Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6/27/2007
Aug 16, 2007
Recorder: CS

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

June 27, 5:00 pm

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

Agenda

1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes from May 22nd, 2007.
3. Lot line adjustment – Lots 27 and 28 of Block 1 of the Eagle Summit Addition
4. Lot Split – Lots 5 and 6 Block 2 of the Carwile Addition
5. Petition for Annexation – Buffalo Ridge Subdivision
6. Final Plat - Buffalo Ridge Subdivision
7. Preliminary Plat – Hatch Phase 2
8. Final Plat – Sunset Business Park
9. July Meeting Date
10. Adjourn
__________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Second on the agenda was the Approval of Minutes from May 22nd, 2007.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.
Mr. Branaman seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

The third item on the agenda was Lot line adjustment – Lots 27 and 28 of Block 1 of the Eagle Summit Addition.
City Planner Colin Betzler explained the details to align the lot lines between these two lots to be more parallel to the houses for the purpose of fencing. Mr. Dyess asked if the setbacks would be met if the lot split was allowed. The City Planner informed the PC that setbacks would be met.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to allow the lot line adjustment.
Mr. Branaman seconded the motion.
Mr. Dyess asked if the Affidavit was in hand, the City Planner informed him it was.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

Mr. Reimann announced that an advertisement for a conditional use permit was made for tonight’s meeting, but that the application was being postponed. Patricia Peck of 511 Swift St was in attendance and allowed to comment, she is opposed to a business in their residential neighborhood due to the way the streets are designed.

The fourth item on the agenda was a Lot Split of Lots 5 and 6 Block 2 of the Carwile Addition by GT investments. Keith Neustel presented the application and explained the Lot Split which is a division of a duplex. Mr. Betzler explained how they would also need a party wall mutual maintenance use agreement.
Mr. Reimann asked about the house to the east on the other halves of Lots 5 and 6 and if it was affected by the lot split, it wasn’t.
Mr. Dyess asked if it met all setbacks, it did.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the lot split with the condition that they have an acceptable mutual maintenance agreement.
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.


The fifth item on the agenda was a Petition for Annexation – Buffalo Ridge Estates Subdivision. Justin Beckner (representing Buffalo Ridge LLC) had prepared a power point presentation for the benefit of the public as well as the planning commission. 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. Concerning Watkins Street intersection with Airport Rd., Mr. Beckner stated that “Access was moved North to appease the county…over 330 feet…this is the new connection, a little over 330 feet”.

Mr. Reimann, Mr. Dyess, Mr. Branaman and Mr. Cope had questions about various street grades within the subdivision.

Mr. Betzler, Mr. Dyess and Mr. Beckner discussed several conversations with the county about the access road.

Mr. Betzler informed all on a joint meeting with WYDOT, County, and City to discuss road access in several subdivisions as well as Buffalo Ridge.

Mr. Cope asked about the two Fort monuments that can’t be moved and wanted an explanation on why the developer hadn’t looked more closely at the process of removal and documentation.

Mr. Branaman questioned the gradient of Watkins and whether that would negatively affect travel to the subdivision.

Mr. Beckner explained his reasoning on the grades over 10%.

Mr. Reimann and Mr. Beckner discussed flow of drainage of the ditch and what the developer was doing to the drainage ditch.

Mr. Dyess asked Mr. Kirven if he could comment without voting as he has recused himself as an adjacent landowner. Mr. Dyess asked about issues with the ditch and runoff from the property. Les Hook was asked if he had any comments regarding the runoff, he did not.

There was a lengthy discussion about the responsibilities of the developer in terms of containing the runoff on his own property…

Mr. Reimann asked Mr. Beckner for explanation and discussion on the dry easements. The city engineer recommended 8ft easements, Mr. Beckner contends that 5 feet is enough.

Mr. Reimann asked if it would be possible to narrow street down Watkins because of closeness the home on the corner of N. Burritt and Watkins Ave. Mr. Dyess said that it would need to be no parking and have no garages letting onto the narrow part of Watkins. Mr. Betzler after talking with city engineer did not have a problem narrowing Watkins in this manner. The engineer recommended against granting any variances against any of the code book.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed road change by narrowing Watkins Ave. and what issues might have to be looked at if the road is narrowed.

It was concluded that Watkins Ave. would be allowed to be narrowed where it runs East-West between Coyote Court to the residential pod on the East side of the subdivision. Watkins Ave. would be signed No Parking, and driveways for lots between Watkins and Coyote Court would not be allowed access onto Watkins Ave.

The City Planner thought that the narrowing of Watkins would help assuage tensions with some North Burritt residents, and would not inhibit the function of Watkins.

Mr. Beckner explained the public notification process regarding annexation, and why there were issues with complying with the state statutes for annexation.

Mr. Kirven discussed the publication rules with Mr. Beckner, concluding that his recommendation to the city council would necessitate the city council waiting until June 17th to legally make a ruling on the annexation and subdivision.

Mr. Beckner voiced his displeasure with the added delay.

The City Planner and the PC also voiced their displeasure with the delay, but noted that the annexation regulations must be followed and will safeguard all parties in the long-run. The City Planner went on the explain what most likely would happen if the regulations were not followed and how the City Council might treat an incomplete annexation request.

Mr. Reimann asked another question to clarify the narrowing of Watkins Ave.

There was more general discussion regarding the narrowing of Watkins Ave.

The City Planner briefed the PC on his conversation with the peer review engineer. The engineer’s recommendation was uphold the code book requirements and not allow variances for street grades. The engineer felt that the storm sewer issues, municipal sewer issues, and water line issues had been dealt with appropriately by the developer. He was still looking into the geotech report.

MR. Reimann asked Mr. Beckner to discuss the street grade variances that the City Planner missed while he was out of the room talking with the peer review engineer.

There was a lengthy discussion about the specific variance requests and where they would deviate form the city’s 10% requirement. The City Planner felt that the city’s contract engineer would most likely make a recommendation to the city council regarding the variance requests.

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Reimann asked if there were any public comments against the annexation request by Buffalo Ridge LLC or the final plat of the Buffalo Ridge Estates Subdivision.

The City Planner read aloud a letter from Lois Peterson, a resident of the North Burritt Neighborhood and owner of the house at the corner of N. Burritt and Watkins Ave.

The letter (which is available at city hall) stressed increased traffic due to the subdivision, especially in already established residential neighborhoods with inappropriately constructed streets. It also addressed the failure of Buffalo Ridge LLC to look into all potential possibilities for road routes to access the development. She proposed the use of 318 money to help build a road from Buffalo Ridge to Main Street, avoiding the residential neighborhoods.

Mr. Reimann asked if there were any other comments against the proposed annexation and subdivision. There were none.

He then asked if there were any comments neutral or for the annexation and subdivision. There were none.

There was a discussion involving the PC and the Public Works Director regarding some of the issues already talked about. This included the responsibility for the maintenance of the detention ponds, located within the open space of the subdivision. Mr. Beckner mentioned that the responsibility would be the contractors during the construction of the subdivision. The City Planner asked if the developer would feel comfortable placing the ponds under the year warranty that exists for other infrastructure. Mr. Beckner thought that this was “doable”.

There was more conversation regarding the looped water system, street lighting, and erosion control during construction etc. Mr. Beckner highlighted the measures to mitigate dust and erosion during construction, which included watering during construction. The irrigation ditch and pipeline were also discussed to address a trash screen and maintenance responsibilities.

Mr. Reimann asked the City Planner about what an appropriate next step would be in light of the several unresolved issues related to this annexation and subdivision.

The City Planner discussed the issues yet to be resolved, and a rough timeline to deal with the issues. There was a lengthy discussion regarding this process.

There was some discussion regarding the meeting with the county/city to discuss the Watkins Ave. Airport Rd. intersection.

It was determined that Watkins Ave. would be allowed to be narrowed to 32’ width with sidewalks on the South side of the street and No Parking signage in place.

There was discussion of what issues still needed to be worked out.

Mr. Branaman made a motion to approve the Buffalo Ridge Estates Subdivision and annexation with the following contingencies: Watkins Ave. narrowing to 32’, Watkins Ave intersection with Airport Road to be decided, and the intersection with Eagle summit to be decided. Also, any discussions in the minutes (written or audio) that resulted in a consensus by the PC would represent an official record.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Cope and carried by all members voting aye with the exception of Mr. Dyess who recused himself from the vote.


The next item on the agenda was the Preliminary Plat for the resubdivison of lot 25 of the Hatch Addition Subdivision, now referred to as Bison Meadows resubdivision, with Mr. Hatch and Mr. Johnson present representing Hatch Homes and Communities LLC.

Mr. Hatch addressed the PC, and offered to answer any questions regarding the preliminary plat of Bison Meadows.

The City Planner gave a brief overview of the proposed development.

Mr. Branaman asked a question regarding the road building proposed for the first phase of the subdivision, as it directly relates to this resubdivision.

There was some confusion as to what was up for discussion at this stage in the subdivision process.

The City Planner discussed the history and procedure for the entire development to clarify what was before the PC.

Mr. Branaman asked about the specifics of the road building through the subdivision.

Mr. Hatch discussed fill heights, road grades, and gave a general report on how the road would be built and to what specifications. He also gave details about the sources of moisture that exists under the proposed roadway.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding the access roads to the subdivision and resubdivison. Mr. Hatch went into great detail regarding cuts, fills, and proposed road structures.

Mr. Dyess asked about the width of the road for the SW pod…it is 32’ BOB.

Mr. Reimann asked about the setup of the 4 interior lots in the SW pod.

Mr. Hatch dictated that the setup had changed as per the City Planner’s request.

There was a discussion about the road with of the SW pod, as well as the regulations governing parking for that area. The Public Works Director voiced his approval for the proposed street widths etc.

There was more discussion about the drainage issues associated with the road building through the middle of the property.

There was general discussion and conversation by the PC about the details of the resubdivison.

Mr. Reimann asked about potential buffers along I-90 where future homes may be built.

Mr. Hatch discussed possibilities, but stated that they haven’t selected any yet, but storage units are looking like the highest possibility.

There was some clarification on where sidewalks would be located throughout the subdivision.

Mr. Reimann asked if there were any comments from the public.

None came forward.

There was a discussion of the buffer fence in the SW pod.

The City Planner brought up the issue that subdivision fees and the escrow account had not been paid or set up to date.

Mr. Hatch gave a packet of easements to the City Planner regarding the South Bypass road, so that at the county meeting they could be made aware of the easement widths along the South Bypass road. Mr. Hatch gave a brief synopsis of what he found when he researched the easements as a result of his request for 25 feet of the easement. He briefly presented his case.

There was a brief discussion about the proposed work session with the county, and what might be discussed at that time.

Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve Bison Meadows Resubdivision noting the lot layout change Preliminary Plat.

Mr. Cope seconded the motion which passed with all members voting aye.

The final item on the agenda was Sunset Business Park Final Plat. Mr. Tim Kirven was representing Sunset Development.

He voiced his willingness to risk having the plat thrown back the PC if there are still unresolved issues when they are scheduled to go before the City Council. He gave a review of the issues still needing to be resolved with the peer review engineer.

The City Planner gave a synopsis of the current state of this application and voiced his thoughts that if the issues aren’t resolved by the City Council meeting, the final plat would simply revert back to the PC meeting the following month.

There was a general conversation about what action would be most appropriate for this final plat. There were general questions regarding how this might go forward and be treated at the City Council if the issues aren’t resolved. There was general discussion over the remaining issues to be resolved by the developer.

Mr. made a motion to recommend the Final Plat of Sunset Business Park to the City Council for their July 17th meeting date on the condition that if any issues are unresolved by a that time, the Final Plat would be back before the Planning Commission for its July 25th meeting.

There was conversation about the justification of this motion.

Mr. Cope seconded the motion which passes with all members voting aye.

July 25th was identified as the next meeting date for the PC.

There was some discussion on limiting agenda items in the future to 4-6 agenda items. No action was taken.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m.