Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12/19/2007
Jan 28, 2008
Recorder: AB

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

December 19, 2007

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

Agenda

1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the Minutes from November 27th, 2007
3. Recommendation for adoption of Comprehensive Plan
4. Conditional Use Permit Review for 507 Swift Street—Tamra Townsend
5. Final Plat—Greenleaf Subdivision Phase 3 Plat
6. January Meeting Date
7. Adjourn

Workshop
1. Rezoning Procedure Final Update
2. PC Subdivision Regulation



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

Chairman Reimann noted that Ouray was spelled incorrectly in the November 27, 2007 minutes.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction.
Mr. Cooley seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

The third item on the agenda was: Recommendation for Adoption of Comprehensive Plan.

The City Planner offered background on this issue. The Comprehensive Plan last went before the Planning Commission Plan on April 24, 2007. At that meeting the Plan was discussed and the Planning Commission solicited comments from anyone present. To be appropriately adopted the Comprehensive Plan needs to be passed in Resolution form by the City Council and there needs to be a public hearing. This was not done. We are going to correct that now. The Plan must first come before the Planning Commission, if it passes then it will go to the City Council, January 2nd. It will be presented at the City Council meeting as Resolution 1252 and there will be a public hearing. If it passes it will officially and correctly be adopted as the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

Chairman Reimann opened a public hearing.
There was no discussion.
Mr. Dyess made a motion to send the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council for formal adoption.
Mr. Brannaman seconded the motion.
All voted aye, the motion carried.

The fourth item on the agenda was: Conditional Use Permit Review for 507 Swift Street—Tamra Townsend.

The City Planner offered background information on the issue. There has been communication with Ms. Townsend, Mr. and Mrs. Newell, who live to the south and the Pecks, who live to the west. These were the two parties that had concerns with the conditional use permit. It was decided by the Planning Commission that the permit would be reviewed at 3 months and again at 6 months. At 3 months no one has anything to report in terms of failing to comply with the conditional use permit criteria.

Chairman Reimann called for public comment.

The City Planner stated that no motion was necessary and that Conditional Use permits do not go to the City Council. At 6 months the Planning Commission will re-examine the conditional use permit and the City will publicize for a public hearing. The Planning Commission will make a decision whether to reissue and at that time establish a new period if necessary.


The fifth item on the agenda was: Final Plat—Greenleaf Subdivision Phase 3.

The City Planner offered the floor to the Developer’s Representative. Representing the developer was Keith Neustel, Grizzly Engineering.

The City Planner explained that the Peer Review was the final step of the City’s current Subdivision process.

The City planner invited the Peer Review Engineer to address the Planning Commission.

Chad Reed, WWC Engineering addressed the following items:

Items (1)-(4): General Comments
Items (5)-(8): Roads, Rights-of-Way and Easements
Items (9) and (10): Water Distribution System
Item (11): Sanitary Sewer
Items (12)-(18): Storm Water

Item (1): Comment: The Final Plat does not fully comply with the requirements of 21-7 d.), e.), and g.) as required by Chapter 21, Section 21-6.1 of the City of Buffalo Code Book.

Mr. Reed explained that he had originally been sent an older version of the final plat. He received an updated plat that afternoon. Mr. Reed requested there be two (2) edits to the current, final plat.

First, a designation of open space area.
Second, the legal description of the plat to include section, township and range.

Item (2): Comment: The Sewage System and Storm Water Retention System sections of the Engineering Design Report reference the Sunset Business Park development. Recommendation: Fully update all sections of the Design Report to reference the Greenleaf Estates Addition Phase III.

Item (3): Comment: The northern boundary of Block 5 is stated as being 573.61 ft long. However, it does not scale out to that distance.

Mr. Reed stated that this Item has been remedied on the current plat.

Item (4): Comment: On page 7/14 of the Construction Drawings in the Water Main ‘B’ Profile, the elevation of the 8’’x8’’x8’’ tee appears to be at an elevation of 4533 ft. However, on page 8/14 of the Construction Drawings in the Water Main ‘C’ Profile, the same 8’’x8’’x8’’ tee appears to be at an elevation of 4534.5 ft.

Mr. Reed asked that the elevations be verified.

Item (5): Deficiency: Both the cul-de-sac and the newest street within Greenleaf Estates Addition Phase III lack names on the Final Plat.

Mr. Reed stated that Item (5) has been addressed.

Item (6): Deficiency: The Greenleaf Estates Phase I Subdivision Agreement provides a variance to construct all streets within the subdivision with a width of 28 ft, not including curb and gutter. Recommendation: Update all references to street width to show or state a 28 ft street width, not including curb and gutter.

Mr. Neustel asked to address this Item/Deficiency.

Mr. Neustel stated that Glencoe Way is 28’ ft back to curb, the others are 32’ ft back to curb. Glencoe Way is a continuation of an existing road.

Item (7): Deficiency: Lots 1D-1T are all missing an 8 ft easement for utilities along adjoining lot lines. Per City of Buffalo Code Book, Chapter 21, Section 21.7.1.6, all utility easements shall be 16 ft in width 8 ft each side of center of lot line.

Mr. Neustel asked to address this Item/Deficiency.

The reason there is no easement is because the Code says a 16 ft easement if necessary. Utilities, except Gas, go in the streets. The Gas line is already in. The one item that is not on the Final Plat is that easements can be used as open space.

The City Planner asked if Les Hook, Public Works Director, had any concerns with this Item.

Mr. Hook stated that none of the City’s utilities would be effected.

Mr. Neustel added that if you add utilities to both sides of the backlines, you could have a potential problem if both landowners decided to build a fence.

Mr. Dyess asked where the Gas, Power, and Telephone easements were.

Mr. Neustel answered that these easements were being placed in the streets.

Mr. Dyess asked where the water line was going to be.

Mr. Neustel replied they are on the sides of the street.

Mr. Dyess asked if there was any groundwater and a need for a French drain in the back of the lots.

Mr. Neustel answered that there is groundwater is certain parts.

Mr. Dyess asked the question in reference to basements.

Mr. Dyess asked if landowners could pump groundwater into the Open Space.

Mr. Neustel stated that the Open Space is a drainage.

Mr. Reed commented that it may be strongly recommended that if there is groundwater that basements not be constructed in this area.

Mr. Dyess commented on the report that groundwater had been measured at 7 ft and asked what time of year this had been documented.

Mr. Neustel thought the water lines had been higher in certain areas.

Mr. Reed commented that he had no problem with maintaining 8 ft easements, if the City has no need for 16 ft easements.

Mr. Dyess commented that he agreed that requiring easements on both sides is a poor idea because of fences and the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

Item (8): Concern: Concerns expressed by the City and visual observation show damaged road surfaces along Ceci Lane and Flagstaff Way. Recommendation: WWC recommends that a statement be added to the Pavement Design and Analysis Report stating that geosynthetic stabilization fabric shall be installed where saturated, soft, or otherwise unsuitable sub base conditions exist.

Mr. Reed stated the following item was added after detecting shallow ground water and erosion in the area.

Mr. Neustel stated that after soil testing the area, there is a plan to lay 10 inches of crushed base and a three (3) inch asphalt mat over geotech fabric on all streets.

Mr. Reed asked the specification of the fabric, whether it was a soil stabilization fabric or a soil filtration fabric.

Mr. Neustel did not have an answer at that time.

Mr. Reed asked to be provided with a specification of the type of fabric.

Mr. Dyess asked what is currently under Ceci Lane.

Mr. Neustel replied nothing.

Mr. Dyess asked if it was three (3) inch asphalt.

Mr. Reed answered that it was two (2) inch with a four (4) inch crush base.

Chairman Reimann asked if this included the cul de sac.

Mr. Neustel replied yes.

Item (9): Comment: The water mains ending at Station 3+85.01 on Vero Lane and Station 3+50.04 on Glencoe Way each end with a flushing hydrant. As outlined in Chapter 27, Section 10A-4, the water grid system should loop back to the closest street main. Recommendation: Although this design meets all the requirements of the Code Book, WWC recommends the water main extend through Vero Lane and Glencoe Way to create a fully closed loop system and to minimize street disturbance during future expansion.

Mr. Reed stated that he there was new fire flow data taken from the intersection of Flagstaff Way and Ceci Lane and a reanalysis of the water distribution model has taken place with the new data.

Mr. Neustel responded that the new fire flow data was good. The data recorded 1, 024 gal/minute of pressure.

Mr. Dyess asked what will happen when the PRV goes in?

Mr. Hook answered that they currently have 85 lbs and insist on 55 lbs.

Mr. Reed commented on the recommendation that the loop system be installed that is fully closed.

Mr. Neustel stated that it is a loop system. The flushing hydrant is in the current place due to considerations of the 2nd phase of development, this is a DEQ requirement.

Mr. Reed understood and agreed.

Mr. Reed asked if Vero Lane and Glencoe Way were going to be developed?

Mr. Neustel replied no.

The City Planner added that in future phases there are platted streets and one would assume there will be development.

Mr. Reed stated he did not view this as a problem.

Item (10): Comment: The water modeling information within the Design Report does not provide complete and up to date water flow data, which would be available from the Phase I and Phase II development area.

Mr. Reed added that Grizzly Engineering is working on this Item.

Item (11): Deficiency: The water main on Vero Lane crosses beneath the sewer main at Section 2+80. The plans call for the water main to be protected by cement treated fill at he crossing. As outlined in Chapter 27, Section 11A-7, if the sewer must cross above the water main, regardless of clearance, the sewer pipe shall be constructed of pressure rated water pipe with mechanical joints or slip on joints for a distance of 10 ft on each side of the water main. Recommendation: Amend the sewer pipe to conform to the standards of the Code Book.

There were no further comments.

Item (12): The area stated on the Final Plat is 8.74 acres +/-. Block 5 is approximately 2.78 acres. With Block 5 not accounted for in the Storm Water Retention System, that leaves 5.96 acres. The Storm Water Retention System was calculated using an area of 6.66 acres. Recommendation: WWC recommends the area of the Subdivision be recalculated for a more accurate estimation of the potential storm water runoff.

Mr. Reed had communication with Grizzly Engineering and there was a miscalculation and they are working on an update.

Mr. Neustel stated that there was plenty of room for a detention pond.

Mr. Dyess asked if the grade in that area allowed for the storm water to make it to the detention pond.

Mr. Reed explained that it is flat grade and concrete and that it is street flow.

Mr. Reed asked for verification of the flow paths because the area is flat and street-flow.

Mr. Neustel stated that Vero Lane will be sheet-flow from one side to the other and will allow for drainage.

Mr. Reed asked that a draw curve extension be included on the plat because the drainage is unclear how the flow will get off the street and into the Open Space.

Mr. Reed added that the flows will decrease due to increased and higher acreage than originally thought.

The City Planner asked if there was a proposed detention pond.

Mr. Neustel stated yes but it will be small and there are plans to re-grade the Open Space.

Mr. Dyess asked if it was a retention or a detention pond, if it had a drain.

Mr. Reed replied that it will be a detention pond, with no drain. A retention pond has an outlet.

The City Planner asked about maintenance of the pond and the need to remove sedimentation.

Mr. Reed stated that one could anticipate sedimentation. Due to the small size of the pond he recommended a visual observation every 5 years. He also suggested that to be extra cautious one could build the pond to twice its capacity for very little work.

Mr. Reed added the request that a cross-section of the capacity of the pond be provided.

Item (13): Within the Design Report, 1.07 acres was considered asphalt or concrete, while the remaining ground was considered to be grass. Recommendation: WWC recommends that an estimated roofed area for each of the expected number of homes be accounted for in calculating the runoff coefficient. This will give a more accurate estimation of the potential storm water runoff.

The City Planner asked if the incorporation would change the estimation.

Mr. Reed did not foresee a net increase.

Item (14): The existing drainage easement between Lots 1B and 1C of Block 2, Phase II does not appear to be functioning. Recommendation: WWC recommends this drainage easement be reshaped to function properly as part of the Phase III development.

The City Planner asked if we should have the expected reshape defined.

Mr. Reed thought that may not be necessary, the point is to ensure positive slope to the Open Space.

Chairman Reimann asked if those lots are occupied.

Mr. Reed stated yes.

Mr. Dyess asked if the flow was backing up onto the streets and how much grade exists to the Open Space.

Mr. Reed replied that it will drain.

The City Planner added that there is a ditch.

Item (15): There are two existing ditches that will likely affect the flow of storm water through lots 1D-1F, 1L-1U and 2I-2K. Recommendation: WWC recommends the affects of these ditches be addressed within the Design Report and necessary changes be made accordingly.

Mr. Neustel agreed that this is a concern. They propose an inlet in the NW corner of Lot 1G, Block 5 and also to run a small drain across the utility easement, under the street Glencoe Way into the Open Space.

Mr. Neustel added that this solution will be helpful to future, additional Phases as well.

Mr. Dyess asked how big is the ditch, and is it lateral or drainage.

Mr. Neustel replied that it is more like a drainage ditch.

Mr. Dyess asked if the ditch will have an outlet at the 90° bend to prevent the ditch from overflowing onto lots and also to assist with clean-up.

Mr. Neustel replied it could have, yes.

Mr. Dyess asked where the pipe started.

Mr. Neustel answered the NW corner of Lot 1G.

Mr. Reed agreed that inlet boxes are a good idea and a delineation of the drainage area.

Item (16): Comment: The Design Report states that storm water from the Open Space Greenbelt will drain into a surface depression in the Open Space Greenbelt on the East side of Vero Lane. However, there have not been any noted plans for how the water is to cross Vero Lane. Recommendation: WWC recommends that both the Deign Report and Construction Documents be updated to address this issue by incorporating a hydraulic crossing of Vero Lane.

Mr. Reed recommended a culvert to address the storm water.

Item (17): It is unclear how the storm water from Block 5 will be temporarily conveyed down Glencoe Way to the adjacent property. Recommendation: WWC recommends that this issue be explained within the Design Report.

Mr. Reed stated this has been addressed with the revised Storm Water Plan and Pipe System.

Item (18): It is unclear how the storm water will be conveyed from the streets to the detention pond. Recommendation: WWC recommends that this issue be explained within the Design Report.

There was no further comment on this Item.

Mr. Reed requested clarification on the Storm Water issues.

The City Planner asked if there were any questions for Mr. Reed or Mr. Neustel at this time.

The City Planner read a summation of the comments. They are: send results of new fire flow, verify fabric material, update water model, complete storm water model, show surface drainage flow, provide a cross-section of the detention pond, provide a revised impervious water/roof calculation, show positive slope in Phase II and provide an explanation of the crossing at Vero Lane.

The City Planner asked if this was correct.

The City Planner asked if the Public Works Director had any additional comments.

The City Planner reviewed a letter that had been submitted by the Public Works Director. There were no additional issues added.

The City Planner asked about building envelopes.

Mr. Neustel said this is the responsibility of the property buyer.

The City Planner asked for Mr. Reed’s opinion on plugs for utility lines to house and added that this is a present issue for the City with existing development.

The City Planner asked Mr. Reed if the City should make these plugs a requirement.

Mr. Reed replied that a recommendation may be a good idea. A bentonite plug may prevent the migration of water.

The City Planner stated that recommendations are not always followed and issues have ensued.

Mr. Dyess asked what a standard plug would be.

Mr. Reed replied that one option would be to add a plug at the end of the Lot when the service lines are placed. Another option would be to require a plug closer to the foundation of the house.

Mr. Reed added that bentonite has a tremendous swell factor and generally work best when they are always kept saturated.

Mr. Reed added that one could require a bentonite-mix to be added x-distance from the foundation when there exists the possibility of shallow groundwater.

Mr. Neustel added the water if following the service trench and agreed that requiring a bentonite block near the foundation may solve this.

Mr. Reed added the best place for this type of requirement is in the building code.

The City Planner added that any recommendation or requirements are printed on the building permit as well.

The City Planner added that this solution seems easy to do and relatively inexpensive.

Mr. Reed stated that this may or may not solve the issue, seepage may occur in places even with a plug.

The City Planner replied that the City’s concern is to insure that the City is not liable.

Mr. Reed answered that in areas where groundwater exists some areas prohibit building.

Mr. Dyess asked for the Public Works Director’s opinion.

Mr. Hook replied that stainless steel is preferred and it is his preference to require the plugs all the time due to the possible digging expense should a problem occur.

Mr. Reed and Mr. Neustel returned to their seats.

Chairman Reimann asked if there was a parking plan.

The City Planner offered that both the Police and Fire chiefs agree there are parking problems in this area and it is currently difficult to issue parking violations and enforce the current rules. Possible solutions would be to limit parking to one side of the street, establish an even/odd day parking schedule, or to limit parking altogether and create a no parking area.

Chairman Reimann stated that this item is open for discussion.

Mr. Dyess asked if there are sidewalks.

There are no sidewalks.

The City Planner stated the problem of utility/garbage collection service in streets with a cul de sac.

Mr. Dyess commented that this issue could be solved with proper signage.

Mr. Cooley asked how one would choose which side of the street was allowed parking.

The City Planner added that the initial solution to create an even/ odd day parking schedule was not recommended by either the Police or Fire Chiefs due to enforcement complications.

The City Planner stated the options as being no parking or to limit the parking to one side of the street.

Mr. Neustel asked if there were covenants governing this issue.

The City Planner replied that the covenants are limited and difficult to enforce.

Mr. Dyess stated that there were two options in his opinion, widen the streets and have parking on both sides of the street or keep the street width and create no parking.

The City Planner added that parking is an issue in other subdivisions as well.

Chairman Reimann commented that he also believed there was only room for parking on one side of the street and we need to pick a side.

Mr. Cooley added that the whole point of parking regulation is to ensure safety should there be an emergency.

The City Planner suggested parking on one side of the street and no overnight parking.

Chairman Reimann asked for the Developer’s opinion.

The Developer, Felipe Velasquez, requested parking on both sides of the streets.

Mr. Dyess stated this would require widening the streets and replacing the current utility easements.

The City Planner emphasized the City’s responsibility to ensure its residents that precautions have been examined and added that there is an option to allow the Police and Fire Chiefs to comment and decide the issue and therefore pass the plat contingent that their recommendation would be final.

Mr. Branaman asked if widening the street was a reasonable solution.

The City Planner asked the Developer if he was comfortable with allowing the Police and Fire Chiefs to make the final decision prior to the City Council meeting. The Developer would be able to comment on the decision.

The Developer replied that he was.

The City Planner addressed the issues of access and street design.

The City Planner offered that Tamari Drive, Phase III provides two access points, Vero Lane and Glencoe Way.

It is unfortunate that neither of these connect onto Flagstaff Drive.

We have looked for other options for access. There are no opportunities at this time. The access is dependent on private-property owners, none are interested at this time.

The new development can anticipate 430 additional vehicle-trips a day.

The City Planner offered a cost-sharing scenarios amongst developers as one scenario.

Flagstaff Way is platted but has not been built. Today we would require that this road be built.

Cinema Drive is another option. There are multiple property-owners.

Chairman Reimann asked if the City could designate these areas be labeled access points for future area development.

The City Planner replied that this is possible and would occur at annexation.

The City Planner added that to the East is the Deer Park Campground, Kirk Kavenaugh. Potential issues could be the property’s wetlands, mitigating the noise pollution, and the request for paved, new access points.

At this time, there are many undefined needs and if the City doesn’t want to assume the cost of building the access, short of eminent domain, there appears to be little the City can do at this time.

Chairman Reimann asked if the Planning Department could make a recommendation.

The City Planner replied that the record of the minutes would serve as this and the Planning Department could create a future streets plan.

Mr. Dyess asked the City Attorney, Ben Kirven, if the City could require a second access before any other development begins.

It was the City Attorney’s recommendation to do so and have this on the record.

Mr. Dyess asked if requirements for off-site work could be made that may assist Flagstaff, such as widening the road or allowing for a turn lane.

The City Attorney referred to the City Planner.

Mr. Neustel added that the subdivision had been approved since 1979.

The City Planner stated that off-site demands are reviewed with each subdivision or re-subdivision request. The City has the authority to review each subdivision and re-subdivision as its own review process.

The City Planner added that legal advice was consulted.

Mr. Dyess commented that just because a development has gone bad, does not mean it is drawn in stone to keep going badly.

Mr. Branaman asked if this works with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

The City Planner replied that the Plan allows for mixed-use and the mixed-uses can be found in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Planning Commission packet.

The Developer stated that the Comprehensive Plan did not highlight the area as a traffic concern.

The City Planner replied that Flatiron Drive was not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and the Plan addresses traffic only arterials.

The City Planner added that this is an unique situation, trying to correct 10 years of decisions that have led to a dead end road in a commercial development, with a high-density residential subdivision.

The City Planner added that when this development was originally presented, with all Phases, there would have been 150 lots. This should have required a traffic impact study. Typically, a traffic impact study is required for 50-75 lots. This current phase of Greenleaf has 43 lots.

Mr. Dyess added that there are several developments in the area that are causing the access impact.

The City Planner replied that the City recognizes this and ideally a cost-share would take place amongst those with the most impact, the Commerce Park, Greenleaf and the tax-income housing in the area.

Chairman Reimann commented that he felt there was an obligation by the City since the City approved the development.

Mr. Dyess commented that he agreed.

Chairman Reimann added that we need this type of housing.

Mr. Cope added that one possibility would be for the interested parties to reach an agreement and attain a traffic impact study.

Mr. Branaman asked if the Planning Commission was allowed to make that request.

The City Attorney stated that it was a good idea to require and conduct a study prior to making any further requirements.

The City Planner stated that an option may be to require a traffic impact study prior to any further development in the area and added that it is important to keep in mind what is fair.

The City Planner continued that neighborhood parking was the next item for discussion.

The City Planner stated that at one time the Developer had offered to provide playground equipment in the area and asked if the Developer was willing to contribute monetarily if the City was also willing to contribute.

The Developer replied that he would, if a document was created with City involvement.

The City Planner asked if Public Works had any figures on playground equipment.

Mr. Hook replied that it depended on what type.

Mr. Dyess asked who would maintain the park.

The City Planner replied that the plat has the HOA assuming the maintenance of the park. If there was City-owned equipment the City would maintain the equipment in a HOA maintained park.

Mr. Dyess asked if the Open Space was dedicated.

The City Planner replied the Open Space is reserved by the owners of Greenleaf subdivision and controlled by the Home Owners Association.

Mr. Dyess asked who has liability of insurance of the park if it is not dedicated to the City.

The City Planner replied that this is an issue that needs resolution.

The City Planner asked Public Works if there were any problems with maintenance.

Mr. Hook replied that the grass would need to be mowed. At the present time, the City does not maintain Open Space, unless it is a dedicated park.

Mr. Dyess asked if the City wanted a park.

The City Planner replied yes that this area of town needs improvements.

Mr. Dyess asked if the HOA can maintain the park.

The City Planner replied that if the City contributed to purchasing equipment for the park, it would be City-owned equipment in an HOA maintained park.

Mr. Dyess asked if that was possible.

The City Planner replied it was.

The City Attorney added that playgrounds have liability and it would be in the homeowners interest to dedicate the park to the City. There is less liability for a City than for a HOA.

The City Planner added that there had been communication with Developer Ken Reid and asked the present Developer, Felipe Velasquez, to explain the current status of the planter easements.

The Developer replied that an escrow account has been created.

The City Planner continued that the Planning Department’s concerns had been addressed.
The cul de sac has been changed, the building envelopes had been addressed, traffic signing locations had been covered and surface drainage had also been addressed.

Chairman Reimann asked if the current plan called for completion of Vero Lane and Glencoe Way and what triggers were in place to require full-completion of these streets.

The City Planner replied that development or further re-subdivision would trigger completion.

The City Planner asked for the Public Works Director’s comments on an additional City park.

Councilman Humphrey replied from the audience that he doubted the City Council would approve another City park.

Mr. Cope pointed out that the area was high density, low income housing and that translated into lots of kids. The area has no sidewalks. The City needs to ensure that we provide the area with a safe place to play off of the streets.

The City Planner commented that this development is an island. It does not connect with the trail system or any City parks.

Chairman Reimann added that the development does not have sidewalks.

Mr. Dyess commented that this was the time to create a plan of development for a park.

Councilman Humphrey commented that if you add a park, the City must hire additional employees to maintain the park.

The City Planner stated that there is an option to hire college students, part-time in the summers.

Mr. Branaman asked if tax revenue provides funds to maintain City parks.

Chairman Reimann commented that the peer review items had been addressed and asked if these were contingencies or paperwork.

The City Planner replied the City relies on WWC and they have assured the City that these items can be resolved.

Mr. Reed stated that he agreed and there were no outstanding issues that would change WWC’s recommendation.

Mr. Neustel added that most of the items had been resolved and the Developer is planning on proceeding to City Council.

Chairman Reimann asked if re-shaping the drainage needed to be addressed.

The City Planner replied that a positive slope is required.

Mr. Reed commented that there are a number of solutions.

The City Planner added that these conditions will be recorded and a letter will be sent to those parties involved as well as to the Planning Commission with the conditions discussed.

The City Planner stated that the park issue can be addressed at City Council.

Mr. Cope asked if there was any assurance that the conditions would be met.

The Developer replied that an escrow account had been created and if the account does not there is an agreement with Developer Ken Reid.

Mr. Branaman asked how we will ensure that the conditions are met.

The City Planner stated that the engineering conditions would be verified with WWC and Public Works. Parking and parks are still in discussion.

The City Planner added that the item will not go to City Council until the items are resolved.

Chairman Reimann asked for any further comment from the gallery.

Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the request for recommendation by Felipe Velasquez for final plat approval with the following contingencies: updated fire flow, verification of fabric material, an updated water model, an updated storm sewer model, surface drainage flow, a cross-section of detention pond capacity, revised roof surface calculations, positive slope on drainage in Phase II, the water crossing explained at Vero Lane, parking details determined by City staff, park funds to be decided and paid by the Developer, and a traffic impact study placed upon any further development with the Planning Commission able to issue a waiver.

Mr. Neustel asked what was meant by a water model.

Mr. Reed replied this was an updated model based on new fire flow data.

Mr. Branaman seconded the motion.
Chairman Reimann asked for further discussion.
There was no further discussion.
All voted aye, the motion carried.

The sixth item on the agenda was: January Meeting Date

January 22nd is the next Planning Commission meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m.