Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3/05/08
Jun 25, 2008
Recorder: Colin Betzler
RECORD OF THE MINUTES OF CITY OF BUFFALO, WYOMING
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 5, 2008
Present from the Planning Commission (PC) were Craig Cope, Randy Dyess, Bill Cooley, and Dick Branaman.
Absent was Steve Reimann.
Agenda
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the Agenda for 3-05-08
3. Approval of Minutes from January 22nd, 2007.
4. Final Plat – Bison Meadows Phase 2
5. Lot Line Adjustment and Road Width Variance—Eagle Summit
6. March Meeting Date
7. Adjourn
Workshop
1. PC Subdivision Regulation
Mr. Dyess assumed the role of Chairman in Chairman Reimann’s absence.
Mr. Dyess called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M.
Mr. Cooley made a motion to approve the Agenda.
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
Mr. Dyess called for further discussion.
There was none.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.
Mr. Cope noted a spelling error.
Mr. Cope made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction.
Mr. Cooley seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.
The fourth item on the agenda was: Final Plat – Bison Meadows Phase 2
The City Planner offered background on this issue. There are 55 lots on approximately 13 acres; Phase I and II were originally submitted together, however it was advised that since Phase 1 is commercial and Phase 2 is residential that the applications be submitted as separate phases of the same subdivision. There have been no design changes since preliminary plat submittal and approval.
The development is zoned R-3. The developer submitted proposed building sites construction designs at the preliminary phase. The Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed-use in this area; therefore this Final Plat application complies with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The City Planner noted that the City Engineer, Chad Reed, would address technical changes made since the Preliminary plat.
The Developer’s engineer, Josh Johnson stated that the City Engineer had submitted their review on water, sewer and road drawings and he had addressed all of the City’s requests. There have been only minor changes since the preliminary plat.
The City Engineer stated that all of his comments had been addressed. A revised plat was submitted.
The City Engineer noted that a request for variance would be submitted by the Developer for a 40 ft right of way.
In reference to Item 7 in the Engineering report, the City Engineer requested hydraulic and slope data for the storm water system. The City Engineer is waiting for this data from Jim Willey and verification that 12 inch pipe is adequate.
The City Engineer added he had no further comments for Phase 2.
The City Planner noted that the variance request needed to be addressed. A 40 foot right of way variance was granted at the preliminary plat phase.
Mr. Dyess noted that he remembered that the request at preliminary plat submittal was a 48 ft variance request.
The City Planner stated it was a 40 ft variance request and approval on the preliminary plat. There are additional 5 foot easements on both sides.
Mr. Dyess asked for comments from Public Works.
Mr. Hook asked if the additional 5 feet was for other utilities.
Josh Johnson replied that the 5 feet was for other utilities.
Mr. Dyess asked if water and sewer were going in the street.
Josh Johnson noted that water and sewer were going in the street.
Mr. Dyess asked if there was going to be sidewalks.
Josh Johnson noted there would be sidewalks.
The City Planner asked if the sidewalks were on the lot.
Josh Johnson noted the sidewalks were on the lot, 5 ft from the curb.
Mr. Dyess asked who was responsible for the sidewalks.
Josh Johnson noted the homeowners would be responsible.
Mr. Dyess asked if the sidewalks would be installed prior to construction.
The Developer noted they would be installed after construction.
The City Planner noted that the 40 foot easement was not discussed at the preliminary phase.
Mr. Hook noted there was enough room for city utilities but he was not sure about the other utilities.
The Developer noted he has been in contact with Rocky Mountain Power and Bresnan and they seemed to think there would be enough room.
The City Planner asked if they had those comments in writing.
The Developer replied that he did not and that neither company would officially respond until final plat was approved and adopted.
The City Planner asked what the impact would be to add an additional 8-10 feet.
The Developer replied that they may lose the four center lots.
The City Planner noted that corner lots have more flexibility than standards for other lots and added that the City’s concern is that the utilities have enough room to operate.
The Developer noted that there is currently 3 feet between water and gas lines.
Mr. Branaman asked how far away from the sidewalk will the easement trench be.
The Developer responded that they could be within a foot of each.
Mr. Branaman asked if they could tear up a person’s front yard if there were a problem with a utility line.
The Developer noted they would impact the yard.
Mr. Dyess asked about parking on the street.
The Developer replied there will be no parking.
The City Planner added the Fire Chief and Police Chief comments had been compiled and the agreement was for no parking.
The City Planner noted that proper signage standards will be added to the Subdivision Agreement.
Mr. Branaman asked how much parking was allowed for on the lots.
The Developer replied that all lots have 2 car garages at the front of the lot.
Mr. Branaman asked how large the houses would be.
The Developer replied the houses would be 1340 sq ft on the main level with a full basement.
Mr. Cope asked if all four lots would need to be lost if the variance was not approved.
The Developer replied they have attempted other plans and they would lose all four lots.
Mr. Dyess noted his concern for precedence that granting this variance would create.
The City Engineer added that adding easements may safeguard against future disturbance and ease maintenance.
The Developer noted they had considered adding the easements at the back of the lots; this posed a problem on the hill.
The City Planner clarified that the two items that do not conform are the 40 foot easement request and the 32 foot road request. This was originally submitted as a Planned Unit Development. However, the PUD regulations in the City Code have no set standards, and it was recommended that going through the standard subdivision process would be better for the City and the Developer.
Mr. Dyess asked for compaction reports in Phase 1.
The City Engineer reviewed his contract with the city and it currently does not include reviewing reports during construction.
The City Planner noted that bi-monthly reports will be added to the city’s contract with the City Engineer.
The City Engineer recommended that a geo-tech study be required for the fill site.
Mr. Dyess asked Public Works for comment.
Mr. Hook noted that one test hole had failed and that was being addressed.
The City Planner added that ideally the City Engineer would also review DEQ reports.
The City Engineer will coordinate with the Planning Department on what information would be important to include in the bi-monthly reports.
The City Planner asked that the compaction reports be submitted to the City Engineer retroactively for Phase 1 and for Phase 2.
Mr. Dyess asked why DEQ had requested compaction reports.
The City Planner answered that they were likely requested with regard to the effect on water and sewer pipes being constructed in close proximity to potentially frozen fill used during the grading process.
The City Engineer confirmed this and added that DEQ checks to make sure that the development is conforming to State Public Works standards.
Mr. Dyess asked the City Engineer if the application is complete.
The City Engineer replied that his comments had been addressed minus the verification of the right of way width and variance and the hydrology data/slope for the culvert on Dawson Creek road. The City Engineer did not anticipate any problems.
Mr. Dyess asked if all the water sheds in one direction.
The City Engineer replied that the water shed from the road only.
Mr. Cooley asked if the irrigation ditch mitigation had been addressed.
The Developer replied they had a drawing and it had been addressed with the ditch company.
The City Planner asked if there had been any follow-up with the County on the access and length of the turn lane.
The Developer replied that they had.
Mr. Dyess asked if they had anything in writing.
The Developer replied they had an access permit.
Mr. Dyess asked if they were twin homes or single family.
The Developer replied they were all single family homes.
Josh added that the utility companies will not conduct an official layout until there is a final plat approved/adopted.
The City Planner noted that the risk with the requested right of way variance would be that the utility companies would respond that they are unable to work within the constraints and if there were a problem at a later date it could impact the homeowner’s lots.
Mr. Dyess noted that a wider easement would allow for relocation of the sidewalk.
The Developer noted that a boulevard is currently planned between the sidewalk and street.
Mr. Dyess asked the Developer if he would like to contact the utility companies before a motion is made.
The City Planner asked if the Developer could wait 3 weeks for the next Planning Commission meeting.
The Developer replied they would prefer not to wait, as other steps in the process were pending Final Plat approval.
Mr. Dyess asked what the difference is between a city easement and a private right of way.
The City Planner replied that a homeowner may be under the impression that the right of way is a part of the lot.
The City Planner added that the background of the development was that the project began as a Planned Unit Development and that the Developer was encouraged to pursue the project as a regular subdivision with variances similar to a PUD. The concept was for a higher density development with narrow roads that would allow for affordable housing as well as lessen the city’s costs for road maintenance.
Mr. Cooley made a motion to grant the variance for a 40 ft easement, adding a 10 foot easement on either side for utilities and a 32 ft road variance.
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.
Mr. Branaman asked if we needed letters from the utility companies and DEQ before a motion was made for the approval of the final plat.
The City Planner replied that the current process does not require these letters.
Mr. Cooley made a motion that the Planning Commission, after consideration of the criteria and relevant standards of Wyoming State Statues and Buffalo City Code, recommend approval of the Final Plat for Bison Meadows Subdivision Phase 2, being a Resubdivision of Lot 25 of the Bison Meadows Subdivision, subdividing approximately 12.85 acres lying within the Hatch Addition to the City of Buffalo with the approved variance. The reasons for this decision are:
City staff has processed the subdivision request using the City’s current subdivision regulations, observing the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and State Statues regarding the subdivision of land.
The review of this subdivision and resulting changes adequately address concerns regarding the health, safety, and general welfare of current and future residents of Buffalo and specifically in this area of town.
The subdivision of this land shows compatibility with the surrounding area and adjoining neighborhood.
The requested density and zoning designation of this property fits the Comprehensive Plan’s Mixed Use designation for this area.
Mr. Branaman seconded the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.
The fifth item on the agenda was: Lot Line Adjustment and Road Width Variance—Eagle Summit
Mr. Dyess recused himself from the vote on this agenda item.
The City Planner offered history on this issue. When Buffalo Ridge went through the Planning Commission, it was decided that the road system could be improved upon. In an effort to ease traffic movement through the area, Developers Randy Dyess (Eagle Summit) and Justin Beckner (Buffalo Ridge) formed an agreement to change the direction of Watkins Street. This eliminated two additional turns in the road. The first variance request is for a 48 foot easement rather than the required 60 foot easement. The second variance request is for the proposed cul de sac located on the City’s Right-of-Way, Stock Trail and a portion of a city lot.
Keith Neustel, representing Eagle Summit, noted that this arrangement was to accommodate Buffalo Ridge.
Mr. Dyess added that he would be adding a 3 foot fence to dissuade the cows from entering the subdivision and added that there was no net gain for either Developer in regards to the variance requests.
The City Planner added that Eagle Summit was a Planned Unit Development and therefore a variance was not required for the 32 foot road. Incorrect statement.
Mr. Cooley asked what the purpose of the typical 60 foot easement was.
The City Planner noted that easements are mainly put in place for future road extensions.
Mr. Cope asked about Lot 26 which did not appear on the plat.
Mr. Dyess replied that Lot 26 is now where the road has been drawn.
There was more explanation of the resubdivision.
Mr. Dyess asked for further discussion.
Mr. Cooley made a motion that the Planning Commission, after consideration of the criteria and relevant standards of Wyoming State Statues and Buffalo City Code, recommend approval of the Resubdivision of Lots 19-26, Block 4, Lots 5-7, Block 5 of the Eagle Summit Addition to the City of Buffalo, Wyoming. The reasons for the decision are:
City staff has processed the subdivision request using the City’s current subdivision regulations, observing the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and State Statues regarding the subdivision of land.
The review of this subdivision and resulting changes adequately address concerns regarding the health, safety, and general welfare of current and future residents of Buffalo and specifically this area of town.
The subdivision of this land shows compatibility with the surrounding area and adjoining neighborhood.
That requested density and zoning designation of this property fits the Comprehensive Plan’s Mixed Use designation for this area.
Chairman Dyess asked if it was appropriate to address the variance requests within the motion.
The City Planner said that it was.
Mr. Cooley continued the motion to include a 48 foot road right of way with a 10 foot utility easement on either side.
Mr. Branaman mentioned that fence construction should be added to the motion.
Mr. Cooley added that consistent with a required agreement, a fence shall be constructed (split rail, 3 rails) in order to keep any stock using the stock trail from entering the residential developments.
Mr. Branaman seconded the motion.
The City Planner added that the motion should specify that the cul de sac (terminating at the sourhternmost portion) will be built over a City-owned, non-buildable lot.
Mr. Dyess amended the motion to include the language that the City Planner requested, and asked for further discussion on the motion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.
Mr. Dyess recused himself from the vote.
The sixth item on the agenda was: March Meeting Date
March 25th is the next Planning Commission meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.