Buffalo Wyoming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4/6/2009
Jun 19, 2009
Recorder: Alicia

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

April 6th, 2009

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

Absent: Jim Martin

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the Agenda for 4-6-09
3. Approval of the Minutes from 2-24-09
4. HIB Annexation (Public Hearing)
5. Signage Ordinance (Public Hearing)
6. Oral/Written Comments
7. April meeting date is set for 4-28-09
8. Adjourn



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

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

Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the Minutes from 2-24-09.
Mr. Dyess made a correction to reflect that he had seconded the motion rather than Ms Harness doing so on pg. 11.
Mr. Cope 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: HIB Annexation (Public Hearing)

The City Planner provided the introduction. The staff report on the HIB annexation was included in the Planning Commissioners’ packets.

The HIB addition is located south of Highway 16, east of I-25 and west of I-90. The Applicant is HIB, LLC, representatives Ken Reid, Jerry Landrey and Keith Neustel. The City has been aware of the proposed annexation for at least a year. The property is the former KOA campground. The property is roughly 13 acres. The City Attorney has determined that the property is contiguous to the city and Sunset Business Park and therefore the request for annexation is appropriate.

The proposed zoning is B-1. Background information and the analysis are included in the staff report.

The dedication of easements, including a trail easement is open for tonight’s discussion.

The proposed annexation is reviewed according to state statues.

The property will likely undergo a lot split and/or minor subdivision in the future. A site plan review may also be required depending on future development.

Keith Neustel, Grizzly Engineering represented the Applicant. Mr. Neustel stated that all easements are shown on the plat as recorded at the courthouse.

Chairman Reimann asked if the state highway right of way is a clean line.

Mr. Neustel explained the dashed line on the plat; the line is being negotiated by the Applicant and the state. The final line, after negotiations, will appear on the final annexation plat if a conclusion is settled before third reading.

The City Planner noted that the property has a water and sewer connector’s agreement with the property. The agreement states that within 6 months of being contiguous to the city the property shall petition to annex. The annexation request is appropriate at this time.

Mr. Neustel confirmed the agreement.

Chairman Reimann asked if a trail easement should be discussed at this time.

The City Planner noted that trail easement negotiations are appropriate at annexation. The Master Trails Plan includes a north/south connection from Mountain Plains Heritage Park to Highway 16.

An annexation agreement is drafted by the City Council; easement information can be included in the annexation agreement. If a trail easement is negotiated, that information can be included in the agreement pending future development.

The City Planner noted that in previous conversations with the Applicant, there was interest in having a trail on the property.

The Smith trust property is located between the proposed annexation and Mountain Plains Heritage Park. The Smith trust is intending to discuss a potential trail connection at a future board meeting. In the past, the Smith trust expressed interest in developing the area as a future residential subdivision. The Smith trust may be open to facilitating the trail connection.

The preferred route of the trail easement has not been determined by the city.

Mr. Neustel stated that an easement on the east side is not acceptable to the Applicant due to the existing structures and business.

The City Planner asked if the Applicant was interested in discussing the potential trail easement this evening.

The Applicant expressed support of the trail system and noted he was willing to discuss the trail easement.

The Applicant noted that space on the east side of the property is limited. The Schiffer property is adjacent. A problem is the limitation of space. A second problem is connecting a public trail system to an existing business (campground) and issues of safety, parking and kids/children. The Applicant highlighted a potential trail on the Schiffer property as an alternative.

The Applicant proposed a meeting with the adjacent property owners (Schiffer, Smith trust and Mountain Plains Heritage Park) and the city trails board to discuss the best trail route.

Mr. Cope asked if the Applicant was intending to keep the campground.

The Applicant replied the property is a campground; it is no longer a KOA franchise.
The Applicant intends to pursue a lot split.

Mr. Cope noted his feeling that a trail is a great amenity to travelers staying at a motel or campground and connecting travelers to the surrounding creek and land.

The Applicant acknowledged the beautiful habitat of the area and noted that the franchise agreement with the Hilton requires limited cross over of traffic between properties.

Mr. Neustel noted the future sidewalk construction on Highway 16 by the state will provide trail connections.

The City Planner noted that the city would not pursue a trail easement if the sidewalk was not planned. The City Planner asked if the easement on the west would be an appropriate trail easement.

The Applicant replied that a trail easement behind the property would not be encouraged by the Hilton franchise committee for safety reasons.
The Applicant again proposed a potential trail easement on the Schiffer property road.

The Applicant asked where trail parking was proposed for the area.

The City Planner noted that parking would not be provided, it would not be a trail head, and the trail would be for connectivity purposes only.

The Applicant asked why the Schiffer property was not being considered.

The City Planner explained that the Planning Commission only deals with properties that are making a request from the city. The City Planner explained that the Applicant’s property was being reviewed for easements because of perceived initial interest from the Applicant, the recommendations provided in the city’s master plans and due to the Applicant’s current annexation request.

The Applicant noted that he would like to see the trail follow the creek. The Applicant again recommended a meeting with property owners and the trail board.

Mr. Cope noted that a proposed trail would mainly serve the residents of the area and the visitors of the motel/campground by providing connectivity to the trail system and the land.

The City Planner noted that a meeting was appropriate. A trail easement was not planned for inclusion on the annexation plat.

The City Planner noted that his conversations with the Applicant’s representatives concerned utility easements rather than trail easements.

The City Planner noted that the city practice includes a review of easements that the city may want for future development during requests being made to the city, including annexation.

The Applicant noted the lack of space for a utility easement on the east and the existing business. The Applicant also noted the existence of an easement on the west.

The Applicant noted the subdivision regulations state easements are included if needed. An easement may destroy the business.

The City Planner noted that the Public Works Director, Les Hook identified a utility easement on the east. An easement would allow the existing business to continue to function.

The City Planner noted that the Public Works Director was out sick, if he was able to be at tonight’s meeting the matter would be resolved.

The Applicant stated his intention of pursuing a lot split.

Chairman Reimann asked if the easement decision needs to be settled in order to accomplish the annexation.

The City Planner noted that the Public Works Director would examine the easement and property.

The City Planner noted that if the Applicant intends to pursue a lot split, the annexation agreement could include language that a building permit would be contingent on the Applicant following the process in Chapter 21.

The Applicant asked why more documentation was necessary. The Applicant noted the application was held until the new subdivision regulations were ready.

The City Planner replied that annexation agreements are city policy.

Mr. Dyess asked the Applicant if the Hampton Inn required a lot split.

The Applicant replied that a lot split was not a requirement of the Hampton Inn franchise. The lot split would be for business purposes.

The City Planner noted if the Applicant chooses not to pursue a lot split the city loses the opportunity to request easements for the property. It is difficult for the Applicant to state that an easement is not required if the City Public Works Director believes there is a need for an easement.

Mr. Cope noted the Planning Commission’s role of looking out for the city’s interests and it is prudent for the city to consider future needs.

The City Planner noted that every annexation request the city has granted an annexation agreement was a requirement, with the exception of Buffalo Ridge because a simultaneous subdivision was occurring.

The property does not need to go through a lot split if the Applicant chooses not to request a lot split.

The City Planner noted that City staff found a need for an easement on the east side of the property.

Mr. Neustel read the water and sewer connector’s agreement that stated that within 6 months the property shall petition to annex if contiguous to the city or the city may disconnect the property from water and sewer.

Mr. Dyess stated that most annexations the Planning Commission have addressed are raw land. Mr. Dyess added that it would be difficult for the Applicant to pursue the annexation request with the City Council if the Public Works Director is requesting an easement that has not been addressed.

The Applicant noted that documentation for the easement would be required and asked who would be responsible for moving the existing business if the easement needs to be worked on.

The City Planner noted the legal answer is it would be an easement.

Chairman Reimann asked if the Commission could move beyond this issue.

The City Planner noted that in this instance the Commission could make a motion contingent on the Public Work’s Director’s final decision on an easement.

Mr. Dyess made a motion to approve the annexation with the stipulation that the easements are acceptable to the Public Works Director and HIB and if there is disagreement, the application will return to the Planning Commission for further discussion.
Mr. Cope seconded the motion.
Chairman Reimann called for further discussion.

The City Planner asked if there were water rights on the property.
The Applicant replied he was not sure.

The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

The Applicant made a statement to the Commission regarding the City’s code revisions and the need for Commission field trips.

The fifth item on the agenda was: Signage Ordinance (Public Hearing)

The City Planner offered an introduction. The community goal from the Comprehensive Plan that correlates with this draft ordinance is:
“Attractive and inviting neighborhoods, commercial districts and downtown core.”

The code is modeled on other western towns. There have been two public open houses related to the code. Attendance at both open houses was very low. Public notices for the open houses included the use of the local radio, the newspaper and the Chamber newsletter.

The City Planner noted that there was no rush with the signage ordinance should the Commission feel the need to review the document for additional language, etc.

Mr. Dyess noted that the challenge and his concern with the code is informing local businesses that all new signs will require adherence to the new sign regulations, ex. Cenex sign.

The City Planner noted the City Council had reviewed the regulations at a Department Head meeting and directed the City Planner to proceed.

The City Planner noted the importance of the community and business community supporting the sign regulations.

A press release to the newspaper is an option to encourage public participation, although in the past they have not been effective. A press release from the Planning Commission was offered as an alternative by Mr. Dyess.

Chairman Reimann asked if there was a figure for the number of nonconforming signs should the regulations be adopted.

The City Planner noted there was no exact figure of nonconforming signs but there are a number of signs that may not conform to the height regulation.

The City Planner added that overall the regulations were drafted conservatively and therefore the especially loud, tall signs have been included, but others are not included to allow community signs such as Bank of Buffalo.

Chairman Reimann asked for clarification on the B-1 height regulations.

Ms. Harness asked if the Pamida sign would conform to the new regulations.

The City Planner noted that the Pamida sign would be allowed.

Ms. Harness stated that size should not be the only factor the sign regulations address and color should also be considered. Ms. Harness expressed uneasiness with the draft regulations because they do not protect the concept of a small tourist town. Other communities have been able to adopt regulations that protect the character of their town. Ms. Harness would like to see more proscriptive sign regulations.

Mr. Cope asked for visual examples.

The City Planner offered to provide the sign presentation.

The City Planner noted the regulations were drafted for the dominant public opinion; if the Planning Commission is interested in championing the issue of more stringent sign regulations the Planning Department will draft more proscriptive regulations. A comprehensive zoning revision (Chapter 29 of the City Code) is the best method to address particular appearances of sections of town and create districts.

Mr. Dyess made a motion to table the signage ordinance.
Ms. Harness seconded the motion.
Chairman Reimann opened the public hearing for the signage ordinance.
There were no public comments.
Chairman Reimann closed the public hearing.
Chairman Reimann called for further discussion.
The motion carried, with all present voting aye.

Chairman Reimann opened the public hearing for the HIB annexation.
There were no public comments.
Chairman Reimann closed the public hearing.

The next meeting was set for April 28, 2009 5 p.m. City Hall.

The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.