Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2/27/2007
Mar 2, 2007
Author: Colin Betzler

These minutes have not been officially approved by the Planning Commission.



RECORD OF THE MINUTES OF CITY OF BUFFALO, WYOMING
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 27th 5:00 pm

Present from the Planning Commission were Steve Reimann, Bill Cooley, Don Kraen, and Randy Dyess. Absent from the planning commission was Dick Branaman. Others in attendance were Keith Nuestel, Jack Morey, Mark Christiansen, Kip Redding, Lois Peterson, Councilman Humphrey, Councilwoman Holt, Mayor Anderson, 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 23rd, 2007 meeting.
3. Petition for Annexation – Garland Addition
4. Lot Split Request – 912 Fullerton
5. Request for Time Extension – Buffalo Ridge Subdivision
6. Petition for Annexation – Wesleyan Church
7. March Meeting Date
8. Adjourn


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

First on the agenda was the Approval of Minutes from January 23rd, 2007.
Mr. Reimann noted that on page 4 Marilyn Demontigny needed to be changed to Marilyn Novotny. Also, on page 5, should be changed from Liz Omohundro to Lissa Omohundro.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected.
Mr. Reimann seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

Second on the agenda was a petition for annexation for the Garland Addition to the City of Buffalo. Jack Morey was present representing the developer.

The Planning Director briefed the commission on the developer’s request to annex the 24.3 acre parcel as R-1 zoning. He
Mr. Reimann asked if the Planning Commission was supposed to be evaluating the sketch plan tonight, or if it was just the annexation.
Mr. Morey requested that the sketch plan be reviewed and accepted as the official sketch plan.
The Planning Director voiced his preference that the sketch plan be deferred until the next meeting so that city officials and planning commission members would have more time to really examine the propsed plan for the property.
Mr. Dyess and Mr. Reimann questioned the steepness/buildability of the property, wondering where houses were proposed to be built, where streets were proposed to be located etc.
Mr. Morey walked the commission through the plan for the property, including road grades, approximate location, lot locations, and general building limitations of the property.
Mr. Kraen spoke about his visit to the property and his concern about the overall steepness of the property. He suggested that the members of the planning board make a site visit with Mr. Morey to get a better idea about the proposal for the property and the logistics involved with building a subdivision on the parcel.
Mr. Cooley mentioned his visit to the property, and questioned where the new water line intersected the property of interest.
Mr. Morey explained the approximate location of the water line in terms of the property.
Mr. Grimm explained in detail that when the water line was run through the property, the landowner requested that the water line be fitted with multiple “T’s” so that the water line would be able to be tapped at a later date for expansion. He went on to say that this area is getting close to the location of the future bypass road that would go from French Creek Road to Hwy. 16 West. He encouraged the planning commission to “firm up” and come to consensus on a concrete location for the proposed bypass road. He recommended that this issue be clarified concurrently with the petition for annexation.
Mr. Morey explained the proposed development of the Garland Addition, and where roads/drainages/access points would probably happen.
Mr. Kraen asked whether the bypass road has been slated for a specific area.
Director Grimm went into details about the process for addressing where this bypass road should be placed, what should factor into the placement of this road. He mentioned the Barker property, and alluded to the 1975 Comprehensive Plan and where it shows the bypass road occurring. He recommended that a meeting with WYDOT would be
Mr. Dyess mentioned that the steep terrain and corner nature of the Garland Addition would most likely prevent it from being a desirable location for the proposed bypass road.
Mr. Kraen opened the Garland Addition up to a public hearing.
Ron Williams from WYDOT voiced his concerns over drainage issues with the development of this land, that the water would not be channeled down onto the highway. He also would like to see access happen across from the Shiloh Subdivision, or across from the BLM/Forest Service Access.
Mr. Morey mentioned that directly across from Shiloh the city has a PRV, so the proposed access lines up with Eskaldun Kalea BLM/FS access point.
The Planning Director alluded to the subdivision process and how it is meant to address the drainage issues brought up by Mr. Williams.
Citizen Hepp wondered where houses might be placed in the proposed subdivision and how that might conflict with ingress and egress. He also questioned how this development would be created to prevent issues that are present in the Northridge Subdivision, a subdivision with similar steepness and buildability. He stressed the drainage issues that exist throughout areas of the city and urged the commission to really think about the drainage issues that might accompany this annexation and eventual subdivision proposal. He asked how many housed were in the proposed subdivision (30 lots) and questioned sewer capacity for 30 more houses on the west end of the sewer.
Director Grimm mentioned a letter submitted by JLM regarding sewer capacity, and reminded the commission that capacity would be concluded by 2 independent engineering studies, one by the developer, and the other by the city’s peer review firm.
Mr. Morey stated that JLM’s preliminary analysis showed capacity
Lois Peterson questioned if there was a proposed trail going through the property, and whether an easement would be required from the developer.
Mr. Grimm briefed the commission on the future master trails plan, and brought into question whether the city might require a trail easement as part of a proposed subdivision. He also mentioned that it might be somewhat ambiguous for the city to demand a trail easement because the plan has not been adopted yet.
Mr. Kraen closed the public hearing and asked the board to discuss the comments that were heard.
Mr. Kraen suggested tabling the petition for annexation until a site visit could be made.
Mr. Dyess mentioned that there was no easement along the eastern edge of the property.
General discussion ensued about the language needed for the motion regarding easements and zoning (R-1).
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the annexation, with the required easements around the edges of the property (adding an 8 foot easement along the eastern edge of the property).
Mr. Reimann seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

Next on the agenda was the lot split request for 912 Fullerton.
Director Grimm briefed the commission on the applicant’s intention to divide the property to allow for the individual resale. The intent of a duplex is to have one person own the entire building, and rent one side out. This “duplex” is really more like a townhome. The property has 2 sewer lines and 2 water lines to the property. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the zoning in the area, and properties just to the north have been developed in the same manner, although they are zoned R-3.
Mr. Kip Redding explained his position, and his request.
Mr. Kraen asked if there was a firewall throughout the unit.
Mr. Redding described the complete firewall.
Mr. Dyess asked about the zoning, finding it R-1, he stated that the applicant cannot sell individual units like this in an R-1. Mr. Dyess thought that the applicant would probably have to have the property rezoned to R-3 in order to sell the units individually.
Discussion ensued regarding the legality of selling individual units in an R-1, and the difference between an R-1 and R-3.
The Planning Director explained htat it appears that this is a loophole in the codebook, and from now on these types of buildings will be referred to as townhomes.
There was some discussion on how this request might compare to the previous month’s lot split at 866 and 868 Fort Street. That property was 20-30 years old, this one has not been completed yet.
Planning Director Grimm noted that he had not received a copy of a legal agreement detailing a homeowners association, as well as not having a application fee in hand. The legal agreement would have to be reviewed by the city attorney, and the fee would have to be paid.
Mr. Dyess requested an opinion by the city attorney, and felt that the planning commission should request to see the agreement before approving this lot split.
Discussion ensued among board members on how they wanted to act on this request.
Citizen Hepp thought that the planning commission should go ahead and rezone the property as R-3.
Mr. Dyess explained the procedures that would have to be addressed if a rezoning request was made.
Mr. Dyess motioned to table this request so that the city attorney could weigh in on the issue, so the planning commission would know how to act if more of these requests came down the pipeline.
Mr. Cooley seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.
There was candid discussion regarding this type of issue.


The planning commission next addressed Buffalo Ridge’s request for a 60 day extension for Buffalo Ridge Subdivision.
Mr. Justin Beckner presented an overview of why they (Developer/engineer) have asked for previous extensions, highlighting the efforts of multiple property owners in the area to fund a sewer extension to Buffalo Ridge Subdivision. He also alluded to his wife’s medical issues and how the severity of those has caused him to be unable to complete the engineering work required to move Buffalo Ridge into the final plat phase.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the commission on what the code book states regarding the timeline for subdivision plats etc. He also briefed the commission on how the proposed private sewer extension is a win-win for the city as well as the involved developers.
Mr. Cooley questioned how the sewer and water would reach Buffalo Ridge Subdivision.
Planning Director Grimm explained infrastructure and also brought to the commissions attention the petition signed by citizens in the affected area and how their concerns might factor into the decision before the planning commission.
Mr. Reimann asked if it would be possible to grant the 60 day extension as well as requiring the developer to work to alleviate the concerns of the citizen’s group.
Mr. Beckner expressed his interest to work with the citizens as long as there was some way to ensure that the final plat would be completed at an appropriate time.
Lois Peterson, representative of the citizen’s group outlined her concerns of traffic patterns with the subdivision, stating that the subdivision design goes against the 1975 Comprehensive Plan. She also mentioned the concern of water drainage which is of high importance to many owners in the neighborhood.
Mr. Grimm explained how the 1975 Comprehensive plan actually shows a bypass road going through the subdivision, and that the proposal by Buffalo Ridge complies with the spirit of the plan.
There was some discussion regarding Watkins street extension to Airport road, the citizen’s group is against this, and the city is making it a requirement for the subdivision.
Citizen Hepp referred the planning commission to the fact that the neighboring subdivision (North Burlington) was created in 1972 and anyone who has bought a house in the old subdivision should have known that Watkins Street officially existed and would someday be a paved city street (should have been paved in 1972).
Discussion ensued regarding the extension, and a meeting between the developer and the citizen’s group.
Mr. Grimm questioned if the developer would be piping the irrigation ditch.
Mr. Beckner stated that they plan to pipe the irrigation ditch across Buffalo Ridge Subdivision.
There was general discussion regarding the proposed storm water retention facilities and how they might be handled to minimize danger to houses built below the irrigation ditch.
Mr. Grimm mentioned the citizen’s groups’ complaint regarding increased traffic on Burrit. He asked Lois Peterson if there was anything the developer might be able to do to assuage her concerns over Mathers street.
Lois Peterson stated that yes, a berm or living barrier would help, but still would not be a good as changing the proximity between Mathers and Lois’ house. She again proposed that the extension be delayed because of the issues raised by the neighborhood group.
There was some discussion regarding other influential times that the citizen’s group will have to voice their concerns.
Mr. Craig Wetterlund voiced his total support for the 60 day extension as a spokesman for the Wesleyan Church and referenced letters of support from Steve Adami, the Wesleyan Church, and the Nimick Trust.
Mr. Ron Williams voiced his support for the 60 day extension as a spokesman for the Wesleyan Church, and stated that he didn’t see what the city would gain by denying the time extension.
Planning Director Grimm summed up the valid concerns raised by the citizen’s group and how that by working with together, the two parties should be able to reach some reasonable solutions.
Mr. Reimann made a motion to grant the 60 day extension to Buffalo Ridge Subdivision.
Mr. Dyess seconded the motion.
Mr. Grimm added that it would be beneficial for the motion to include a mandatory meeting between the developer and the citizen group.
Mr. Dyess agreed that this would be very important and useful.
Mr. Reimann changed his motion to require a meeting.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.
Mr. Beckner requested that someone from the city to facilitate the meeting between the citizen group and the developers.

The last business item on the agenda was the petition for annexation by the Wesleyan Church, with Mr. Craig Wetterlund and Ron Williams representing the church.
Planning Director Grimm once again briefed the planning commission on the latest developments of this petition for annexation. Grimm also detailed the issues that need to be clarified r before moving forward with the annexation: the location of a dedicated easement for the future extension of Mather’s street, access to the property via N. Main Street, the extension of water and sewer through the property, and storm water management issues.
Mr. Wetterlund gave the planning commission a new sketch plan showing the location of the easement for Mathers Street. He clarified that the church is only asking to be annexed at this time, not subdividing. They have no intention of subdividing this land. In regards to the letter received by Planning Director Grimm, the church has addressed all the issues brought to them, they have a surveyed easement, as well as a timeline for sewer and water extension. Mr. Wetterlund described the cooperation and agreements that are part of the sewer extension, highlighting the benefits to all parties. They also have a timeline for submission of stormwater requirements, and a proposal to deal with any access issues with the property.
Ron Williams gave the details about the stormwater management plan for the property. Mr. Williams gave a history on stormwater management issues concerning the Wesleyan Church property, involving WYDOT, the City of Buffalo and affected properties. He explained in depth the drainage study nearly finished by WYDOT and how that drainage study will agree with what the Wesleyan Church is proposing deal with their stormwater management. More or less, the water on the property will follow the nature drainage and evacuate the property on the NE corner, via a currently undersized (will be corrected by WYDOT) pipeline to French Creek. Mr. Williams also questioned whether the review fees have been paid.
Mr. Grimm stated that the reveiew fees have not yet been paid, to assess whether or not this design is adequate.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Wetterlund didn’t think the Church would have a problem complying with the reveiew fees.
Mr. Grimm questioned the access proposal.
Mr. Williams gave the details on the existing access to the property and their proposal to change the use on the access to a commercial access until Matehers Street is built at which time the original access will be abandoned and the future ingress to the church will be off of the future Mathers Street.
General discussion ensued regarding the sketch plan and the location of access.
Mr. Cooley questioned if the continuation for Mathers Street was to be paid by the Church.
Mr. Wetterlund stated that they would not be building the extension of Mathers Street, only the easement.
Planning Director Grimm briefed the planning commission on their valid argument that allows the Church to defvelope their property without the creation of Mathers Street. He did question why the future access wouldn’t be made the official access at this point, so that the access is the same forever.
Mr. Williams stated that he didn’t see the point in adopting the official access, either way they will have to redo either option. At this point, it is makes more sense to do it one time officially and incur one cost. Mr. Wetterlund added that the Church doesn’t currently own where the easement for Mathers will be located for a small sliver of land on the eastern edge of the property. There is a gap between the right of way and the dedicated easement.
Councilwoman Holt had a question pertaining to the zoning.
Director Grimm briefed the audience that the zoning had been requested as B-1, but that there had been much public outcry to have the designation switched to a R-1 zoning.
General discussion ensued as to the surrounding area and what zoning should be allowed and accepted. The representative from the church thought that it didn’t make any sense to zone it R-1 because it is along Main Street in a business district, not a residential district.
More conversation ensued regarding the zoning classification.
Mr. Dyess questioned if the City Council members present would send the Church right back to the planning commission because of the proposed street easement location.
At this point of the commission meeting, there were several side conversations with developers showing the city council members that were present where the proposed easement would be located and the reasoning for this location. The planning commission worked through the reasoning behind the location of the easement, and the related “bullet” issues addressed by the church, but many voiced concern that they needed more than 5 minutes to look over the new sketch plan and information presented. They also discussed the options that they could take on the petition for annexation.
Mr. Reimann gaveled the meeting to proceed, and asked Councilwoman Holt how she felt on the proposed road easement.
Councilwoman Holt felt that she needed more time to think about how she felt regarding the proposed easement.
Mr. Williams stated that the proposed location of the easement follows the natural drainage pattern and that is the route that any water will take across the property.
Mr. Reimann said that he liked the proposed plan for the property, and thought that the street design would have beneficial traffic-calming effects.
Mr. Williams explained that he does not foresee Mathers Street becoming a main thoroughfare because of the poor connection at French Creek Road.
Mr. Dyess thought that the planning commission should make the easement 70 feet wide, but then recanted and thought that a 60 feet easement would be fine. He also addressed the concern for easements along the perimeter of the property.
Mr. Nuestel questioned why the planning commission was requiring these easements.
Mr. Dyess said he had no idea, but that they were making everyone do it.
Director Grimm stated that the easements were beneficial for any utility easement that might become necessary at a later date.
Mr Wetterlund requested that any required easements be allowed to be included within the Mathers Street easement.
General discussion ensued regarding easements, the presence of a water line going through the middle of the property (to the fairgrounds) and what some felt was the presence of an irrigation ditch. Many planning commission members felt that there was an irrigation ditch that goes through the property, and that the church should be thinking about what they might do with the ditch.
Director Grimm briefed the planning commission on the petition for annexation, and his desire to see it move forward as well as his hesitation with on-the-fly discussions of many of these issues.
Mr. Williams noted that the Church has addressed all the bullets brought to them by the city council and planning commission.
Mr. Dyess agreed that the Church has addressed all the concerns of the planning commission.
Mr. Williams clarified that the Church would not abandon the water line going through their property without first reconnecting the line at a different location.
General discussion ensued regarding the location of water lines and what might issues might need further clarification.
Director Grimm stated that any necessary utility easements could be run through the easement for Mathers Street.
Councilman Humphrey had a question regarding how the ownership of property by Mr. Baumgartner.
Mr. Williams explained how the water and sewer would work for the property.
Director Grimm demonstrated where Mr. Baumgartner owned, and what options may be down the road for acquiring this property if it is needed.
A general discussion ensued regarding the zoning of the property, and in the end the church representatives agreed that an R-1 designation would be fine.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the annexation with an R-1 zoning designation.
Mr. Cooley seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

The Planning Commission identified March 27 for the next meeting date and then adjourned the meeting.