Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6/25/2008
Oct 8, 2008
Recorder: AB

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

June 25, 2008

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

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the Agenda for 6-25-08
3. Approval of Minutes from 5-28-08
4. Lot Line Adjustment for a Portion of Lots 10,11,12,13,14, and the unplatted portion of Block 4 of the Original City of Buffalo, WY
5. Sketch Plat Discussion—Resubdivision of Block 1 Lots 2,3,4 of the Esponda Addition to the City of Buffalo (Mountain View Motel site)
6. July Meeting Date
7. Adjourn


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

Mr. Cooley made a motion to approve the amended Agenda.
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
Chairman Reimann called for further discussion.
There was none.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

Mr. Cope made a motion to approve the Minutes from 5-28-08 with the spelling change of Mr. from Nr. on page 3.
Mr. Cooley seconded the motion.
Chairman Reimann called for further discussion.
There was none.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

The fourth item on the agenda was: Lot Line Adjustment for a portion of Lots 10,11,12,13,14 and the unplatted portion of Block 4 of the Original City of Buffalo, WY

Jim Kelly, property owner and applicant, explained the cause of the request was to adjust the property lines for an existing deck located on the unplatted portion of Block 4. The deck was built on Mr. Kelly’s property and the request would add 627 sq. ft to Mr. Phillip and Kathy Rawson.

The City Planner noted that the request was an effort to correct property lines; square footage meets zoning requirements of the area.

Chairman Reimann asked if the request creates a new lot.

The City Planner answered that it does not create a new lot. The area is platted and has property pins. The request would add footage to the Unplatted portion of Block 4, as that section is known.

Chairman Reimann asked the City Planner if there were any other concerns.

The City Planner replied there were none.

Mr. Cooley made a motion to approve the Lot Line Adjustment for a Portion of Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and the unplatted portion of Block 4 of the Original City of Buffalo WY
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
Chairman Reimann called for further discussion.
There was none.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

The fifth item on the agenda: Sketch Plat Discussion—Resubdivision of Block 1 Lots 2,3,4 of the Esponda Addition to the City of Buffalo (Mountain View Motel site)

The City Planner offered background on this issue.

The City Planner noted the Planning Commission should have a follow-up letter from Keith Neustel, surveyor.

The Planning Commission was presented with the sketch plat at the May 28 meeting.

The proposal creates two lots, east/west from the existing three (north/south) lots. The infrastructure, primarily water and sewer lines, need to be split for the properties. Since the May 28 presentation discoveries have been made. The existing water lines are capable of being split for the resubdivision request; however the existing sewer line runs east/west and therefore the resubdivision is not recommended unless a sewer agreement is made.

Mr. Neustel’s letter addresses the infrastructure discoveries.

The process would require the applicant to present the sewer request to the City Council and upon approval the resubdivision would return to the Planning Commission as a preliminary plat.

Mr. Neustel explained the vicinity of the sewer lines.

Chairman Reimann asked Mr. Neustel if it was possible that sewer lines were being shared by the property owners on the north and south.

Mr. Neustel replied he didn’t believe so.

Chairman Reimann asked the City Planner if the sewer agreement would be attached to the title of the properties.

The City Planner replied it would be attached to the properties’ title. There would be an easement and an agreement attached to the sewer lines. Similar conditions may exist in other areas of town.

Chairman Reimann asked if the City Attorney had a response.

The City Planner noted he did not since the request had not been presented to the City Attorney at this time.

The City Planner noted the question was whether the City Council would allow a shared sewer line in the City limits. The request is an anomaly. Section 27-36 of the City Code sets the Council as the deciding body for this type of request involving private sewer connections.

Mr. Neustel asked for the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

The City Planner noted the alternative would be to create the resubdivision on the northern portion of the property. The relocation of sewer lines may however make this arrangement unfeasible.

Mr. Cooley asked if there were any unforeseen risks involved in this type of request.

The City Planner answered that the City Council may view the resubdivision as a benefit to the property owners/developers therefore there is a responsibility to invest in City infrastructure that services the property.

Kim Walgreen, applicant, asked that the Planning Commission note the request is different than most subdivision requests.

The City Planner noted the City’s responsibility to protect the future owners of the property.

The City Planner noted that the next step was to present the request to the City Council and upon a decision consult with the City Attorney for a suitable agreement. The City Planner added that this situation is likely to come up again with properties within the City and therefore it is important the Council has the opportunity to set an adequate standard.

Mr. Cooley asked what the easement width would need to be for a sewer line.

The City Planner noted the easement would need to be 16 feet.

Chairman Reimann asked about the status of the MDU structure.

Mr. Neustel replied that it had not been surveyed. The status is being explored.

Chairman Reimann offered that the request made sense based on the property and he did not see a negative risk to the City.

The City Planner offered that as long as the City protects its interests and future owners it may be possible that the sewer line contain a clean-out and that may be sufficient.

The applicant noted that no one knows where the sewer lines are exactly located.

The City Planner asked Mr. Neustel if he had located the service lines and which properties were being serviced by each line.

Mr. Neustel replied they had not been located. Mr. Neustel added that could be addressed in the agreement.

Mr. Neustel added he would hope the lines were constructed in a straight line.

The City Planner asked if the applicant would be interested in consolidating lines rather than constructing a new sewer main.

Mr. Neustel stated that if there were not any problems why would they change the lines.

The City Planner answered that the easement would be most efficient if the sewer lines could be located.

Chairman Reimann asked the City Planner if a formal recommendation was needed.

The City Planner answered that the new form letter from the Planning Commission to the City Council should be sufficient to communicate the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

The City Planner added that one definition of a variance is causing undue hardship on the property owner. If this request were held to the resubdivision process the project would not be feasible.

The City Planner added that he would consult with the City Attorney and add the applicant’s request to the July 1 agenda of the City Council.

July 30th is the next Planning Commission meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 pm