Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9/26/07
Oct 24, 2007
Recorder: CLB

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

September 26th, 2007, 5:00 pm

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

Agenda

1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the Minutes from August 22nd, 2007.
3. Lot Line Adjustment – Lots 11 and 12 of the Carwile Addition – Charles Burd Jr.
4. Conditional Use Permit for 507 Swift Street – Tamra Townsend
5. Request for Alley Vacation of Block 12 of the Carwile Addition – Sonja Stone
6. Amendments/changes to the City’s Procedure for Rezoning
7. County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
8. October Meeting Date
9. Adjourn
__________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

The third item on the agenda was a Lot Line Adjustment – Lots 11 and 12 of the Carwile Addition – Charles Burd Jr. Keith Neustel was present representing the applicant. There was a minor discussion on this item and questions about how the junk ordinance might apply to this situation. Both the City Planner and City Attorney spoke to the difficulty in applying the City’s junk ordinance to these types of scenarios.

Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the Lot Line Adjustment.
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
The motion carried with all present voting aye.

The fourth item on the agenda was an application for a Conditional Use Permit for 507 Swift Street.
The City Planner gave a brief background on the history of this application. There were 2 letters submitted to the City by property owners within 300 feet of the applicant’s property, both by Frank and Patricia Peck and both against the Conditional Use Permit application.

Tamra Townsend presented her business scenario to the PC, showing pictures and sketches that detailed the proposed business, parking layout and traffic flow to and from the proposed animal grooming business.

It was clarified that the business would serve only for grooming, not boarding, not dog-sitting etc. Ms. Townsend told the PC that all animals would need to be off the property by 5:00 p.m. each day.

It was verified by the City Planner that all legal procedures related to the Conditional Use Permit Application had been satisfied.

Mr. Reimann opened a public hearing on this item and asked anyone present who was against the Application for comments.

Linda Newell came forward and expressed her concern over the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a grooming business due to the fact that the applicant’s dogs currently are a noise and smell nuisance to their property, directly bordering the applicant’s. Mrs. Newell believed that a dog grooming business would exacerbate the noise issues currently experienced on her property due to the applicant’s personal pets. She asked that the PC keep this area the residential area that it is zoned, and stated that she believed that this business would be more appropriate in a location zoned for business.

Next, Patricia Peck expressed her concern over the proposed Conditional Use Permit. She cited the residential neighborhood, the problems that they have had in the past with the public using her driveway to turn around on the dead-end street. She also cited current noise due to the applicant’s dogs, dust issues with traffic, and reiterated her concern over traffic increases etc. She is also concerned that this issue may set a precedent for Conditional Use Permits in the area. She asked that the PC think about the long-term future of the neighborhood.

Linda Newell informed the PC that she did not believe that the legal description was appropriate for the affected property.

The City Planner verified that the County Assessor’s office had confirmed that the legal description was correct as filed in the paper, although there seemed to be a discrepancy in the records.

Mr. Tom Newell came forward and questioned what might happen in the evening if there are dogs that end up staying overnight.
Mr. Dyess informed him that that would be a violation of the Conditional Use Permit, and the applicant would lose that permit if that situation were to happen.

Mr. Reimann asked for comments in the support of the conditional use permit.

Patricia Parker expressed her support for the conditional use permit application. She asked if there would be objections to other businesses located in the neighborhood, or if people were simply against the grooming business. She believed that Ms. Townsend would make a great resident and businesswoman. She did not quite understand the problems that some of the other neighbors had with the application.

Mr. Reimann closed the public meeting, and asked if Ms. Townsend would like to respond to any of the questions raised during the public hearing.

Ms. Townsend reiterated how her business would function, and that her personal dogs would not be addressed regardless of the outcome of the Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Reimann reminded the PC of the conditions that could be imposed on a Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Dyess highlighted the fact that out of 19 or so properties contacted, only 2 came out against the Conditional Use Permit. However, the people most against this were in very close proximity to the proposed permitted property.

The City Planner clarified the differences between home occupations, and a conditional use permit for a business, concluding that an animal grooming business must have a conditional use permit in order to be allowed. He also gave a brief history of recent conditional use permits, the process, and dog grooming businesses in particular and how they have been treated in the past. The City Planner asked for more details on the applicant’s proposed business build-out, specific numbers, traffic etc.

Ms. Townsend responded that the maximum would be 4-5 dogs per day, Monday through Friday. Ms. Townsend detailed the indoor setup of the proposed grooming business, and gave details as to the inner workings of the proposed business. Waste is bagged and put in the municipal garbage.

The City Planner addressed the concerns about traffic on the dead-end street related to the business. He reiterated the stipulations that the PC could place on the Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Dyess echoed those thoughts and his concern over stipulating a short time period for the Conditional Use Permit, and how that might affect the applicant if the conditional use permit is not extended in the future.

Ms. Townsend again stated that she believes that the parking, ingress and egress would not be an issue.

There was a general discussion on what terms may be applied to the Conditional Use Permit, and what factors would decide if the Conditional Use Permit is extended in the future.

Mr. Cope commented that he believes that the applicant’s dogs will bark more if the Conditional Use Permit is granted and he advised the applicant to try to be the best neighbor right now, as a good-faith gesture.

Mr. Dyess asked Mrs. Peck about the history of businesses in the neighborhood.

Mrs. Peck gave a brief history of the problems associated with a prior boarding business that operated in the area in the past. There were countless issues related to the prior business, including noise, traffic, and emergency vehicle access issues.

There was a general discussion regarding all of the issues that had been raised.

Mr. Dyess asked Mrs. Newell specifically that if the applicant kept the noise and odor down, if there would still be an issue.

She answered that she wouldn’t have an issue with the business if those conditions were met.

There was more general discussion regarding the application and talk of a trial period.

Mr. Newell brought up the concern of emergency vehicles, and balancing traffic in the area.
Marilyn Connelly shared her concerns over traffic and noise issues. She was neither for nor against the application.

There was a brief discussion regarding the youth home and permits for the home.

At this point in the meeting, the PC discussed the issues and


Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for 6 months, with a review after 3 months to see if there are any major issues 3 months into the allotted time period and stipulations required by the PC.
Mr. Reimann seconded the motion.
There was more discussion on how this would move forward and be reviewed after 3 months. If there are no issues after 6 months, the Conditional Use would need to come before the PC in some form and would not receive an automatic extension. It was decided that the sign would be 2’x3’ in measurement, and that there would not be any on-street parking. Hours of operation would be Monday through Friday 8-5.
The motion carried, with Mr. Reimann and Mr. Dyess voting aye. Mr. Cope voted against the Conditional Use Permit.

The sixth item on the agenda was the request by Merrill and Sonja Stone for the vacation of the alley in Block 12 of the Carwile Addition to the City of Buffalo.

The City Planner gave a brief description of this issue.

There was some minor discussion with the applicant, this vacation was deemed as more or less of a house-keeping issue that was not followed through on in 1976.

Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the alley vacation.
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

At this point in the meeting, the PC discussed item number 7, the County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Marilyn Connelly was present representing the county. She gave a brief history o f the plan’s development, and informed the PC how the plan could impact future funding in Buffalo.

The PC largely supported the work and ideas for project included within the County’s plan. Site Plan review was highlighted as a potential issue that the plan may lend support to in the future.

Mr. Dyess volunteered to provide some updated figures for the Airport Board.

The City needed to verify some of the City’s asset figures.

There was general discussion regarding the plan.

Mr. Cope made a motion to recommend to the City Council the County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan pending any input by the City’s Planning Department.
Mr. Dyess seconded the motion.
The motion carried with all present voting aye.


The final discussion item was number 6, the changes and amendments to the City’s Rezoning Ordinance.

The City Planner presented a synopsis of the proposed changes to the Rezoning Procedure/Ordinance.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding what the requirements of the procedure should be, and what issues needed to be addressed to avoid confusion and risk of litigation.

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Reimann asked for public comments, but no one was present.

It was determined to make some specific changes to the Procedure, eliminating the 300 foot notification radius, eliminating the 50% approval criteria, and requiring the applicant to place certain signage on the property.

Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the lot division as platted.
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.


For the last item on the agenda, October 23rd was identified as the next meeting date for the Planning Commission.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.