Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2/24/2009
Jun 19, 2009
Recorder: Alicia

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

February 24th, 2009

Present from the Planning Commission (PC) were Chairman Steve Reimann, Craig Cope, Jim Martin, Kate Harness, and Randy Dyess.

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the Agenda for 2-24-09
3. Approval of the Minutes from 1-27-09
4. Dube Minor Subdivision Final Plat (County Subdivision)
5. Adoption of Revised Subdivision Regulations
6. Oral/Written Comments
7. March meeting date
8. Adjourn

Training Updates:
Winter Conference
WYOPASS Conference


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

Chairman Reimann welcomed returning Commission member, Randy Dyess.

Chairman Reimann added an agenda item; Election of a Vice-Chair was added after agenda item six.

Mr. Martin made a motion to approve the 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 1-27-09.
Ms. Harness seconded the motion.
Chairman Reimann called for further discussion.
There was none.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.
Mr. Dyess did not vote on this item.

The fourth item on the agenda was: Dube Minor Subdivision Final Plat (County Subdivision)

The City Planner provided the introduction. The write-up on this subdivision was in the Planning Commissioners’ packets.

The subdivision creates 2 lots from 5.98 acres, 1.4 acres and 4.58 acres respectively. The Sketch plat of the subdivision was before the Planning Commission in December.

The Sketch plat was approved at that meeting with two provisions, 1) the inclusion of a water and sewer agreement and 2) a sufficient turning radius in the NW quadrant of corner two.

The Final plat does contain a sufficient turning radius and a draft water and sewer agreement has been developed and approved by the Applicant, Peter and Carey Dube.

The City Planner recommended that the water and sewer agreement remain unsigned until the City Council’s decision.

The City Planner added that a few minor changes have occurred on the Final plat since the Sketch plat. Most of these changes include additional easements that were required in the draft water and sewer agreement.

The City Planner believed the Final plat was ready to be approved in order to return to the County Planning Commission for approval.

Chairman Reimann asked if the discussion items at the Sketch plat had been addressed.

The City Planner reviewed those items. The issue of flag lots was reviewed in terms of access and in this case the access was sufficient, an access easement does appear on the Final plat.

Future structures on the property would require joint approval of the City and County Planning Commission. At that time, the property would be required to go through the full subdivision review process.

Mr. Dyess asked the Public Works Director if there were any concerns.

The Public Works Director replied that there were no concerns.

Chairman Reimann asked for further comment.

Chairman Reimann opened the public hearing.

There was no public comment.
Chairman Reimann closed the public hearing.

Mr. Dyess asked if the public hearing had been published.

The public hearing had been published.

The City Planner asked if the disclosure statement could include the water and sewer agreement to the Final plat.

The Applicant’s Engineer replied that would not be a problem.

Mr. Dyess asked if the County Planning Commission had any concerns with the smaller lot, 1.4 acres.

The Applicant replied the County did not see a problem with the size of the lot.

Mr. Cope made a motion to move that the Planning Commission, after consideration of the criteria and relevant standards of Wyoming State Statues and Buffalo City Code, make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the request by Peter and Carey Dube for approval of the Final plat of the Dube Minor County Subdivision, subdividing an approximately 6-acre parcel lying within the 1-mile joint jurisdictional zone of the City of Buffalo. The reasons for this decision are:
1. 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.
2. The subdivision of this land shows compatibility with the surrounding area and adjoining neighborhood.
3. The requested density and zoning designation of this property is not dictated within the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
The disclosure statement regarding the water and sewer agreement will also be included on the Final plat.
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 was: Adoption of Revised Subdivision Regulations

The City Planner offered an introduction. The rewriting of the City’s subdivision regulations have been ongoing for the past year. There have been several joint City Council/Planning Commission sessions, including several published public Open Houses.

Tonight, the focus will be on the comments submitted since the last joint workshop, January 22nd, 2009.

In response to: Have provisions and proper consideration been given to irrigation ditches in proposed subdivisions and annexations?

The City Planner noted that easements and right of way dimensions are required for irrigation ditches in Appendix A-2; irrigation facilities are required to be identified on all plats in Appendix A-2 as well. An Irrigation Facilities Report is an additional requirement in Appendix A-2. The Irrigation Facilities Report requires that any proposed changes to the irrigation facilities receive a letter from the State Engineer’s Office certifying that the changes have been reviewed and are allowed. These provisions are in regard to the subdivision process. In regard to annexation, the current legislation functions in this capacity and this is the City process that will review most irrigation issues.

In response to: Are there alternatives to address the cost of publishing a lengthy ordinance?

The City Planner noted that the Planning Department is still researching this issue. There is an alternative; the Ordinance may be added as Appendices to the Code Book. This alternative would save the City approximately ,000 for formal publication. A resolution format is an additional alternative.

Chairman Reimann asked if the City website was an appropriate alternative to formal publication.

The City Planner noted that the Draft Ordinance is on the City webpage; the state statue requires publication in a local newspaper of record.

In response to: Is there a final acceptance checklist for proposed public infrastructure prior to the warranty period expiration for presentation to the City Council?

The City Planner noted this item is outside the subdivision regulations. The City Engineer, the Public Works Department, the Fire Department, Police Department and the Planning Department will create this checklist as soon as possible which will be used to review proposed public infrastructure before a warranty period is authorized by the City Council.

In response to: Can additional provisions be added to the regulations to address the impacts to and of surrounding topography and surrounding impervious surfaces?

The City Planner noted that this language has been improved in the regulations. The City Engineer has provided regulatory language that requires the developer’s engineer to provide calculations for surface flow and stormwater flow impacts on the surrounding areas in order to provide the full picture in regard to the basin area on the property.

The City Engineer added that the additional stormwater language will be an improvement to the existing code.

In response to: Are signed Construction Drawings necessary at Preliminary and Final plat review?

The City Planner noted that signed Construction Drawings are required at Final plat only and the change has been made to reflect this.

In response to: Can the City revisit its storage requirement of 100-year events as it relates to the storm-water ordinance?

The City Planner noted that at the joint meeting the regulation was discussed in terms of stringency and expense and the discussion concluded that further research would be conducted to determine if the current regulation is a deterrent to the City improving the storm system. The City Engineer has amended the regulation to include a provision in Article 16, to allow the option of providing calculations for a 10 year event.

The City Engineer read the amended language, ‘where these criteria cannot be met, provide details explaining the storm event for which the facility is designed and necessary calculations and rationale to support the design. All stormwater facilities shall be designed to safely convey no less than the 10-year design storm.’

Mr. Dyess asked if 25-year storm events were the norm in terms of regulation.

The City Engineer noted that Sheridan is regulated for a 100-year event for a major event, and 10-year for a minor event. The City of Sheridan is moving to a storm drain system.

The City Engineer added that the new flexibility will allow the City of Buffalo to start building a storm drainage system.

Mr. Martin asked if this new flexibility is necessary for new subdivisions.

The City Engineer added that new subdivisions should be encouraged to build the infrastructure. However, the last several new subdivisions to the City of Buffalo have been required to build detention ponds as the only viable solution, and detention ponds are not good for a long-term solution for the City of Buffalo.

Mr. Dyess noted that most 100-year events occur every 3 years and are bigger than a 100-year event.

The City Planner noted that the Shiloh subdivision was examined as an example. The subdivision was adjacent to a final destination for the stormwater and it was desired that for a future similar site if the development has the ability to go to the final water source, the developer would have the option to design for a lesser storm event. Detention ponds are not ideal for several reasons. The City is required to maintain detention ponds, mosquitoes are a public health hazard, the water has no where to go once the pond reaches capacity, and the danger of ponds in neighborhoods in generally.

The City Planner asked the City Engineer if the draft regulations will allow flexibility and will bring the sorts of solutions the City would like to see.

The City Engineer noted his reservation that the flexibility may be used by a developer to use the less stringent regulation.

The City Planner asked if a range, 10-50 year event, was a solution.

The City Engineer replied that a maximum capacity may be the solution.

Mr. Dyess asked if the recent subdivisions in Buffalo had been able to design for a 100-year event.

The City Engineer and City Planner noted that the Buffalo Ridge subdivision, the Shiloh subdivision, the Greenleaf subdivision, and the Hatch Addition were designed to contain the 100-year event.

Mr. Martin added that when regulations are discretionary is when problems and frustrations ensue.

Mr. Martin suggested a regulation to contain the 10-year event and attenuate the 25-year event. Such regulation may accomplish the desired effect.

Mr. Dyess added that the City needs to decide what stormwater maintenance the City wants to be responsible for.

The City Planner asked the City Engineer for his recommendation and expressed his desire to offer an alternative to detaining the 100-year event on-site.

Mr. Dyess added his belief that reducing the depth of the pond reduces the safety issues.

The City Planner asked the City Engineer, Public Works Director and Engineers if safely conveying a 10-year storm for a 25-year storm event a valid solution.

Mr. Martin answered that it is best to convey the 25-year event and retain the 10-year event.

The City Engineer added that language to allow a conveyance system other than a detention pond will add additional flexibility.

Mr. Cope asked if it were possible to add language to offer incentive to the developer for keeping water on the property.

Mr. Martin stated that the current system is punitive.

Mr. Dyess added that incentives may be a good option to reward the developer for services being provided.

The City Engineer added the challenge of stormwater management for Buffalo, or in an area without much stormwater infrastructure, is to maintain the urban standard of keeping post-development run-off equal to pre-development run-off and create the infrastructure that needs to be in place to handle the additional flows.

Mr. Dyess asked if it were possible to add language to the regulation that the goal is to get the water to the final source as quickly as possible.

The City Planner noted that the City’s goal is to have the City’s contract Engineer work with the Developer’s Engineer from the beginning of the project to devise the best engineered solution possible.

In response to: Add to code the report—daily logs, test results (water main, disinfection, soils)?

The City Planner noted that the language in the requirements will correspond to the language in the Subdivision Improvements Agreements.

In response to: Is it possible to incorporate a Development Review Committee meeting during the subdivision review process?

The City Planner noted that it is possible however it is not currently a requirement in the regulations in order to give the DRC the flexibility they may need to communicate during the process in the most efficient way possible. A provision has been added to require the DRC’s submitted comments to be reviewed by fellow DRC members in order to strategize solutions and communicate before the Planning Commission review.

In response to: Is it possible to continue to use the existing annexation regulation in Sec. 21-12.?

The City Planner noted the existing information in the Code has been successfully integrated into the new regulations; most of the information has to do with public hearings. Annexation hearings are required in the state statue.

In response to: Is dust from development addressed in the subdivision regulations?

The City Planner noted that the dust requirement has been addressed and it has been added to the Construction Prior to Approval section and the existing water and wind provision.

In response to: Is there a penalty for construction occurring prior to formal approval?
The City Planner noted that there is not a not a penalty however the City is required to retain the City Engineer to inspect and certify the City infrastructure prior to adoption. This is an open-ended cost and therefore it is in the developer’s interest to construct after formal approval.

In response to: Are there considerations for development collection points for trash collection, mailboxes, etc.?

The City Planner noted that common collection points have been added; common mail, trash and parking facilities will be on the plat as well as any appropriate design standards.

In response to: Are there definitions for access, appurtenant, and commercial subdivision?

The City Planner noted that these definitions and a definition for nuisance have been added to the draft regulations.

In response to: Is there a six (6) month provision for resubmittals following a City Council decision?

The City Planner noted that a six month provision for resubmittals to the City Council has been added to the draft regulations. After 6 months the process becomes null and void.

In response to: Is it possible to change the term Findings of Fact with “The City Planner shall send the decision in writing based on staff recommendations/facts….”?

The City Planner noted this was a good discussion point and it was decided that Findings of Facts Decision is the better term and the change has been made.

In response to: Is it possible to restrict building permits from being issued until final acceptance of the warranty period and final acceptance of public infrastructure?

The City Planner noted it is possible, the existing code allows a developer to be granted a building permit immediately but not a certificate of occupancy. The draft regulations create a delay in issuing the building permit until the warranty period begins in order to keep the construction site clean and prevent damage to public infrastructure. A certificate of occupancy could be applied for at the same time. The developer has the option to make a special request to the City Council to apply for a building permit prior to the warranty period.

In response to: Is there a term for the Construction Specifications document?

The City Planner noted the term in the draft regulations is the City of Buffalo Construction Standards and Specifications.

In response to: Is it possible to add City adopted Planning Documents to Sec. 21-10.1 #6?

The City Planner noted that these documents have been added to the general design guidelines and include adopted City documents and their standards and regulations.

In response to: Can the new construction specifications require a new material and an alternate location of property pins?

The City Planner noted research had been conducted with the local surveyors and the best solution was to maintain the 5/8 inch rebar with 1.5 aluminum cap. This is the state standard.

In response to: Is it possible to substitute the DRC for the fire code in Street and Alley Development Standards, Sec. 21-10.3 D.1?

The City Planner noted that this change has been made.

In response to: Are flag lots prohibited?

The City Planner noted flag lots have been prohibited since the draft regulations require a minimum of 60 ft along a public road. There may be difficulty with cul-de-sacs. A variance process will be able to add the necessary flexibility.

In response to: What are the minimum frontage requirements?

The City Planner noted that minimum frontage requirements are 60 feet.

In response to: Are there easement requirements for storm water?

The City Planner noted that the new appendices stipulate necessary easements and give the authority to the DRC to request the necessary easements.

In response to: Provide connections in Sec. 21-10.7 to existing chapters and code as much as possible.

The City Planner noted that this connection has been added.

In response to: Double check the Building permit section—make uniform—establish there are no contradictions.

The City Planner noted that the permit section has been reviewed for uniformity.

In response to: Require Subdivision Agreements to be signed prior to Final Plat approval and include on the flowchart.

The City Planner noted that this change has been added and is an improvement. The draft Subdivision Improvement Agreement will be presented at the Final plat. The agreement will be amended with any changes.

In response to: Add 10,000 sq ft requirement for Site Plan.

The City Planner noted that this change has been made to protect the City from large residential developments.

In response to: Stormwater research and infrastructure analysis for the City.

The City Planner noted this was a side note and the City may need to acknowledge that a Stormwater Plan is a need for the near future. It may be best to determine what areas can be examined comprehensively and determine who should be responsible for the cost.

In response to: Add language for inspections that includes designated City staff—future engineer tech position.

The City Planner noted that this change was difficult to make until the City has hired this position and created a job description. Until that occurs, the draft regulations include the provision that the Public Works Department and the Subdivision Agreement have the authority to dictate those responsibilities.

In response to: Historical Significance.

The City Planner noted that the term is relative and it should be possible to have an evaluation conducted if a building or place is or is not of historical significance. In the past, this has not been an issue. The Planning Commission exists to debate these issues.

In response to: Location of stubbed water/sewer line laterals.

The City Planner noted that language has been added to the design standards stipulating that water/sewer lines are located no closer than 5 feet to the property line and within that property, essentially requiring an individual stub per property.

In response to: Why are contingencies allowed?

The City Planner noted that the change that has been made to the draft regulations and the change allows minor contingencies in order to allow such items as misspellings, additional plat language, and draft agreements, etc.

The City Planner concluded that the Planning Commission has the option to table the regulations to consider these changes.

Chairman Reimann asked if the City Council is reviewing Preliminary plats in the draft regulations.

The City Planner noted that the City Council is not reviewing the Preliminary plat in the draft regulations; this change was made after the last joint workshop.

Mr. Dyess noted his concern for the DRC meeting prior to the Planning Commission review due to the appearance of a consensus.

Chairman Reimann asked if the DRC should be encouraged to meet.

The City Planner noted the importance of DRC communication for arriving at solutions. Due to the volunteer and part-time nature of many of the DRC members it was decided to make the communication options as flexible as possible. The DRC is allowed to form a consensus as professionals of the City. Documentation is an essential element to forming and defending a consensus.

The City Planner noted that final formatting would be applied to the draft regulations.

Chairman Reimann opened the public hearing.

Councilman Hepp thanked the Planning Commission for working on the regulations and noted that the issue of drainage is an important consideration for the City. Sixty feet lots are also important in order to create more spacious lots and to maintain access due to the fact that many choose to build to the setback.

Councilman Hepp also noted the consideration for a provision in the site plan regulations to include as a requirement if more than 50% of the lot is built.

Chairman Reimann closed the public hearing.

Chairman Reimann asked for further comment from the Planning Commission.

Mr. Cope made a motion to recommend approval of the Revised Subdivision Regulations to the City Council for adoption.
Ms. Harness seconded the motion.
Chairman Reimann called for further discussion.
There was none.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

Chairman Reimann asked for public oral or written comments.

There were no public comments.

Mr. Dyess made a motion to elect Mr. Martin as the Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Harness seconded the motion.
Chairman Reimann called for further discussion.
There was none.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

The Winter Planning Commission Conference is March 5th from 11-4 at the new Sheridan College facility.
The WYOPASS Spring Conference is April 2-3rd in Thermopolis.

April 6th is the next meeting date.

The meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm.