Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11/24/08
Jan 8, 2009
Recorder: Alicia
RECORD OF THE MINUTES OF CITY OF BUFFALO, WYOMING
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 24th, 2008
Present from the Planning Commission (PC) were, Craig Cope, Jim Martin, Kate Harness and Bill Cooley.
Absent: Chairman Steve Reimann
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the Agenda for 11-24-08
3. Approval of the Minutes from 10-28-08
4. Sketch Plat for Lot 2 Waters Addition Lot Split
5. Oral/Written Comments
6. December Meeting Date
7. Adjourn
Vice Chairman Cooley called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M.
Mr. Martin made a motion to approve the Agenda.
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
Vice Chairman Cooley 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 10-28-08 with corrections.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Vice Chairman Cooley called for further discussion.
There was none.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.
The fourth item on the agenda was: Sketch Plat for Lot 2 Waters Addition Lot Split
The City Planner provided the background and introduced the applicant, Mike Champlin and his agent, Karen Buffington to the Planning Commission.
The City Planner noted the location of the Waters Addition and the proposed lot split. The area is 1.39 acres. The City Planner noted that the terrain is steep, with limited topography, the area is zoned R-1 and therefore limited to a single-family home or a duplex. The City Planner brought attention to the City Fire Chief’s comments and noted that the Chief was in attendance.
The City Planner noted that the applicant provided a sketch plat to the Planning Department.
The City Planner noted that the sketch plat creates a flag lot. Flag lots are not encouraged in general. However, the City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City encourage in-fill development.
The City Planner opened the floor to questions and discussion from the Planning Commission.
The City Planner noted that the Waters Addition is in the City limits.
Mr. Cope asked the Fire Chief to explain his recommendation of 24 foot private, driveway in contrast to the 20 foot private driveway on the sketch plat.
City Fire Chief Gammon answered that a wider road is required to allow fire trucks to enter the property safely. The Fire Chief also voiced concern for the areas wildland urban interface.
Mr. Cope asked if the City could regulate parking on a private driveway.
The City Planner answered the City could not enforce parking; although it could be addressed in the property agreement.
Mr. Martin asked how a fire truck would exit the property without a cul de sac.
Mr. Gammon stated this was his concern. Mr. Gammon added that it is unlikely the City Fire Department would enter this property according to the Sketch Plat. A fire would be controlled from Sesame Street or a fire truck would be required to back into the driveway.
Mr. Martin expressed concern for the likely parking that would take place along the driveway.
Mr. Martin stated that he was categorically against flag lots, although he noted there were mitigating circumstances in this request.
Mr. Gammon agreed.
Vice Chairman Cooley asked the applicant if it was an issue with building a 24 foot road.
The applicant noted that there was not an issue.
Mr. Martin asked for the density of the lot.
The City Planner repeated it was zoned R-1 and therefore a duplex was the highest allowed density.
The City Planner asked the applicant if there was room to build on the south lot.
The applicant did not have an answer.
Mr. Cope asked if there was a setback on Cemetery Creek.
The City Planner noted there was not a survey for Cemetery Creek. A survey and a 100 year flood study would be required if that information was necessary.
Vice Chairman Cooley asked the Fire Chief to explain the wildland urban interface.
Mr. Gammon stated the risks involved with development near trees, generally forests.
The City Planner asked the applicant if he had pursued selling the south lot to the property owner to the north.
The applicant had not.
Ms. Buffington expressed her opinion that the most desirable use for the property would be a single-family home on both lots.
Mr. Gammon stated his concern for emergency services to the south lot.
Mr. Cope asked if the maintenance of the private driveway would be the responsibility of the lot owner.
The City Planner noted that the driveway would be the responsibility of the lot owner.
Ms. Buffington asked if a 100 year flood study would be required.
The City Planner answered that the areas topography in conjunction with building envelopes should address the areas drainage patterns sufficiently.
Mr. Martin noted the road drainage system and the sag curve on Cemetery Creek.
The City Planner noted that the proposed lot split would be recorded as a subdivision and therefore the required review process would require further analysis.
The City Planner asked the applicant if they would be comfortable with a provision in the agreement, assuming the lot split is approved, that future requests for rezoning would require an approved subdivision plat.
Ms. Buffington asked if it would be appropriate to restrict rezoning in the property agreement.
The City Planner answered that 70 years in the future the land use may be different and may present different opportunities for the area.
Mr. Gammon stated his disapproval of higher density for the proposed lot layout.
The applicant asked how permanent any restriction would be in a property agreement.
The City Planner answered that there are usually avenues and processes in place to allow for flexibility and change if appropriate. The processes may make the project unfeasible financially.
Vice Chairman Cooley called for public comment.
There was none.
The City Planner noted the Planning Commission’s hesitation to set precedent allowing flag lots and added that this specific proposal is different from other proposals because the flag lot involves a single parcel of property.
The City Planner asked for an informal motion from the Planning Commission addressing the Planning Commission’s recommendations based on the Sketch Plat for the benefit of the applicant to proceed to Preliminary Plat.
The City Planner summarized two of the possible challenges to the property, including fire safety, and the possibility of the need for a 100 year flood study. Building envelopes are a requirement for Preliminary Plat submittal. The City Planner added that there is always risk involved in submitting a Preliminary Plat regardless of the sentiment of the Planning Commission at Sketch Plat.
The City Planner addressed the applicant’s request for additional requirements that may make for a successful Preliminary Plat submittal. The City Planner made the following comments for inclusion at Preliminary Plat: 2 foot topography contours, address the Fire Chief’s recommendation for 24 foot all weather road surfaces, add the stipulation that future rezoning requests would be subject to the subdivision process.
Mr. Cope added that the property be restricted to a single family home.
Mr. Gammon agreed.
Mr. Cope asked if the utility right of ways were addressed.
The City Planner answered there were no publicly dedicated easements on the lot. Service lines would be the responsibility of the lot owner.
The City Planner noted he would address the evening’s consensus in a letter to the applicant and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Martin stated his concern for setting precedent in regard to flag lots and providing too much flexibility to the applicant.
The City Planner noted the comment and stated that the City’s interests include providing individual analysis to all City requests; providing the applicant with possible conditions are a part of the current City subdivision procedure and rules. The purpose of a Sketch plat is to provide Planning Commission feedback to the applicant based on initial review and staff recommendations.
The City Planner added that future density increases would require further analysis and approval by the City.
Mr. Gammon explained the characteristics that define an all season road to the Planning Commission and applicant. All season requirements vary with the land type, soils and topography.
The City Planner explained the subdivision process steps and inherent risks to the applicant.
Vice Chairman Cooley asked for public oral or written comments.
Councilman Dyess thanked the Commission for their service during his term.
January 7th is the next meeting date.
The meeting adjourned at 6 pm.