they will not have a lot of the usual information until they submit a permit for their actual project which may include WYDOT reviews, traffic studies, DEW review, fully engineered systems and anything else deemed necessary for their future permits. There is a plan in place to widen the road to five lanes to include a turning lane for all the commercial spaces involved and acceleration lanes for merging traffic, this is WYDOT state plan for 2028. Concerns from residents have been included, specifically Ms. Nichols a landowner who was concerned about a buffer fence. Discussion about why the rezone was needed from the Board directed at Ken, Ken clarified that while other properties were permitted prior, like Premier Storage, this rezone would put all the property in a mixed-use zone to allow commercial enterprise. Ken added that the Etna Water district and developers agreed to a 20-foot easement. Marlowe Scherbel took over to explain further, beginning with historic records of the proposed area, explaining the other commercial uses the area has had dating back to 1977. Ryan Erickson from Sunrise Engineering inspected the area and advised that the Etna water system should not extend past Stevens Lane. Marlowe elaborated on the five-lane highway, he clarified that the proper permits are applied for and that the work should begin as scheduled. WYDOT has conducted a TIS requirement traffic study, which found no significant crash patterns in the studied area. The auxiliary roads like Sherwood Lane and Stevens Lane do not have turning lanes. There should be no need for traffic lights in the near future. Karen asked if there were any questions for Marlowe, hearing none she opened the floor to the developers. Marlowe began explaining 101 CUP 26, and asked that item 7 should be struck, “no residential or family use will be permitted’. Rustin Titensor took over to discuss his project 101 CUP 26, he felt that he had misunderstood the usage of the zone, he acted under the assumption that the zone was mixed use due to the existing lumber yard. He would like to strike condition of approval number 7 to allow for future use. Marlowe Scherbel took over to speak about the Reno-Brown project 102 CUP 26, as he was not there for himself, they would like to strike condition number 7 to allow future residential use, citing that Teton County has allowed similar circumstances. Marlowe then presented 103 CUP 26 Etna Trade Park Master Plan. Marlowe stated that Gary is aware and approves of all conditions. Gary, Linda and Garrett Edington took over to speak. Gary spoke about how he and Linda were heavily involved, for example laying the foundation. They would like to provide workspaces for the community. The Edingtons have expanded their own businesses to provide jobs for the community and would like to build upon that. Chad had a question in regards to the living quarters outlined, Linda explained that it is for them to stay in when overseeing the property, when they act as the caretakers of the landscaping and other duties. Garrett Edington read his letter to the Planning and Zoning Board highlighting the support from Robert Samuelian. Marlowe presented the next project 104 CUP 26, and asked to strike condition number 7, Fred Lutz took over explaining his project as personal storage and he has no plans to expand at this time. Marlowe Scherbel presented 105 CUP 26, discussing the conditions 7 and 8, specifically the WYDOT access. Marlowe suggests that he speak with his neighbors to find a safer entry point and that the wording should reflect that WYDOT had full control of the access to the roads applicable. He would like to strike item 8, the non resident condition. He would like to keep the residence as a possibility. Eric Butler came up to speak on his project, he stated he does not have any active plans but has been running a small business VP Electric and that he would like to have as many options as possible going forward. Marlowe Scherbel presented 106 CUP 26, a concept master plan. He asked that number 7 also be removed for this as well, just to make it even across the board. He stated that like the Edingtons this property would be strictly commercial. He also presented project 107 CUP 26 so that the representative could come up 5 and speak on both. Marlowe asks that number 7 also be struck. Rob Heiner took over to speak about 107 CUP 26, explaining that when he purchased the property it was listed on the plat as commercial lot. He received permits to allow storage on the property and the ability to build three buildings on the property, two of which have been built. The concept is to build a commercial space in front of the storage units to block the view of storage units from the highway, potentially a car wash. Marlowe took over again to mention the concerns of Commissioner Connelly, specifically the traffic impact. Karen called a point of order to allow the board to discuss. Ken wanted to address the non-residential use on commercial properties. He stated that the community was concerned about separation of housing and commercial properties, particularly the residents of Stevens Lane having concerns about children walking along a major highway. Karen closed the developer discussion, and opened to Public Comment. Noah Christiansen, owner of lot four and five of Windy Acres, here on behalf of all the land owners with the exception of the Heiners. The residents of stevens lane are opposed to the rezone, with specific concerns about 106 and 107 being directly over the irrigation canal. Another community member came up to discuss his observation that mixed use has allowed for residential and commercial and if the county allows there to be a division of that, the zone would be something other than mixed use. Karen called for any more public comment, and there was none, so she moved for other comments. Marlowe stood and talked about the collective projects and how large the impact might be. Karen asked if there was any more public comment, Eric Heiner came up to comment. He stated that the storage units were built before 2016 and that was before Noah Christiansen was active in the community, stating that since Noah’s arrival he has been adversarial. Karen closed the public hearing, and opened to discussion amongst the board members. Chad started the discussion with statements regarding his dislike of the rezone, stating that he was confused by the reasonings other than to tap into the Etna water district. Kevin was confused as to how the buildings were permitted prior or if the county changed direction. Marlowe and Ken both responded that the current zoning and development permits have limits on 5,000 square foot or less for most uses. All the current buildings are over that, making them fall under Conditional Use Permits. Most are prohibited above 5,000 in the rural zone, so expanding the mixed use zone would bring them into compliance. There was more discussion between the Planning and Zoning Commissioners about the rezoning and how current land owners purchased their parcels with certain expectations, and now the county is saying it wasn’t allowed, but the Commission has to vote on the change. There was additional discussion about revising the overlays to accommodate the county. Marlowe Scherbel spoke to the change being beneficial for density and commercial use, larger commercial use. Gary Edington returned to speak more on his project and how the restrictions and expectations from the county had changed. He spoke about the building permits he had acquired, and that he had a significant financial investment in his property. Eric Heiner came up again to speak on the same point that he was unaware that his property had limits due to the circumstances of their neighbors. Karen closed the public hearing portion, and opened the board discussion again. David had a question for Ken regarding permitting, Ken responded that there cannot be any modification when there is significant financial investment. George stated that he was unaware of the location, and why all of this was approved in the first place, stating that he would like to abstain. Ken addressed that permitting has always been a directors call, the board can agree to them, during the time from John Woodward to Ken there has been significant turnover and changes to the county planning department. Ken spoke on the variation in permits and interpretation of the Land Use Regulations. Sydney Jasperson interjected to clarify the discussion for George by showing him the google maps area where all the proposed projects sat. 6 - Short recess 5 minutes 9:25 -9:30 – Karen called the meeting back to order. She opened the board discussion, George explained that he did his best to be informed. Karen clarified the order of the remaining items, and what would happen if there were split votes, abstentions, or denials. Chad asked if the rezone was noticed in the newspaper. Katie and Ken clarified that it was noticed in the Star Valley Independent and Kemmerer Gazette five weeks prior to the meeting. Kevin motioned to approve File 601 RZ 26 with findings A – C, David Seconded. Motion passed 4-1 E. 101 CUP 26 2T, LLC – Conditional Use Permit Concept Master Plan Chad initiated discussion with Ken about removing condition seven, that it should either be left alone or amended to employee housing. After discussion Karen asked for a motion. Kevin motioned to approve with conditions 1- 6, David seconded. Motion failed 2-3. Chad motioned to approve plans and send a recommendation approval to the Board of County Commissioners for File 101 CUP 26, Conditions of Use Permit Master Plan with findings of A through D, Conditions of Approval 1 through 7, with 7 being modified to say no residential or multi- family use will be permitted for non-on-site employees, Kevin seconded. Motion passed 4-1 moves to June 3rd BCC. F. 102 CUP 26 Brown – Conditional Use Permit Kevin Motioned to approve file 102 CUP 26 with findings A - D, with conditions 1 -7 with similar modification as previous. David Seconded. Motion passed 4-1, moves to June 3rd BCC. G. 103 CUP 26 Etna Trade Park - Conditional Use Permit David Motioned to approve file 103 CUP 26 with findings A - D, with conditions 1 -11 with similar modification as previous. Karen Seconded. Motion passed 3-2, moves to June 3rd BCC. H. 104 CUP 26 Lutz Living Trust – Conditional Use Permit Concept Master Plan Kevin Motioned to approve file 104 CUP 26 with findings A - D, with conditions 1 -7 with similar modification as previous. George Seconded. Motion passed 4-1, moves to June 3rd BCC. I. 105 CUP 26 Means Investments – Conditional Use Permit Concept Master Plan Kevin Motioned to approve file 105 CUP 26 with findings A - D, with conditions 1 -8 with modifications to condition 7 to state ‘Applicant's existing Highway 89 access must meet current and future YDOT access requirements. Recommend access be pursued via Sherwood Court and or Stevens link.’. David Seconded. Motion passed 4-1, moves to June 3rd BCC. J. 106 CUP 26 Heiner Storage - Conditional Use Permit Concept Master Plan Karen asked about discussion, Chad initiated discussion on the Car Wash idea, Ken clarified it was a concept. David Motioned to approve file 106 CUP 26 with findings A - D, with conditions 1 -7 with similar modification as previous. Kevin Seconded. Motion passed 3-2, moves to June 3rd BCC. K. 107 CUP 26 Premier Storage - Conditional Use Permit Concept Master Plan 7 David Motioned to approve file 107 CUP 26 with findings A - D, with conditions 1 -7 with similar modification as previous. Karen Seconded. Motion passed 4-1, moves to June 3rd BCC. VIII. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Ken and The Commission discussed compliance and citation and the interpretation of the Land Use Regulations’ definitions. At this time the recording began to cut out video and audio. We attempted to reconnect via phone but caught the tail end of the discussion before it moved onto the adjournment. ADJOURNEMENT Kevin motioned to adjourn, David Seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8 The minutes from April 22nd, 2026, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved on the _____ day of _________________, 2026. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Chair Dated Director Dated