Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1/23/07
Jan 23, 2007
Author: Colin Betzler

RECORD OF THE MINUTES OF CITY OF BUFFALO, WYOMING
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 23, 2007 5:00 pm

Present from the Planning Commission were Steve Reimann, Bill Cooley, Dick Branaman, Don Kraen, and Randy Dyess. Others in attendance were Keith Nuestel, Jack Morrey, Mark Christiansen, Mr. Patrick Helvig, Kip Garland, Ms. Tanya Hansen, Ms. Marilyn Demontigny, Mr. Marshall Young, 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 January 8th, 2007 meeting.
3. GT Investments – Request for Rezoning of Lots 3,4,5,6 of Block 2 of the Carwile’s Addition to the City of Buffalo.
4. Twin Lakes Addition – Petition for Annexation
5. Heritage Trails Sketch Plan ( Twin Lakes Addition)
6. Tuff’s Acres Subdivision Final Plat, County subdivision within 1 mile
7. February Meeting Date
8. Adjourn


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Kraen called the meeting to order at 5:03 P.M.

First on the agenda was the Approval of Minutes from January 8th, 2007.
Mr. Reimann made a motion to approve the minutes as written.
Mr. Cooley seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

Second on the agenda was a Request for the Rezoning of lots 3-6 of Block 2 of the Carwile’s Addition by GT Investments. Mr. Kip Garland was the representative for GT Investments, as well as the developer.

The Planning Director briefed the commission on the developer’s request to rezone the lots. The developer plans to build apartments and/or townhomes, which would require a special use permit and variance under the current R1 zoning designation.

Mr. Garland explained to the commission his plans for demolition and new construction of an apartment complex and townhomes in the area. Mr. Garland referenced his sketch plans for the property. He proposed affordably priced apartment rentals, improving the property, paving sections for parking, and putting in energy efficient style housing units. He is trying to make them as affordable as possible for anyone coming into these units. In the second area, he desires to build either a duplex or 2 townhouses. He will personally be living in one of the new buildings.
A general conversation ensued regarding the surrounding property and streets.

Mr. Dyess asked several questions pertaining to the aspect of the apartments, and how many units would be allowed.
Mr. Garland responded that there would be a total of 6 units, comprised of 2 stories.
The Planning Director offered a comparison between Mr. Garlands proposal and what is currently allowed with the R1 zoning designation.
Mr. Garland described in detail the layout of the homes, square footage (1500 sq ft) etc.
Mr. Reimann asked the Planning Director several questions regarding the zoning of the area.
The Planning Director briefed the commission on the mixed use zoning of the surrounding areas. He also informed the commission that they would be holding a public hearing and that comments received should factor into the commission’s decision.
Mr. Branaman questioned if there was adequate parking available for the apartment units.
Mr. Garland explained that to his knowledge, they are surpassing what is required by the codebook.
A general discussion ensued regarding parking options.
Mr. Dyess confirmed the individual lot size as being 100ft x 150 ft.
Mr. Cooley asked if much thought had been put into the architectural design/materials etc.
Mr. Garland went into detail on the measures that he was taking to insure that it was as maintenance free as possible.
Mr. Cooley asked about landscaping.
Mr. Garland went into detail regarding the “enormous” amount of landscaping that they are planning on completing in the landscaping phase of construction.
Mr. Branaman asked about the main level square footage of the entire apartment building.
Mr. Garland went into detail about the square footage (108ft x 30ft).
Mr. Dyess questioned the number of 2 and 3 bedroom units and brought it to Mr. Garland’s attention that according to the codebook, 10 parking spaces are needed.
Mr. Garland didn’t think it would be a problem to comply with the code.
The Planning Director referenced that the rezoning does not guarantee that this project will be built there, but any other project would have to be approved by the building inspector and go through the appropriate channels.
A general discussion ensued regarding zoning differences.
Mr. Kraen opened a public hearing regarding the rezoning request.
Mr. Bruce Hepp questioned the adequacy of the sewer lines in this area in terms of capacity. He also questioned the dedication of the alley and what the status is of the alley. He also mentioned concerns regarding mail box receptacles and garbage collection plans for the complexes… He also questioned the accesses for the proposed parking lots and made the point that during a catastrophic flood event that results in taking out all the bridges in town, the access location of the apartment complexes would could potentially complicate a flood emergency evacuation.
Planning Director Grimm again reminded the commission that GT Investments sketch plan is in good faith only, and the city has no way of guaranteeing what will be built on these lots, only that they will have to comply with the zoning.
Mr. Branaman asked for clarification regarding access and garbage services and at what point those concerns needed to be addressed.
Planning Director Grimm answered the questions regarding garbage services and access, and how this rezoning would not affect necessary access for these types of developments.
Mr. Reimann asked about garbage and mailbox concerns.
Planning Director Grimm referenced the site plan review by the building inspector, and how that might require changes based on concerns of this nature.
Mr. Reimann asked about Mr. Hepp’s comment regarding the limited sewer capacity.
Planning Director Grimm stated that he is not aware of any additional capacity issues for the sewer in this area. Typically, sewer studies are not completed, but could be required by the developer if so desired. The sewer line in the area is a 6 inch clay line, then an 8 inch PVC line at Keays Street.
Mr. Kraen asked if there were any other questions or comments…
Marshall Young stated that he owns property across from the property of interest and that this is the time that the alley should be brought up to city standards so that it is useable as an alley is meant to be. He went into detail regarding what improvements are needed. He offered his cooperation to help get a decent alley and sees “nothing really wrong” with rezoning Mr. Garlands property.
Mr. Hepp had another comment as to the square footage of the building, he questioned stormwater containment, results from parking lot runoff etc.
Planning Director Grimm acknowledged that Mr. Hepp is correct, and that it is illegal to transfer storm water onto a neighbor’s property. He admitted that the current city code does not address these types of issues to the desired extent, but will this coming spring when the codebook is reworked. Until then, the city has been asking for containment facilities to be required on properties within the city of this nature. The building inspector has some authority on this subject with the current city codes in place.
Mr. Patrick Helvig who lives across from the property of interest, questioned if adding 4 additional sewer lines in the area would increase sewer problems which are present to the north of his home.
Mr. Cooley questioned whose responsibility it was for the maintenance of sewer lines.
Planning Director Grimm said that sewer repair falls under the city’s capitol improvements area. He also made the point that currently, the requestor is able to build 6 units on the lots and is simply looking for the okay to do something a little more creative with the property. The overall change with what is currently allowed on the property is actually very minor.
Mr. Kraen closed the public meeting.
There was a general discussion by board members involving:
Mr. Reimann asked Planning Director Grimm if it would be beneficial to talk with public works department before taking an action.
Mr. Grimm went into more depth on what is involved with sewer line replacements, tree root problems. He clarified that there would actually be 8 dwelling units as R1 and that the net dwelling units would not change under GT Investments proposal. If GT Investments does not develop this area, than there potentially be a problem with a higher net gain.
Mr. Branaman questioned the city’s role with sewer if this development takes place.
Planning Director Grimm went on the record stating that this area would be a priority for the city to replace the sewer line, and that 100 years from now, every clay line will be replaced.
General conversation ensued regarding some of the specifics of the sewer issues.
Mr. Cooley questioned how many units could potentially be built if the property exchanged hands, what the maximum number of dwellings would be under an R3.
Planning Director stated that 15 units would be the maximum allowed, not taking into effect parking requirements, which might lower that number.
Planning Director stated that if those were the concerns, the commission could insert a clause into the motion making the property revert back to R1 if GT Investments does not follow through with their current plans.
Mrs. Van Norman took the podium and made complaints about the sewer issues for her property, to the north of the Helvig’s property. She has had 14 years of problems and every month the city crew shows up to unplug the problem. She stated that adding more units would cause more problems with sewer in the area.
Mr. Dyess determined that the real problem was with the 4 inch private line that ties into the 6 inch clay line which is the city’s responsibility. There was consensus on this determination.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the commission that as currently zoned, the property allows for 8 units to be built right now. The real issue comes down to how Mr. Garland wants to sell these units, and the R3 designation would allow more flexibility. Mr. Garland does plan to live in one townhome, sell the other, and also manage the apartment units.
Mr. Kraen asked one more time for public comments.
General conversation and debate ensued among commissioners.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the rezoning to R3 with the assumption that the property will revert back to R1 designation if GT Investments does not follow through with their project. The city council can address sewer issues before the public hearing.
Mr. Reimann seconded the motion.
The motion carried with all present voting aye.


The third item on the agenda was the petition for annexation by the Twin Lakes Addition.
Mr. Christiansen, the developer introduced himself, than let the Planning Director give a general briefing on the applicant’s desire for the property.
The Planning Director briefed the commission on the annexation and the plan by the developer, brought to the attention of the commission the fact that the applicant has done everything necessary by state statutes to proceed with this annexation request. He also mentioned the fact that the developer has spent a large amount of time in the planning office making sure that the procedure is followed. The Planning Director stated that he did not see any overwhelming comments or concerns regarding this annexation, sewer water are available and the city has the capacity to service this development.
Mr. Christiansen asked if the commission had any questions at this time, and announced his desire to annex the 51.88 acres as R1 zoning.
Mr. Dyess questioned if the developer was going to be granting any easements to the city.
Mr. Christiansen stated that the Planning Director had advised him to adopt an 8 foot easement around the perimeter of the property.
Some discussion ensued regarding water rights and how that would be changed over to the city, changing diversion points etc.
Director Grimm added that an easement should be required in the language of the annexation, pertaining to the North, West, and South sides of the property. There is already an existing easement on the east side of the property.
Mr. Kraen opened the topic up to a public meeting…
Marilyn Demontigny, a resident of the county had a couple of questions regarding the annexation with county all around except for the school property, as well as a water rights question that had already been answered.
Director Grimm explained the state statutes governing annexation and the legality and flexibility that accompany the subject of annexation. The city’s determination is that it does constitute a continuous piece of property.
Mr. Hepp questioned the Kirven property in terms of a future forced annexation and his concern that the city will incur all costs for infrastructure/development within the Kirven property when it is force annexed.
Planning Director Grimm spoke about force annexation of property and stated that the Kirven property does not represent a high cost to the city if force annexation happens in the future, as water and sewer are readily available to the property, and a developer would assume the cost of infrastructure through the Kirven parcel if development does happen.
An unknown citizen mentioned that the Kirvens already have city water.
Some discussion ensued regarding sewer issues, the sewer analysis stage during subdivision review, and the “safeties” that exist to sort out these types of issues during the subdivision process.
Mr. Hepp brought up more questions regarding sewer capacity issues.
Mr. Reimann questioned sewer issues, regarding who pays for increasing capacity when multiple developers are in the stages of development simultaneously, and whether they might exclude each others capacity in their studies. It was determined that this process is on a “first come, first served” basis, and that the capacity studies would take into account the new developments.
Mr. Young questioned the city’s liability to the Kirven property when it is brought into the city, he thought it needs to be looked at more closely before going ahead too far with this development. He has spent 60 years paying taxes to cover programs that were to pay for themselves, and that the Kirven property will be one of these.
General discussion ensued regarding the specifics of force annexing and developing the Kirven property.
Tanya Hansen, an attorney representing Bill and Liz Omahundro (option to purchase with Mark Christiansen’s development company) spoke regarding the developers good intent, that the proposed subdivision is a positive, well-developed, first class subdivision that will be an asset to the City of Buffalo. She also added that “the city cannot run on what-ifs as the city is developing”.
General discussions ensued with further questions exploring topics already noted in these minutes.
Mr. Kraen closed the public hearing.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to accept the annexation with 8 foot easements on north, south line, and west boundaries.
Mr. Branaman seconded.
The motion was carried with all members voting aye.



The sketch plan for Heritage Trails Subdivision Sketch Plan was next up on the agenda.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the commission regarding the sketch plan, describing what lengths the developer has gone to in order to present this sketch plan to the commission. He gave a general description of the subdivision, noting street widths, access points, mail service, walking trails, flag lots, and cul-d-sacs.
Mr. Kraen asked about the size of the cul-d-sacs, concerned that they might not be wide enough.
Mr. Christiansen briefed the commission on his company’s plans for the subdivision, their development philosophy and general information regarding cul-d-sacs, road widths, walking trail connections, landscaping, and open space among other items.
Mr. Reimann questioned the zoning designation, wanting to know if the proposed townhomes would need to be zoned differently.
Planning Director Grimm noted that townhomes are a special use for R1 areas, and there shouldn’t be any problems with the zoning of R1.
Mr. Reimann asked Director Grimm about the issue of flag lots, potential problems with garbage service among other things.
The Planning Director stated that the fire chief and the public works department might have some comments as to a sufficient width for accessing the flag lots. This would be appropriate to discuss when the Preliminary plat is brought by the developer.
Mr. Christiansen offered his reasoning for the flag lots, utilizing the topography of the area, and saving money while developing.
More general discussion ensued regarding garbage service, flag lots, sidewalk installation, and potential modifications to the sketch plan regarding these issues.
No action was required on this item, but comments would be observed by the developer while developing the preliminary plat.

Item number seven on the agenda was the Tuff’s Acres Subdivision – Final Plat, with Mr. Nuestel representing the applicant.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the commission regarding the history and concerns of this subdivision, and concluded that he did not have any major concerns or problems with this development. He stated the easement changes from the first plat, and that the applicant adhered to all the recommendations from the first plat.
Mr. Kraen asked for comments from the commissioners.
Mr Dyess made a motion to approve.
Mr. Reimann seconded the motion.
The motion was carried, with all commissioners voting aye.

Before adjourning, the commission decided that January’s Planning Commission meeting would take place on February 22nd at 5 p.m.

The Commission voted to adjourn at 6:35 p.m.