Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5/22/07
Jul 5, 2007
Recorder: CLB

RECORD OF THE MINUTES OF CITY OF BUFFALO, WYOMING
PLANNING COMMISSION

May 22, 5:00 pm

Present from the Planning Commission (PC) were Steve Reimann, Bill Cooley (via phone), Dick Branaman, and Randy Dyess. Absent from the PC was Craig Cope.

Agenda

1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the April 24th, 2007 meeting.
3. Petition for Annexation of the Buffalo Ridge Estates Addition
4. Final Plat – Buffalo Ridge Estates
5. Preliminary Plat – Hatch Addition
6. Preliminary Plat – Greenleaf Phase III
6. Election of Officers
7. June Meeting Date
8. Adjourn



__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Vice Chairman Steve Reimann called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M.

First on the agenda was the Approval of Minutes from April 24th, 2007.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.
Mr. Cooley seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

The next item on the agenda was the petition for annexation for Buffalo Ridge Estates Addition to the City of Buffalo. Justin Beckner (representing Buffalo Ridge Estates) voiced that he preferred to present the petition for annexation concurrently with the subdivision’s final plat, and that he had prepared a power point presentation for the benefit of the public as well as the planning commission.
Randy Dyess recused himself from this agenda item because he is an adjacent land owner.
Mr. Beckner gave a project overview regarding the subdivision, addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by both the planning commission, and the involved public in the area. He explained how the proposed road design was arrived at, and described the issues associated with the other options that they had looked at for road alignment.
Mr. Reimann asked Mr. Beckner to clarify the plan pertaining to the sewer extension. Mr. Beckner informed the Planning Commission that because they will be in charge of the managing project, they will have the entire subdivision empty into the new sewer extension along N. Main St.
Mr. Reimann asked what the status was of rerouting Watkins Ave. Mr. Beckner described the options that had been examined to provide more of a buffer between the future road and the existing structure at the north end of Burritt Ave.
There was a brief discussion regarding berms between the road and the structure, and Mr. Beckner thought that if the city allowed him not to build a sidewalk to the north of the structure, there would be some definite possibilities to mitigate the potential problem.
Mr. Reimann questioned sufficient building envelopes for all the lots.
Mr. Beckner said that they were fairly comfortable with the lot layouts.
Mr. Reimann asked if all permits that would be needed for this subdivision are in hand, or being pursued.
Mr. Beckner explained the process for obtaining access onto airport road, and that they were actively pursuing the variance for access with the County.
Mr. Reimann asked if it was possible for Coyote Court (upper road) to be straightened at the connection with Eagle Summit. This issue was discussed in length and Mr. Beckner stated that he would talk with the Eagle Summit developers and see what kind of possibilities might exist to straighten out his road.
Mr. Reimann asked the City Planner how Buffalo Ridge fit into the Comprehensive Plan for this part of town. The City Planner briefed the PC on the Comprehensive Plan for this area, and explained that the Buffalo Ridge subdivision was the type of development that was slated to occur at this location.
Mr. Reimann asked the City Planner what the status was for the peer review of this subdivision.
The City Planner told the PC that he had received the review comments in hard copy form on the previous Friday, and that it had not been enough time to thoroughly research what the conclusions and issues were of the peer review. The applicant also voiced that he had not had enough time to read through all of the comments included in the peer review, and stated that he would be having conversations with the peer reviewer in the future to address some of the concerns raised by the peer review. At this point, several questions were asked by PC members addressing some of the issues raised in the peer review. Mr. Beckner explained his intentions of addressing all of the issues raised by the peer review in the future.
The City Planner highlighted the fact that the advertisement requirements outlined by the City Council for the PC meetings had not been complied with and that to some extent, citizens would be missing out on the opportunity to have public comments heard at the PC meeting.
A general discussion ensued regarding the options that were available for this agenda item, and what course of action would be best for the city at this point in the process.
Mr. Beckner expressed his frustration with the advertising requirement set forth by the City Council, but not found in the code book as well as his frustration with the length of the peer review time.
Mr. Reimann asked if there was anyone present who would like to make a public comment regarding the petition for annexation or the final plat of the subdivision.
Mr. Frank Pratt voiced his concerns regarding the subdivision, referencing the public meeting that was held with the developer and the failure of the developer to sufficiently address all of the issues raised at that meeting. He also was concerned with future traffic patterns in the area, and how that might negatively impact the overall neighborhood. Specifically, he had concerns over the intersection of N Burritt and Watkins, as well as the connection to Eagle Summit. He also asked that some sort agreement be written up so that a certain number of lots must be sold before the developer is allowed to fully develop the property. He also voiced concern over the SLIB money that would be used for the sewer extension project and thought it was a subsidy. Lastly, he questioned the dedication of peer review engineers that work/live in a city outside of our city and county.
Lois Peterson voiced her public comments and read a letter aloud to the planning commission highlighting her concerns over the lack of public awareness, increased traffic on N. Burritt, polluted runoff water, insufficient drainage requirements, and high traffic on Watkins Ave.
Craig Wetterlund voiced his comments regarding the sewer extension, and how that it should be viewed at a long-term value to Buffalo. The Wesleyan Church will go forward regardless of the success of Buffalo Ridge Estates. He thought that the Buffalo Ridge Estates is a logical and aesthetically pleasing addition to Buffalo that fits with the Comprehensive Plan for the area.
Lois Peterson made the comment that if there had been more notification to landowners in the area, there would have been more public comments received.
Frank Pratt questioned the status/plan for the sewer line extension.
The City Planner clarified what exactly would be accomplished by the sewer line extension, and the manner in which the state money would be spent so that no one would be under the impression that it was a subsidy. He also explained the peer review process and the fact that the WWC engineers who work on our reviews actually live in and around Buffalo. He also explained the next steps for the sewer line extension and the timing for that project regardless of whether or not Buffalo Ridge Estates progresses through the subdivision process.
Councilwoman Holt expressed her concern over the sewer line extension if Buffalo Ridge Estates is not part of that equation and that she wanted an ironclad agreement to protect the city in case something fell through.
The City Planner explained what measures the city was taking to ensure that this would not be the case in the event that the Buffalo Ridge Estates subdivision did not gain final approval from the City Council.
Councilman Johnson expressed his opinion of the public hearing process and highlighted the other opportunities that would exist for public comment if the subdivision went to the City Council.
Steve Reimann asked for any other public comment. Hearing none, he invited Mr. Beckner to address the PC.
Mr. Beckner made comments regarding the time extensions granted to Buffalo Ridge Estates, runoff concerns raised by Lois Peterson, the purported fact that they aren’t just “in this for the money”, and the Watkins Ave. right-of-way issue.
Mr. Dyess questioned if the alignment for Watkins would match up with Carrington to the South.
Mr. Beckner clarified that it was lined up for a possible future connection with Carrington.
Mr. Reimann asked one last time for public comment.
Frank Pratt asked what the grade for Watkins would be.
Mr. Beckner said that there was a 10 foot section of 14 degrees, and the rest would vary from 0-14 degrees.
MR. Reimann asked for a motion
Mr. Branaman made a motion to table both the annexation and subdivision.
Mr. Cooley seconded the motion.
Mr. Beckner asked that if it is tabled, he would like to request a special meeting before the next PC meeting.
The motion passed with all present voting aye.

There was consensus between all the members present that granting the request for a special meeting would set a precedent that they would have to uphold in the future with developers. There was brief discussion on the request.
Mr. Reimann asked for a motion regarding the request for a special meeting. Hearing none, it was decided that the annexation and subdivision hearing would take place at the regularly scheduled June PC meeting.

The next item on the agenda was the Hatch Addition Preliminary Plat (commercial lots).
Mr. Hatch and Mr. Johnson were present to represent the subdivision.
Mr. Johnson gave a brief history of this subdivision and how they had decided to plat the entire residential section as a single lot for this first phase of the subdivision.
The City Planner gave a background of the entire subdivision, and more specifically the proposed commercial portion. He also added that the Public Works Director and Fire Chief had an issue with the proposed Frontage Road.
Mr. Reimann asked if there would be a “cushion” between the frontage road and the South Bypass Road.
The applicants explained how the roads would be situated, and the fact that there would be a “cushion” in between the two roads. They also mentioned that they are currently asking the county to vacate a potion of the easement of South Bypass Road and will know more about what the frontage road may look like in the near future.
Mr. Dyess questioned the turn-around ability for vehicles at the ends of the Frontage Road.
There was a brief discussion regarding turn-arounds for the Frontage Road.
The City Planner questioned the road width for the Frontage Road, as well as parking limitations for the road.
There was a brief discussion regarding cul-d-sac width on the commercial cul-d-sacs, all of which have 60 foot easements.
Mr. Reimann questioned the trail easement, surface material, and crossing zones for Hatch Boulevard.
Mr. Hatch said that they would probably end up putting up signs and striping the area.
Mr. Cooley questioned the width and whether that was something approved by the Trails Board.
The City Planner addressed their questions, and clarified that it would be a graveled surface and that the width was within the requirements that the Trails Board had been planning to adopt in the future.
Mr. Reimann was curious if the developer had any plans to install a sound/security fence along both I-25 and the walking trail corridor.
Mr. Hatch did not plan on having a fence along the trail, although they have talked about potential buffers for the I-25 corridor.
The City Planner questioned the overall design of the commercial lots on the south end.
Mr. Hatch went into detail describing the covenants, sidewalks, parking lot designs, and other specifics regarding the southern half of the subdivision.
Mr. Reimann asked about the status of conversations with the county regarding the access and easement on the north end of the subdivision.
Mr. Hatch went into detail describing the access issues, current and proposed speed limits, and other issues surrounding the access on both ends of the subdivision. He referenced the traffic study several times.
There was general conversation regarding traffic issues and the traffic study, which included conversations on installing turn lanes into the subdivision. Mr. Hatch stated that they would be willing to work with the city on this issue.
Mr. Hatch asked the PC if they would grant permission for dirtwork to be conducted on the property.
Mr. Dyess stated that even in the soil study, the engineers recommended that an engineer be onsite to confirm compaction, soil types, etc. Mr. Dyess discussed the issue in length and felt that an engineer needed to be onsite as recommended in the soils study when final dirt work is being completed.
Mr. Reimann asked the City Planner what the standard procedure was in this case.
The City Planner discussed in length the history of this issue, and how this is becoming more and more frequent in regards to these new subdivisions. In the future, annexation agreements will include a “proceed at your own risk” clause regarding preliminary dirtwork before the final plat is approved. The apparent conclusion was that the City Planner and City Attorney would convene to discuss the options that the code book allows for regulating this aspect of a subdivision, and get an answer back to the developers. The apparent decision was to dictate a “proceed at your own risk” until the final plat has been approved by the City Council.
Mr. Bruce Hepp spoke about the subdivision code and the requirements that cover dirtwork within the code.
The City Planner briefed the PC on the actions that were taken concerning the dirtwork happening the previous week at the Hatch Addition.
Mr. Reimann asked for public comments on the preliminary plat of the Hatch Addition.
Mr. Bruce Hepp requested that the subdivision file be scanned into GIS so that everyone would be able to see the proposed design.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the comments made tonight specifically pertaining to the frontage road.
Mr. Branaman seconded the motion. The motion passed with all members present voting aye.
The motion was seconded and carried by all members present voting aye.

Next on the agenda was the Greenleaf Phase III preliminary plat with Keith Neustel and Philippe Velasquez.
Mr. Neustel presented a brief history of Greenleaf and the current proposal before they spend more time developing a final plat for the third phase.
Mr. Reimann questioned the zoning that allowed mobile homes that are not on a permanent foundation.
The City Planner spoke to the issue, pointing out that this type of housing fits a need in the community.
Mr. Neustel discussed the covenants that would be put on the third phase, which would be the same as for the previous 2 phases.
Mr. Dyess questioned where the storm water would be discharged on the property. Mr. Neustel said that they would be bringing any water down through the open space. A lengthy discussion of drainage issues in Phase 2 followed.
Mr. Reimann asked Philippe about the potential to put in some park equipment in the open space.
Mr. Velasquez again voiced his desire to make this happen, in either a grant form or personal contribution for this equipment.
The City Planner brought up the issue of the flag lots on the north side of the subdivision and why the city is trying to move away from these flag lots. A discussion regarding the flag lots ensued. Mr. Neustel agreed to create a different lot set up (half-moon) for the flag lot area.
Mr. Hepp had several comments that dated to his administration and issues of ingress egress as well as stormwater problems. He stressed the access issues, especially with more companies moving in along flatiron.
Mr. Velasquez addressed Mr. Hepp’s comments regarding the access off of Hwy 16 and claimed that the access was not useable because of the location. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the access easement on the SE part of the property and adjacent to Deer Park campground.
Mr. Hepp thought that if the easement wouldn’t suffice for an access, then the developer should be required to widen Flatiron to a more appropriate width to accommodate the increased traffic related to the third phase of the subdivision. A lengthy monologue followed, and then more discussion on traffic, street widths, and access for this subdivision. This was a very in depth and complete conversation regarding potential requirements of the PC in terms of this subdivision.
Mr. Reimann questioned the PC’s authority to alter a subdivision like the one presented at this point in time.
The City Planner discussed possible options and measures to take with this subdivision, highlighting the authority granted to the PC in the code book in all circumstances.
Mr. Hepp again commented on the road width of Flatiron Dr. and alluded to the future issues that would arise if a subdivision was allowed.
The City Planner briefed the PC on several letters that are in the file on Greenleaf that outline various issues that the developer had failed to address or remedy in the recent past.
Mr. Velasquez addressed the PC regarding the letters and complaints regarding previous phases of Greenleaf. He also expressed his frustration with the process and having to go back through approval even though he believes that the entire subdivision had previously received full authorization with a past PC.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding issues that exist within the previous phases of Greenleaf.
It was made known that Mr. Velasquez also owns the roughly 35 acres to the east of Greenleaf, but said that there is a “slight chance” that that will be developed. A discussion ensued regarding access and future development to the east of Greenleaf and what that might mean to traffic flow in the area.
There was more discussion concerning access, funding available to help build a road, and the legal basis for any PC decisions at this point in the subdivision process.
Mr. Neustel asked what the PC was requiring to proceed with this phase of the subdivision. A lengthy discussion followed.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, with changes to the flag lots and clarifying that the access issue would receive a final decision at the final plat stage of the subdivision. Mr. Branaman seconded the motion. The motion was passed with all members present voting aye.

At this point in the meeting Mr. Reimann asked for nominations to fill the newly vacant Chairperson position. Mr. Dyess nominated Mr. Reimann. Mr. Cooley seconded the motion. The motion passed with all members present voting aye.

Mr. Reimann then asked for nominations to fill the Vice Chairman position. Mr. Cooley nominated Mr. Dyess. Mr. Branaman seconded the motion. The motion passed with all members present voting aye.

The PC decided that Wednesday June 27th would be the date for next month’s PC meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at a very late hour.