Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

and direct to the chairperson and the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would like to remind everyone present that the City of Casper Planning and Zoning Commission is a volunteer body composed of members of the Casper community appointed by the Casper City Council. The commission acts as a quasi judicial panel, making final decisions on some items and recommendations to the city council on others as dictated by law. The commission may only consider evidence about any case as it relates to existing law. The commission cannot make or change planning or zoning laws, regulations, policies, or guidelines. Um, tonight, uh, everyone is present except for chairman Beamer. Um, And the next item on the agenda is consideration of the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held May 14th, 2026. Are there any additions or corrections?

Move to approve.

We have a motion to approve. Moved by Commissioner Rubel. Do we have a second? If there's no further discussion, we will now vote. Are there any abstentions or nay votes?

All those voting aye, please record the vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

Next will be the scheduled public hearings. Before we get started, just a reminder to all those evening's applicants that it takes four affirmative votes to pass any item, regardless of the number of commissioners present. If any applicant would like to postpone their case in anticipation of the possibility of more commissioners being present next month, then I would ask that you speak up when your case is announced. The first case tonight will be subject 1054-2026 and ZOC1053-2026 vacation and replat creating the Robertson Road addition number two and a request to change in zoning classification from an AG urban agriculture to R3 one to four unit residential. The applicant is Fairground Plaza Incorporated. Is the applicant or their representative present? Do you wish to proceed? Can we please get a staff report at this time?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. This request includes a vacation and replant of lots one through four of the Robertson Road addition to create the new subdivision in the Robertson Road addition number two, located at 3346 Chuckwagon Road at the northwest corner of Robertson Road and Trivet Lane. The proposal would create 66 residential lots on approximately 9.1 acres. The companion request is also before you to rezone the property from AG urban agriculture to R3 one to four unit residential in order to allow a mix of housing types, including twin homes and townhomes. The subject property is designated as a neighborhood center in the Generation Casper comprehensive plan, which supports a mix of residential densities and housing types. The proposed R3 zoning is consistent with that designation and provides an appropriate transition between surrounding residential zoning districts. The subdivision layout includes an interconnected street network, pedestrian connections to the existing Robertson Road pathway, and required public improvements such as streets, sidewalks, and utilities. Several smaller lots are proposed and conditions have been identified to ensure those lots are developed in a manner consistent with the R3 zoning requirements. A traffic impact analysis indicates the development is not expected to result in a measurable impact to level of service at surrounding intersections, and no offsite mitigation is identified. Access management recommendations, including a restriction of the northmost access onto Robertson Road to a right in, right out, are included as part of the proposed conditions. We have received public comments, which I'll identify in the exhibits. Staff has included conditions related to lot size restrictions, required geotech, drainage and utility studies, and access design consistent with the traffic impact analysis for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I have eight exhibits, including those two letters of opposition. A is the application for a plat and subdivision. B is the application for a zone change. C, public notice to property owners within 300 feet. D, legal notice sent to the Star Tribune. E, a photo of the public notice sign on the property. F, memo to the chairperson and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. G, letter of opposition from the resident at 3326 Oxcart. And H, letter of opposition from James Bonnefield. And with that, I will turn it over to you and answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for the report and the exhibits are noted. Does anyone on the commission have any questions for staff about the report? Next, I would ask that the applicant and or their authorized representative come forward to the microphone, state your name, address for the record, and explain your application to the commission.

Hello. First of all, is mobile homes allowed in the R3 zone? No. Okay. So I learned on the way in that there was a concern about this potentially being a mobile home park. So to put that to bed, this... project will be emulating the fairgrounds project that I built a few years ago and finished at Fairgrounds Road and Casper Street. Anybody interested in seeing what the end results of this project will be, just drive through that anytime, day or night. That's the result of what we're looking at achieving. Twin homes on single individual fee simple lots. There's, I believe, 66 lots that are platted now. The lots to the south, there's five or six single-family house lots, and then they transition to twin homes as you go further up the hill, which the gradient isn't that much, until you reach the four-unit buildings that are on fee-simple lots. on the furthest north of the project. The access road on the north side, which you don't have the most current map up there, I'm not seeing. My apologies. So that furthest north access road coming off of Robertson Road, was changed from the one road just to the south of it due to the fact that the infrastructure for the power company was interfering with that access where it was recommended from the traffic study that you guys had initiated a few years ago. So we moved that to the north. And the traffic study engineer recommends that being a right in, right out only access. So people going up Robertson Road to the north will not be able to turn left onto that street. And I think that was to help mitigate issues from people driving through there to feed the school and offset the school traffic. So most the traffic will be turning left on on Trivette and then turning right and going up into that subdivision to their specific house lots. And parking in their own little driveways and calling it good. On the West side of this furthest most left side of the Platte, which is West. There's a retaining wall that goes from, I believe, eight foot down to a negative four foot that on the north side that retains those house lots. They'll gain a few feet in their backyards due to the fact that that site is owned by an individual owner. That has not paid taxes on it and the state or the county is not chasing them to pay taxes. So it's basically dead man's land at this point. And that's a 15 foot easement for. Access and alley or something. I don't remember what what that 15 foot easement was. It's called track day, so whatever it is. On the South side of that lot line, the retaining wall will drop down, so our house lots will be above that portion to the West left of the South side of that plat. Fence, of course, on the backyards of each at every retaining wall that is at my expense.

What else would you like to know? Yes, Mr. Commissioner.

Mr. Grimshaw, it's good to see you. It's good to see you, Dan. On your twin homes and the way these lots are configured on here, it looks like it's very congested, but I'm looking, I actually just drove through your finished subdivision over by the fairgrounds it's very nice and those lot lines go the twin home straddles those lot lines correct that is correct to where you would have a home on each side so so it would take one twin home would take up two lots and that is correct actuality yeah to where it is not as congested as the plans look like as they are here okay that is correct yeah so each

combined two lots will have one building on them. And that one building will be two individual fee-simple houses with their fee-simple lots. Thank you.

But wouldn't the exception be where you're building the four-home lots or the townhomes?

The two buildings on the north side would have four units. There again, each unit would be... on their own fee simple lots. And then the lots separating and on the furthest east and or west, those lots are larger. So it provides more green space between the buildings.

I have some comments from Chairman Beeman, that he couldn't be here tonight. But he had some concerns over the existing utility and pathway easement that crosses the proposed right-of-way for Robertson Road, addition number two.

The easement crosses lot 50. And so, well, I'll read you in its entirety.

The easement crosses lot 50. If the easement is not vacated, there should be a condition that no permanent structure should be placed within the easement, including fences, Alternatively, make that portion of the easement part of track B and not lot 50. And then the other was that Vanguard Lane should have radii at the corners with the intersection of Robertson Road, but the intersections should be radiused.

I'm sorry, say that again, please.

Go ahead, Greg. I spoke with... Chairman Beamer, and let me try to simplify. The street that connects with Robertson Road, he correctly pointed out that we typically require radiuses at that corner at the intersection. So he wanted to make that a condition, I believe. He noted, same thing the staff noted, that the pedestrian easement for the sidewalk along Robertson Road extends up to the impacts at least one lot lot 50 and it also impacts the the hammerhead turnarounds and his suggestion was that that pedestrian easement should be either vacated or realigned so I think that to simplify it he wants to make a condition or recommends a condition to provide radius at the intersection and realign the pedestrian easement to be more accurately depict where it is in relation to the pedestrian trail and not impact those hammerhead turnarounds or the private lot, if that makes sense.

You did that, Brad? I think this would be for staff. So is the pathway already, the sidewalk already in place there?

It is. You can see in the picture, it's hard to pick up, but the lighter colored along Robertson Road is the sidewalk. And you can see the sidewalk itself is not impacted by those hammerhead turnarounds. But the easement for that sidewalk extends well up into those turnarounds. And that's Mr. Beamer's concern is that that wide easement is not necessary to accommodate that pathway.

The pathway is farther to the east. The only consideration that I would think could possibly be the utilities, so we'd have to cross-reference those utility placements and ensure that they're not within that easement as well. I know the electrical easement is probably the the most prevalent as far as that location of their of their existing and proposed future infrastructure that goes in so we can check on that though without any issue whatsoever and make note that at the next meeting of the council

If the Planning Commission wish to impose those conditions, we can help craft those. Probably not on the spot, but we can take care of that before planning, before the Council takes a look at it.

Thank you. Is that it? I believe so, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Now, is there other members of the audience that would like to come forward, whether in support or in opposition of the case? Please remember to state your name and address clearly to the microphone for record. Let's start with anyone wishing to speak in support.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Keith Stewart, 3334 Oxcart. My property backs up to the vacant lot now. One of the questions, we were concerned about the plan and basically all we've had to go on since all this started was this version that came from the city, I don't know, last couple of months ago. So we haven't really been appraised of changes, planning. I saw briefly, and I don't know if you still have a copy of it, of the plat. That would have been helpful prior to this meeting if we'd had that available. We're kind of working in the blind. Initially, when we were first appraised of this opportunity, when we bought the property, we understood that this could happen. It's a private property, it could be developed. So I'm not really in opposition, but I would like to basically request not having a two-story building looming in my backyard that wasn't there before. We enjoy our view of the mountain. All the people along that side do, and we're sad to see it go. We understand progress, but having a very large building in our backyard doesn't seem to be appropriate. I know I live in a two-story condo, so I don't really have a whole lot of grounds to stand on in that regard, but it's a request, and I don't think it's unreasonable that those be limited to a single story. The other question I have, or the other concern I have, is how often will this change? The plat that you had up on the screen briefly, is that the working plat? Will that be the final impacts the zoning of the area, or will that change again and again and again? And my concern also is after you do the zoning, what's to stop a developer owner from putting up three-story, 16-unit buildings? Is there any method to control that?

Well, yeah, it's zoned. We're changing it to R3 at Well, or condos. And so that's, R3 limits the builder to... No more than four units.

Yeah, no more than four units. Okay, okay. I'm not familiar with the zoning. Finally, our biggest concern or one of the major concerns is traffic. As it stands right now, 15, 20 minutes sitting at the corner there by the school trying to get out into traffic. Twice a day, it's a nightmare back in there. There's limited availability for the people that live north and west. to get back into their part of the subdivision. There's only two ways in. One way is to the north, and you have to kind of work your way through the subdivision to get up in there. The other way is through Trevette and then turning north to get back up in there. So you have a very limited access to Robertson Road for a fairly significant number of people, and you're adding a huge amount of congestion to that. and uh having to deal with that uh along with the school speed limit uh and also there we did attend a meeting here i believe back in uh march or april about this robertson road being uh considered a corridor and i'm not sure what the implication of all that is but that to me means high traffic high volume traffic and you're doing all that right where a lot of kids a lot of people uh Going to school during the school year, you build a bridge across the river. It's a great idea, but now you've got a bunch of kids trying to get across the road. You've just, you've probably, I can't say for sure, but you've added a significant number of traffic through there and that's a safety concern. And I don't know how many lanes you're going to add to the road. I don't know what the process is once you complete your corridor plans. And I don't know if this body understands or knows what that project is going to be like and has taken that into consideration.

Nobody answer? Staff question.

Mr. Vice Chair, the city engineer is here and he can answer traffic related questions. Okay.

We'll have to work through that later. Work through that with the city engineer. I personally am not aware of what their plans are for Robert.

Yeah. And it's, and I don't know if any of you live in that area or have to use it.

Oh, Oh, okay.

Okay. Is he has a podium now? Um, that's all I can speak from right there. We can.

Yeah.

I'll give it up.

That's all I had. Oh, okay. Thank you.

So Mr. Chair, uh, commissioners. Uh, so, um, the, I believe the question was, uh, what the plans were for the corridor of Robertson Road. So in 2025, HDR did a study for the Casper MPO of the whole corridor from Poison Spider to CY Avenue. And the part of the major congestion in the area is at CY Avenue. And for lot of it are vehicles trying to get onto CY Avenue. And so part of those plans that were recommended were to add an additional turning lane onto Robertson Road, just south of the bridge. This particular development was not or was included. It was a conceptual plan, which was a comparable amount, very similar to 66 units. And so it, it, it was not related to that, excuse me, those particular improvements. Um, and this would not be addressing that, that, that widening of the street, but because of the level of service that didn't impact that, um, this development would not be doing those improvements. However, the city of Casper does plan, um, to, um, have a capital improvement project in order to, um, add that turning lane onto CY Avenue, or I'm sorry, onto Robertson Road to CY Avenue.

Does that plan also include widening Robertson Road?

It does, south of the bridge.

And not north of the bridge where we're talking like Trevet Lane, that area.

There's some areas that do include, Trevet Lane includes different options. One of them is a roundabout. One of them is a, they've talked about potentially putting additional striping in there. But for the most part, everything with this development appeared to be to level of service B, which is above our minimum.

Chairman, Mr. Cerita, so is the plans for the corridor structure as it's going to be done, is that already completed or would it include this now that it's being developed?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner, So basically, it includes Robertson Road, and on this particular section that fronts Robertson Road, it's the intersection of Truvette where that roundabout option was given as a potential. I think there was a potential of a traffic light to be put there too, but I want to say that with with the development here, and with the existing level of service of the street, it was for projected additional, like congestion that was added to the street. So once it reached a certain level, that was the recommendation for those options. So for the light anyway, so but to answer your question a little bit more to get more specifically, so the improvements along Robertson Road on that frontage that's just east of that proposed development there, there really weren't any expansions or any major improvements that were recommended right there. It was only at potential at the intersections where a lot of the different traffic movements were combining. There were also some on buckboard because there is a lot of congestion there because of the school zone in there. And so there was, I believe, some additional striping to align turning movements. I think one of them was a turning movement heading south onto Robertson Road.

So in short, the re- construction for the traffic on Robertson Road will include what is going to be added as traffic in this devolved area. So we know that those concerns on Robertson Road will be included, correct?

Yes, if I understand what you're saying, that the The improvements that were recommended by the HDR study in 2025 already included this particular development.

Thank you.

Yes.

Oh, I like it. Yeah, it was a concept.

This time, do we have anyone?

Good evening. My name is Jesse LeClaire. I wrote the opposition letter from the three, three, two, six ox cart court. I'd like to speak because some things have changed since coming here this evening and cleared up by Steve that I met this evening. And so I have kind of a halfway opposition, if that makes sense. And that halfway opposition is to bring those four plexes, two stories down to a single story and, And I think everybody's concern also is the traffic and the heavy traffic. Maybe we need to go to the drawing board and think about what really is going on there. I don't think that is being resolved. Being a resident out there, we see something a little different from day to day. So maybe that needs to be further addressed. And that's all I have to say is that. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

No, go ahead. Mr. Grimshaw?

Yes, sir. Make sure to have more questions for you. No worries.

I just have a question because both the speakers brought up the issue of the four plexus. And I'm also true of your existing development over by the fairgrounds. Those are all two unit. So is there a reason why you want to add four unit to this particular development and not keep it a two unit or one unit?

It's all due to the sizing of the property. So as you go to the north, I don't believe those lots are as deep as we needed for the twin home units. So just Expanded them and built them up.

So you'd have less units if you wanted to build on that.

Pardon me?

You'd have less units if you wanted to build on that because you'd have to have wider plots.

That's correct. Yeah. And they're row houses.

Right. So they're two stories. But you can't build one story like you have over at Fairgrounds on that same property. You would lose probably, what, six units? Yes. How many units would you lose if you actually replanted it so that it was the same story?

Four units.

So it would be 62 instead of 66.

Mm-hmm.

I'm just asking because that seems to be the biggest right now opposition to it.

Yeah. And, you know, I believe that little cul-de-sac is Oxcourt or Oxcar Court. Right. So there's 17 units in that little cul-de-sac area there, which the density, I don't know what the calculation would be and what that square footage is of that space there, but our density is less than what that ox cart court is. Those units in there range from six units per building to two units per building. And so- On the west, I believe there is a three-plex, and there's a six-plex. Then on the south, it's a four-plex. And then on the east, it's a triplex. And then on the northeast, it's a duplex. So I tried to match the density – or not the density, but the evolution, two-story up against the two-story and then dropping down – As far as the views are concerned of the adjoining neighbors, I didn't really think that they had much backyard space that they considered. But we'll look at it and see if the possibility of reducing those is going to work. But, you know, the price per square foot or lineal foot for the streets is just absolutely crazy. ridiculous and the more dense you can do, the more the more beneficial it is to spread the cost over the development. So.

Anything else? Thank you. Anyone else? Hi. My name is Cindy Stewart.

I'm a 3334 Oxcart. And I moved here because it was the most beautiful place I could find. And I would like very much to appeal to all of you that sit on this board to know how much and how important it is for me to look out my window every day and be able to see Casper Mountain. I know you live here because you like Casper Mountain. You wouldn't be here otherwise. And Casper Mountain is something that's very close to my heart. And I love it here and I don't want to have to wake up and look out my window at some apartment building. Something that is not good for the view. If They want to build something that looks nice. I'm willing to help. I am willing to work with you on that. But otherwise, I am totally against it because if you come to my house, I'll take you out on the back porch, and you can see where the deer and the antelope play. I sing that song every day because they are there. The animals are there, and it's so wonderful. And the kids that go to school, they walk down that sidewalk and they see that. And they know that there's going to be babies there in the spring. They know what's going to happen. And I just have to appeal to that inner thing that you all have because you live here. And I hope that someone will listen to me Because it's really important. I have a lot of neighbors, a lot of ladies that live in the neighborhood that could not be here tonight because they're elderly. They don't have any way to get here. And they live in where we all live. And it's very, very important. So please consider downsizing, making it smaller, no trailers, no Just, I would like to work with the people if they're going to go ahead with this, the Fairgrounds Plaza people. So thank you for listening and allowing me to talk.

Thank you, Mr. At this time, is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Seeing that nobody else wishes to speak on the case, the chair by closes the public portion of comment for the hearing and calls for a motion on the plat to approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, postpone, or postpone to a certain date. Discussion will occur after the motion and the second.

I make a motion to approve with the conditions on the radiused at the intersection of Roberson Road and the easements be satisfied with the city building department, city planner.

And there's also some listed recommendations in the staff report that those were on top of, if you can reference those or not. Yeah, I think there's three conditions in the staff report. Plus the two that you just mentioned? Yes, the two that I mentioned and the conditions in the staff report. Correct.

Just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Allison. And do we have a second?

I second.

And we have a second by Commissioner Polachek. Do we have any discussions?

Yes. As far as the two-story, everybody loves a view of the mountain. But everybody, and we would love to have just single-story homes all the way from the very north street in Casper all the way to the mountains so everybody could have that view. But feasibly, sometimes that's not able to be accommodated. I did not have a view of the mountain for many years, and now I have a home that does. But I had to purchase that home. And that wasn't the only reason I purchased it. But when we have that view, and then it's going to maybe be obstructed, that land was vacant when we purchased the property. And my heart would be that, yes, everybody has a view. But that land is going to be developed. If it wasn't for this, it would be developed in some other manner with other structures. And most, we have to be consistent with what the ordinances and the zonings allow. And for us to say, okay, because some people don't want their view disrupted, we are going to restrict the economic development on that lot would set a precedent to where people could come in and say, I do not want my view obstructed, so please do not pass this in the future.

So that's my concern. Commissioners, anything else?

Well, being with no further discussion, we will now vote. Are there any abstentions or nay votes?

OK, all voting aye. Please record the vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

Your application, Mr. Grimshaw, your application plan has been approved.

City staff will be in touch with you shortly to complete the paperwork and work through all of- Mr. Chairman, don't forget we have the zoning as well. Yes.

Okay. Do we have a motion for ZOC 105.3-2026? Okay. We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Plochek. Do we have a second?

We have a second from Esther Eskew. Is there any discussion? Okay.

With no discussion, are there gonna be any abstentions or nay votes? Okay. All voting aye, please record our, Let's have a vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll be in touch with the applicant and let them know the next steps. It'll have to go to council for another public hearing and we'll re-notify the neighbors to let them know when that's going to occur.

Okay.

Moving on to the second public hearing for tonight. SP 1060-2026 site plan review for the construction of a 44,590 square foot addition to the Casper Ice Arena located at 1801 East 4th Street. The applicant is the City of Casper. Can we please have a staff report?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to be real brief, as you all know, we had some unresolved issues last month and I think we're well on our way to resolving those. The one thing that we could not complete in time for this meeting was the traffic study. So we anticipate that the traffic study will be complete and we'll have a full recommendation for you next month. We are recommending tabling because your commission bylaws only allow two continuances, and we didn't want to burn up that second continuance tonight just in case there was something still unresolved next month.

Do we have any questions for staff, any of the commissioners?

Move to table case number two.

We have a motion to table by Commissioner Rubel. Do we have a second?

I second.

And we have a second by Commissioner List. Do we have any abstentions or nay votes? Vote. Support the vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

Moving on to the third case tonight. SUB 1071-2025. Vacation and replant to create the Park Ridge Medical Campus number five. Located at 411 Granite Peak Drive. The applicant is Kelly Mertimer, Family Living Trust and Wide Open Spaces Trust. Is the applicant or representative present? Do you wish to proceed? Okay. Can we please get a staff report?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. This request is for a vacation replat to create the Park Ridge Medical Campus number five edition located at 411 Granite Peak Drive. The proposal involves vacating portions of previously platted but undeveloped right of way within the Park Ridge Medical Campus number two edition and the Menards edition. The replat would create three lots and one tract holding approximately 28 acres with lot sizes ranging from approximately 7.7 to 10 acres. No new public streets are proposed and access would continue to be provided by the existing street network. The subject property was originally designed with an internal street network that is not developed as anticipated. The proposed replant removes unnecessary right-of-way and consolidates land into larger lots consistent with current development patterns in the area. The surrounding street system is capable of serving the property and the reconfiguration is not expected to negatively impact access, utilities, or circulation. The resulting lots appear to be of adequate size and configuration to support future development and comply with the applicable subdivision standards. For the Commission's consideration, the request includes a condition requiring the applicant to provide written easement releases from all affected utility providers for the portions of the right of way proposed to be vacated. As of the date of the staff report, no public comments have been received and the Planning and Zoning Commission's action is a recommendation to Council. I have five exhibits. A is the application for plat and subdivision. B, public notice sent to property owners. C, legal notice sent to the Star Tribune. D, photo of public notice signed on the property. And E, memo to the chairperson and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. That concludes my report. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the report. Is that a condition on the getting the easements?

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about that a little bit. Whenever we vacate streets by state law, we're required to do certain things. And one of those things is getting the okay from everybody that might have utilities in those right-of-ways. So that takes some time because we're dealing with corporate offices all over the country and including local. I think there's eight different franchisees we have to get buy offs on the on the vacation from. So it just takes time. So it's not abnormal. We just want to make sure that the to keep it moving. We'll allow them the time at this point. At this time, we would allow them to move forward, but we would not let the city council make the final vacation until that paperwork is done.

Thank you. Next, I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and Please state your name for the record and your address and explain to the Commission what we're looking at.

Yes, Tiffany Gamble. I represent the entity making the submission. The ownership group out in the area has decided to complete the road and it sounds like it is a little different than originally presented. That project is underway, so this replat just basically changes the property lines a little bit to fit the street a little better.

Thank you. Do commissioners, do you have any questions?

Now at this time, we'd like to ask members of the audience to come forward to either support or in opposition of the case. Please remember to state your name clearly into the microphone for the record. Is there anyone who wishes to come forward to support the case? Anyone in opposition? Seeing nobody wishes to speak on the case, the chair hereby closes the public comment portion of this hearing and calls for a motion on the plat to approve, approve by table or postpone to a date certain. Discussion will occur after the motion and second.

Move to approve with conditions stated by the staff.

Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Rubles.

Do we have a second? And we have a second. Having a second, is there any discussion? No further discussion, we'll vote. With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

Thank you. Your application has been approved. Staff will be in touch. Moving on to case number four, the force case tonight. will be ANX-1078-2026 and ZOC-1077-2026. Request for annexation of four acres, more or less described as Brian Stanko Lot 7 Park Commercial, located at 2585 and 2595 Brian Evansville Road, Zoning request to establish the city zoning classification of the annex property as M2 General Industrial. Applicant is Kill Enterprises LLC. Is the applicant or their representative present?

Yes.

Okay, do you wish to proceed?

Yes. Okay, can we please get a staff report? Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. The request includes an annexation and zoning to bring approximately 4.2 acres located at 2585 and 2595 Brian Evansville Road into the city. The property consists of two parcels and is contiguous with the city limits along its western boundary. The applicant is requesting an annexation in order to connect to city water and sewer services and has also requested their property be zoned M2 General Industrial upon annexation. The subject property is located within an area that's already industrial in character, with city-zoned industrial properties to the south and west, and county properties to the north and east. The site is adjacent to Bryan Evansville Road, which is currently being improved, and municipal services are available in the vicinity and can be extended to serve the property. The annexation would incorporate the property into the city and allow it to function as part of the broader urban area. For the Commission's consideration, the annexation criteria include findings related to health, safety, and welfare contiguity and the logical extension of city services. The proposed annexation would allow connection to municipal water and sewer systems and improve overall service availability. The requested M2 zoning is consistent with the surrounding industrial development pattern and allows a range of industrial and commercial uses. As of the day of the staff report, no comments have been received and Planning and Zoning Commission's action will be forwarded to council as a recommendation. I have six exhibits. A is the petition for an annexation. B, application for zone change. C, public notice sent to property owners. D, legal notice sent to the Star Tribune. E, photo of the public notice sign on the property. And F, memo to the chairperson and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. That's it for my report. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have any preliminary questions?

I had one. Are any of the businesses around there, have they been?

I know we did one over by McKenzie Park, but on the Bryan Evansville Road, are any of those in the city of Casper now? No.

Mr. Chairman, good question. The map you'll see up on the screen right now, the shaded or colored version are lots in the city and the unshaded lots are still in the county. So that's probably the best depiction I can show you. So as you'll see, just to the west and to the south of this property that's highlighted in blue, that area is already in the city.

Thank you. Next, I would ask the applicant or their authorized representative to come forward to the microphone, state your name, address for the record, and explain your application to the commission.

Evening, Brutill, 1468 North Buck Creek Road, Casper, Wyoming. Basically, we're wanting city water and sewers. And we figured since you are now finally improving Bryan Evansville Road before it gets paved, this would be a good time to get it done. So that's why we're here.

Thank you.

Any questions? Yes, one moment.

Yes. So are you currently on a well and a septic system? Correct. So with considering if this is approved, then you will abandon septic? Both the well and the septic system, is that what would happen?

That has not been discussed, no. I mean, the septic system will for sure be abandoned because we're going to, I'm going to have to bring a septic line over to the east to connect, but yes.

But you'll use city water for...

The well that we have is not potable. It's not potable? No. Okay. I mean, we'd probably keep it for irrigation in the future. just so it's there, but it's not potable water.

Thank you. Commissioner, do you have any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Till. Thanks for your consideration. Anyone else wishing to speak?

Project? Anyone in opposition? Seeing no one else wishing to speak, we will close the public comment portion of the hearing and call for a motion on the annexation to approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, postpone, or postpone to a certain date. Discussion will happen after the motion in the second. Do we have a motion? Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, just for clarification purposes, the staff report references Wyoming statute 15.1.405 that has the required findings that you have to make that are also shown on page four of your staff report under case number four. That should be 15.1.402 that actually contains this finding. So I would recommend that... 402, not 405. So I would just recommend that if the motion is made that it references 402

instead of 405.

That's correct with the findings required by WS 15-1-402.

Okay, we have a motion to approve.

but the information underneath is correct, just the number is incorrect.

That is correct.

Okay, we have a second from Commissioner Eskew. Are there any further discussion? Okay, let's vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

Okay.

Do we need to also do Zoning. Do we have a motion to approve ZOC 1077-2026? I move to approve. Motion to approve by Commissioner Plocheck. Do we have a second? We have a second by Commissioner Hunter. Is there any discussion? Okay.

Are there any nay votes? Okay. Let's vote.

with all the motion carries.

Mr. Till, your application for the annexation and zoning chain has been approved.

I believe you still. There's a lengthy process still to go. We'll be in touch with the applicant and let them know the next steps. It'll be some more public hearings at the council level.

Can I have a question for staff? Yes. I'm just wondering if, I know it's not pertinent to this case, but are the other structures and such already tied into the water on this, or is it prudent? Are they aware that they may need to do as Mr. Brutill did to make sure they make those connections prior to pavement? Yeah, I'm going to let...

So yeah, the other neighbor... In front, Bruce, I just spoke with him tonight on the telephone. He's been having some health issues, hasn't been able to get his application in yet. He's hoping to get that done next week for the annexation. But that would be the only other one. Wade Kendall? Wade Kendall's city. He's already city. Gotcha. So it's just me and the property to the north.

To the left. Yep. Well, that's what we're trying to avoid. Thank you.

Thanks.

Special issues. Do we have any feedback from the wild pass conference from those who attended?

Yeah, it was good. There were some discussions on the gaming and then we had a short training session too. So there were some things that I didn't know about. And then they gave us some websites also that you can get into to look at some of these things. And I don't know if you shared those in your notes. I do have those. Yeah. And so that would, you know, you could log into there and you could see some of the training things and legislative updates.

Were you going to say anything? Do we have any other communication from the commission?

Everyone has the handout that I created after the... So... just bullet points, read through it, but it was good. It was a great learning experience for me, so.

I just wanted to say, I appreciate those of you who went and I know some other staff went in addition to Lori. I'm on the tail end of my career, so we figured we'd get some of the people that hadn't been to these before up there and start meeting people and interacting. So I think one of the valuable things about these conferences is getting to meet your peers around the state and listen and understand that they're dealing with the same thing you guys are. So I appreciate those that went.

I'm just curious, did any of you go to the smoke shop on wheels?

No, there was just someone.

Someone just brought that up in Jackson Hole, I believe. They said they had a smoke shop on wheels and they didn't know what to do with it. Yeah, it's selling, yeah. Yeah. No, vaping, smoking, yeah. So, and they didn't know, they talked about, oh, what they could do with it, but it wasn't, they really didn't know what to do. Itinerary merchant license was, yeah. Yeah. But they didn't know what to do with it, and no one else really knew what to do with it either. So, yeah. Whether it was legal or not, that was the big question.

Okay.

Any development director or the city planner? Any communication?

Okay. I wasn't going to say anything, but for those of you who participated yesterday in our downtown cleanup, thank you. That was a really good event. It was nice to get out of the office and work hard, get sweaty and dirty. And I think the downtown looks really good. Getting ready for the CNFR.

Thanks. Anything from our council liaisons? Mr. Vice Chair?

Council? Commission, rather. Too used to talking to the council. Good evening. Glad that those of you that made it to the conference could go. That is always a good conference to go to. We were lucky enough to go to the WAM conference last week and learned a lot of fun stuff, so it's always good to learn things. I'm sure Lori learned a lot going to the conference. And then just to let you know, we are looking at putting a pause on new gambling establishments in town while we kind of decide what we're going to do with zoning and stuff. So I don't know if you guys will end up getting involved in any of that or not, but just a heads up that we're looking for doing zoning changes and making sure we know where things need to be. So we're going to pause any coming in, may not end up pausing it. We're already working on all the ordinances and changes that we, now that we have control over local control over, what we can do with gaming so that we can guarantee the safety and health and safety of our citizens. And then just thank you all for everything you do. Thank you, Mike.

Okay, anything from the Old Yellowstone District?

Anything from anyone else present?

Okay, the final item in the agenda this evening is adjournment. The next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be Thursday, July 9th, 2026, 6 p.m. If there is no further business to conduct, Chair calls for a motion to adjourn. A motion, do we have a second?

And with no other discussion, let us vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

pitched a perfect game all unanimous all night so I wanted to bring it up to