Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1/08/07
Jan 8, 2007
Author: Colin Betzler

RECORD OF THE MINUTES OF CITY OF BUFFALO, WYOMING
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 8, 2007 5:00 pm

Present from the Planning Commission were Steve Reimann, Dick Branaman, Bill Cooley, Don Kraen, and Randy Dyess. Others in attendance were Jack Morrey, Lauren Woodin, Randy Deones, Keith Nuestel, Planning Director Jeremy Grimm, and Assistant Planner Colin Betzler. There were several unidentified members of the public as well.

Agenda

1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the November 28th, 2006 meeting.
3. ICM (Intermountain Construction & Materials) Requests for Lot Split
4. Rezoning of Lots 8 and 9 of Block 24 of the Park Addition to the City of Buffalo
5. Wesleyan Church Petition for Annexation
6. Sunset Business Park Subdivision – Petition for Annexation
7. Shiloh Subdivision Phase II – Final Plat
8. Remax Nadine George Request for lot split for 866 and 868 Fort Street
9. January meeting date
10. Adjourn


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Kraen called the meeting to order at 5:02 P.M.

The Honorable Mayor Gary “Andy” Anderson took a few minutes to thank each member of the planning commission, recognizing the Planning Commission’s importance in the grand scheme of development within the city, thanking the commissioners for their hard work and stressing that if they ever feel like they need more time for some of their decisions, they should not hesitate to take it so that they are sure they are making the best decision in shaping how Buffalo will look/feel in the future.

First on the agenda was the Approval of Minutes from November 28th, 2006.
It was brought to the attention of the Commission that there had been several spelling errors, noting that Steve Reimann’s name had been misspelled throughout. Also, Jack Morley should be corrected to Jack Morrey .
Mr. Kraen made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected.
Mr. Reimann seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting in support.

Second on the agenda was the ICM lot split request. (Previously tabled on 11-28-06).
Keith Nuestel told the council that ICM had not given him direction on the request, and asked that it be tabled until the next commission meeting.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to table the ICM lot split.
Mr. Reimann seconded the motion, which was then carried by all commissioners present.

The third item on the agenda was Johnson County’s request for rezoning lots 8 and 9 of Block 24 of the Park Addition to the City of Buffalo. County Commissioner Wildeman presented on behalf of the county.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the commission on the background and history of the request, and described the reasoning behind rezoning the lots.
County Commissioner Wildeman briefed the commission on the county’s position and reasoning for the rezoning request.

Mr. Kraen questioned whether there had been any objections by any of the property owners in the area. County Commissioner Wildeman discussed the process they had used to solicit property owner opinions, and referenced the list of signatures from land owners in the vicinity that fully supported the request of rezoning.
A discussion ensued regarding parking and traffic for the new proposed health building the county is proposing for the property.
Mr. Cooley spoke in regards to the low traffic volume that exists at the current county health center, in support of the rezoning.
Mr. Kraen then opened a Public Hearing on the agenda item. No comments were received and the Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. Reimann had a question regarding the public hearing process outside of the planning commission.
Planning Director Grimm made an unsolicited comment regarding the potential for the county to sell this property or use it for something other than the proposed health care center, and as long as the zoning was B1 it would be allowed. He made the point that there is no guarantee that the county will build a health care center at the site.
Mr. Branaman questioned parking requirements for B1 zoning and the Planning Director responded.
Mr. Reimann made a motion to have a public hearing in front of the city council on the request. Mr. Cooley seconded the motion, and the motion carried with all present supporting the motion.


The Wesleyan Church annexation was next up on the agenda. Mr. Wetterlund and Mr. Laird represented the Wesleyan Church.

The Planning Director briefed the commission regarding the history of this annexation and proposed subdivision, touching on the pre-annexation agreement.
Mr. Kraen questioned the issue of Mathers Street as well as access constraints.
Mr. Wetterland briefed the commission regarding access points on the 2 tracts that comprise this proposed subdivision. The Leitchman part of the property does have a legal access point and the Church has applied to WYDOT in order to solidify the access point.
Mr. Wetterlund spoke about the old sketch plan and the current plan discrepancies. He introduced the idea of annexing the entire property at this time without any subdivisions/streets, to “start with a blank slate”.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the commission regarding the process for subdivision, stressing all degrees that need to be worked though, something to ensure that all provisions are taken care of in case the property changes ownership etc. He also cleared up some confusion between subdivision and annexation differences.
Mr. Riemann asked the Planning Director a question regarding the applicants’ new plan and the change in the subdivision process.
Director cites city code for the subdivision process, water, sewer, storm water etc. to be addressed. The first step for the property would be to present a new sketch plan for comment to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Branaman questions whether a wetland delineation study would be required.
The Planning Director noted that the peer review would possibly require a study to be performed.
Mr. Branaman also questioned the timeline for the upcoming process which was then discussed.
MR. Wetterlund spoke about the original sketch plan regarding the proposed subdivision and stated that the old sketch plan has “totally gone away” and that the Church has no plans to further subdivide the parcels (single family). They expressed their interest in keeping the entire parcel intact.
Planning Director Grimm cleared up the different subdivisions that had been talked about, one that took place already in the summer of 2006 and the other that is proposed.
There was some debate regarding the terms and conditions of the pre-annexation agreement, and it was decided that these would arise further along in the process.
Mr. Kraen questioned whether they had requested a zoning classification yet.
Planning Director Grimm recommended it be zoned in as R1 under special use permit agreeing with the proposed zoning from the 1975 Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cooley asked a question, clarifying that the sketch plans in hand were now obsolete.
The Planning Director identified what the pre-annexation agreement required and recommended that a new annexation agreement be drafted limiting construction and building permit issuance until the subdivision regulations have been adhered to by the Planning Commission and City Council’s liking.
Mr. Wetterlund asked if the Church is not subdividing, do they still fall under the subdivision regulations. Would it be only an annexation to the City because they are surrounded on 3 sides by the City?
Planning Director Grimm briefed the Commission on the intent of the City to require subdivision provisions/regulations to be adhered to. He argued that it is common sense to have subdivision regulations because without proceeding with these regulations, the City has no way of dealing with/ensuring that expansion is suitable for the greater good of the city in terms of safety, quality of life, etc.. Also, it is necessary to allow surrounding parcels to hook onto City infrastructure and annex in themselves.
Mr. Tall Guy clarified that they understand the agreement in regards to utilities, but did not know what agreement was made between Mr. Leitchman and the City.
The Planning Director briefed the Commission that Mr. Leitchman. would not have been able to subdivide had not a pre-annexation agreement existed. The City’s interpretation is that the Church would adhere to all concerns regarding subdivision to let the property become available to the Church.
Mr. Kraen then opened up a public hearing soliciting comments for Wesleyan Church.
Randy Deones asked a question regarding the B1 corridor lining Main Street...some discussion ensued about whether R1 would limit what could be built in the area in the future…a B1 designation would not require a special use permit by the Church.
A neighborhood committee member spoke concern regarding roads, storm water, but not zoning.
Mr. Nuestel offered support for a B1 zoning designation.
Mr. Reimann did not see a special use permit as “particularly onerous”, although he did have some concern over what a B1 designation would mean for the area.
Mr. Dyess pointed out that it was the Church’s decision as to what zoning they wanted to annex in as.
There was a question asked by a citizen present regarding the Mathers street connection.
Planning Director Grimm spoke some about Mathers Street being constructed through the property.
The Planning Commission examined the future land use map that will be adopted by the City in February.
Mr. Kraen closed the public hearing.
Mr. Kraen spoke regarding the subdivision and the Mathers street easement. He recommended that the annexation be approved by the Planning Commission to the City Council with a pre-annexation agreement limiting construction and building permits with a B1 request for zoning.
Some discussion ensued whether zoning was required to be annexed in.
The Church decided to annex in with a B1 zoning request.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the Wesleyan Church Petition for annexation requiring them to agree to the pre-annexation terms as a B1.
Mr. Branaman seconded the motion.
Mr. Reimann asked the Planning Director if the motion was specific enough.
The Planning Director briefed the commission regarding specific language for an agreement in order to strengthen the motion. The motion was amended by Mr. Dyess
Mr. Cooley seconded the amendment to the motion.
The motion carried with all commissioners voting in support.

The next item addressed was the Sunset Business Park Petition for Annexation.
Clarification was provided to the Commission by Mr. Nuestel and the Planning Director on the annexation request, approval of plat, hearing process etc.
Mr. Reimann questioned what needed to be addressed at the current meeting.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the Commission on the history and process of the Sunset Business Park and what needed to be accomplished at the meeting. He highlighted an easement issue that needed to be corrected to receive his recommendation for approval. He read from codebook outlining the legal requirement of an 8’ easement on the East and West sides of the Sunset Business Park.
Mr. Dyess questioned why there wouldn’t be one required to the North.
Mr. Nuestel responded that there would probably be an extension of the business park to the north in the future.
Mr. Nuestel questioned how the subdivision would be named, to prevent confusion in the future.
Planning Director Grimm noted that this could be accomplished in the future with a minor amendment to the plat.
Mr. Kraen opened a public hearing for the Sunset Business Park.
No comments were solicited and the hearing was closed.
Mr. Reimann made a motion to recommend the approval of the Sunset Business Park petition for annexation to the City Council as a B1 district and including the 8’ easements on the westernmost and easternmost boundaries.
Mr. Dyess seconded the motion.
The motion carried with all Commissioners supporting the motion.

Item number 7 on the agenda was the Shiloh II Subdivision- Final Plat approval.
Mr. Woodin and Mr. Morrey represented the developer.
The Planning Director gave a quick synopsis of the process and what the next steps would be. He also read from the geotechnical report to clarify that the roads and homes are being built to the requirements and also noted that included in the plat is a disclaimer stating that neither the developer nor the City makes any claim as to the accuracy of the geotechnical study and that every lot owner is encouraged to perform their own geotechnical evaluation. Planning Director Grimm also noted some minor additions and changes to the final plat regarding several hydrant place changes, changes to the water lines, culverts to address storm water issues, the access for lot 118 (Agricultural access), and the need to decide on a lighting scheme for Phase II (if considered for approval).
Mr. Kraen asked how lot 118 will be accessed.
Mr. Morrey proposed to have direct access to Highway 16 from lot 118. However, until a specific business is decided upon at the location, WYDOT has offered to allow a conditional access agreement.
Mr. Reimann questioned the 2nd access (Melody Street).
Mr. Morrey reported on the Melody street access, and confirmed that Harmony will never be an access street and they have elected to remove it from the final plat.
Mr. Cooley questioned the speed limit near the subdivision
Mr. Morrey reports on the catch 22 situation with WYDOT.
Lucas Street was identified as the second access. And the Planning Director informed the Commission that Lucas Street is the top priority for the City to pave.
Mr. Dyess questions plans for SE corner area (lots 86-87).
Mr. Dyess questioned the proposed road and water in the area, citing the concern of horizontal drainage off the lots.
Mr. Morrey addressed the groundwater concerns and conditions. He cited the geotechnical recommendation, and highlighted that the road was designed as recommended by the report. He also mentioned the French drains that will influence the groundwater concerns in the area.
Mr. Dyess mentioned that he had noticed water on the surface the day of the meeting, and wanted to know what the story was and if there should be more concern on road placement, home placement and flooding issues in the future. He expressed concern that the City may have to pay for repairs in the future after the warranty period expires.
Morrey explained more on the proposed road conditions as well as the past history. He also stood by his firms work and expressed the fact that the roads have been designed to withstand any of the concerns brought up by Mr. Dyess. Everything was built to the best of his engineering abilities.
Mr. Reimann brought up culverts in the flag lot areas.
The Planning Director briefed the commission on the situation, and noted that the culverts will all be designed and reexamined by the peer review process.
Mr. Morrey reassured that the culverts would be engineered to the appropriate and necessary size.
Mr. Branaman questioned the City’s warranty period.
Planning Director Grimm responded with the process for City warranty stating that the city has one year once the project is completed and the developer’s engineer sends an official stating that fact. If there area any problems with any of the infrastructure within the next year, it is the developer’s responsibility to fix any problems. He also spoke regarding the geotechnical report and the overall peer review process for subdivisions. He expressed his comfort in the subdivision process and felt that the peer review addresses all of these questions. He also explained the next process, motion specifics, etc.
Mr. Morrey again addressed Mr. Dyess’ concerns and stood by his firms engineering work, as well as pointing out the peer review process.
Mr. Dyess questioned whether the water and sewer hookups were going to be extended further than they had been in Phase I.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the commission regarding the changes in terms of hookup extensions. He also explained the next process and gave an example of the language that the motion should include according to the city codes.
Mr. Dyess questioned the location of the curb stops.
Mr. Morrey answered his question.
Mr. Kraen asked for a recommendation from the commission.
Mr. Reimann asked about the lighting plan and how that should fit into the process.
Planning Director Grimm described how it should be included in the motion, as well as how the process would move forward concerning subdivision agreements etc.
Mr. Branaman made a motion to approve the final plat for Shiloh Phase II subdivision, including provisions regarding final culvert size and street lighting.
Multiple commissioners seconded the motion.
Mr. Dyess again expressed his concern regarding road placement and water issues.
Mr. Reimann responded that even though JLM Engineering is betting their reputation, the peer review process essentially double-checks and confirms the design.
The motion was carried, without any commissioners opposing the motion.

The last item on the agenda concerned Nadine George’s request for a lot split on the units located at 866 and 868 Fort Street.
Mrs. George explained the current situation and the need for an affidavit to accompany the final documentation. She also explained that Mr. Nuestel would be doing the final surveying.
Mr. Branaman questioned the firewall between the concerned properties.
Mrs. George informed the commission that currently there was not one in the attic, and told of her plans to have her son construct a firewall for the attic.
There was a general discussion regarding firewall requirements.
Mrs. George explained what the plan was for the property, with finished basements, private fencing in the rear and separately owned units.
Mrs. George offered that the units would provide affordable housing for Buffalo.
Mr. Cooley questioned the fencing proposal in terms of large trees that would possibly need to be trimmed or eliminated.
Mrs. George answered the question, and stated that one tree may have to go, and the rest will be trimmed.
Mr. Branaman questioned the minimum lot size required for a town-home.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the commission regarding the City’s definition of a town-home and its significance in this lot split request. The legal conclusion is that there is enough square footage on the property to allow 2 separate units on the lot, and essentially the use of the property will remain the same.
Mr. Dyess questioned the property management association.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the lot split with the requirement of a confirmed firewall between the structures.
Mr. Kraen added an affidavit of survey to the motion.
Planning Director Grimm spelled out motion to include all the City’s concerns.
Mr. Reimann seconded the motion.
The motion was carried with all commissioners present voting in favor.


Next, the Planning Director briefed the commission on upcoming issues and concerns. This included the annexation petition for the Heritage Park Subdivision. He also mentioned the current state of Buffalo Ridge Subdivision, and what the commission might look for in the future.

Before adjourning, the commission decided that January’s Planning Commission meeting would take place on Jan 23rd 5 p.m.

There was some further general briefing of upcoming projects and funding mechanisms, as well as a briefing on the state of the Comprehensive Plan.
There was further conversation on the decision and issues surrounding Shiloh Phase II.

Mr. Reimann questioned the Fort Street lot split and how that relates to the building inspector.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the commission on how the building inspector interacts with these types of motions.

The Commission voted to adjourn at 6:40 p.m.