Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. We're going under lock. Thank you. There we go.

I always watch that thing just because I've seen the recorder, the backup recorder, just stop. It's like, I don't take my eyes off it.

It's like the reverse of a watch pot.

I've got to watch it or it stops itself.

Down comes third. Oh, wow. Thank you.

We turn that on. The meeting will come to order. The agenda is on the table outside the meeting room. This is a public meeting for which public notice has been provided. Proceedings are being broadcast and recorded and can be viewed online on the City of Casper's YouTube channel. First, I'd like to read some informational statements about the meeting. Use of cell phones is not permitted and such phones shall be turned off or otherwise silenced during the planning and zoning meeting. When speaking to the Planning and Zoning Commission, please clearly state your name and address. Keep remarks pertinent to the issue being considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Do not repeat the same statements that were made by a previous speaker. Speak to the Planning and Zoning Commission as you would like to be spoken to. Do not address applicants or other audience members directly. Make your comments at the podium and directed to the chairperson and 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 and 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. Note that Commissioner Eskew is absent tonight. The next item on the agenda is consideration of the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held July 9th, 2026. Are there any additions or corrections? The Chair calls for a motion to approve the minutes of the July 9th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Motion made by Commissioner Hunter. Second by Commissioner Hutchinson. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? There being no further discussion, we will now vote. Any abstentions or nay votes? I'll abstain. Please cast your vote. Please record the vote.

With two members abstaining and the rest voting aye, the motion carries.

Next will be the scheduled public hearings. Before we get started, just a reminder to all this 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 you to speak up when your case is announced. The first public hearing tonight will be for CUP 11-1106-2026, which was continued from July 9th. A request for conditional use permit at 1023 South Fox Elder Street, applicant being the Wyoming Financial Properties Incorporated. Is the applicant or the representative present, and do you wish to proceed? Yes, sir. I'll call you up in just a minute. Can we please get the staff's report at this time?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This application requests a conditional use permit amendment for an existing commercial parking lot at 1023 South Box Elder Street. The request has two components. First is temporary vehicular access from Box Elder Street during the YDOT reconstruction of South Poplar Street. And second, permanent removal of a 2011 condition that prohibits access from Box Elder Street and requires all traffic to use the adjacent alley. The parking lot serves Poplar Wine and Spirits slash Derby Club and contains approximately 41 existing parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning Commission is responsible for evaluating the request under Section 17-12-240 of the Municipal Code, including consideration of traffic, compatibility with surrounding uses, and impacts to public health, safety, and welfare. All required public notification procedures have been completed. As of the date of the staff report, staff had received two letters of opposition expressing concerns regarding neighborhood traffic and loss of on-street parking. The applicant submitted a traffic impact study evaluating current and future operations with the proposed access point. According to the study, the Collins Drive and Box Elder Street intersection currently operates at an acceptable level of service, and the study concluded that no safety or operational deficiencies were identified. Further, the additional access could improve circulation by reducing reliance on the existing alley only access. Staff notes that the original access restriction was imposed approximately 15 years ago and that the current request has been evaluated under present day conditions. The commission should consider the temporary and permanent access requests independently. The proposal does not expand the existing business, increase the building area or intensify operations. While the driveway would remove a limited amount of public curbside parking, the applicant contends that the additional access would improve operational flexibility during the multi-year Poplar Street reconstruction project. Commission must determine whether the request satisfies the required findings of section 17-12-240G based on the traffic study, public testimony, and all other relevant factors presented during the public hearing. I have seven exhibits to enter. A is the application for a conditional use permit. E, public notice sent to property owners within 300 feet. C, legal notice sent to the Star Tribune. D, a photo of the public notice signed on the property. E, memo to the chairperson, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. F, letter of opposition from the owner of 1024, 1043, and 1047 South Box Elder. And G, letter of opposition from the owner of 1007 South Box Elder. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Craig. Anybody have any questions for Craig?

Craig, you said that the situation had been reassessed from the 2011 decision. What's changed besides popular construction since 2011?

So first I would characterize the 2011 study as conceptual because the building was not built yet. Now the building is built and Of course, back in 2011, the Derby Club was not a part of that use. I understand the drinking establishment is also not in current use right now. But other than that, not much has changed.

Do you have access to the minutes from 2011 on why they ?

don't have access to the minutes, but I remember it because it was a very memorable meeting for me. In general, I'll just say that the neighborhood was concerned about commercial traffic impacting a local street and as I remember it, the applicant at the time offered up to say we will agree to not put any traffic out onto that street. I think that was a concession made by the applicant at the time and was codified with the conditional use permit.

Any other questions? Now I'll ask you to come up and explain your case.

Good evening. My name is Tracy Laycock. I serve as general counsel to 307 Horse Racing. My address is 1720 Cary Avenue, Suite 601, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82001. I drove up in your lovely rainstorm today. That was exciting. Hopefully the drive home was easier. I do want to make a couple of comments. We did do the traffic impact study this time. That was not completed in 2011. So We did get a third party to complete a traffic impact study because we wanted to look at the hard numbers and get an expert in to determine whether the street could handle that level of traffic. Additionally, being 11 years later, now we have the established business. So the traffic impact study actually serves us better. And that's because they can look at our customer numbers. They can look at traffic. And so they have the real ability to see the impact on this proposed ingress and egress. Of course, everything is exacerbated by the Poplar construction. That, of course, makes everything a lot more difficult for us being on Poplar. And that project has spanned the last two years. I'm sorry, I'm not sure why the microphone's doing that. So I want to just, today I actually drove the area and it's very important because right now we have traffic coming out onto a paved alleyway that has wires, electricity running over the top of it. And it can get very congested back there, especially when we have deliveries. And frankly, we've had a couple of fender benders back there because people have to exit onto that alleyway. As the traffic impact study indicated, Box Helder can handle this traffic. And in fact, the traffic study went one step further to say that it will actually improve circulation. I do want to remind folks that that side of Boxelder, you know, you kind of run up to the loaf and jog on the back there of Boxelder for about the entire block, there is no residential houses right on that side, which would be the side of the street. So we are requesting the permanent access, but I have put in the temporary request in case there are any hesitations. This We'll have costs associated with it. We'll have to cut the curb out. The curb currently exists. We can cut it out and make an entrance and egress and ingress into that spot into our parking lot. But there will be costs associated with that. So we are requesting a permanent change. Last time there was quite a few, dear goodness, there were quite a few comments in opposition, as Mr. Collins recalls. And I do think that the traffic study is really imperative here. And that I would ask that the traffic study actually become an exhibit of the application. Would that be possible, Mr. Collins?

Absolutely, yes.

Okay. I'm happy to answer any additional questions. I don't want to repeat at what Mr. Collins said and I appreciate your time tonight.

Any questions for the applicant?

What spurred this request at this time since this parking lot has been used for so many years as it is?

Mr. Chairman, through you. The popular construction did impact the timing. It has been very difficult for the business. But when we looked at the property, we wanted to make sure that we came at the right time when we had plenty of usage. The Derby Club has only been there for about three years. So we wanted to make sure that we didn't come to you right away. and say, hey, we need this change. We wanted to see how it worked in the business, what impact it was having, and so the timing now seemed correct after now that we have the Derby Club fully operating in that building.

Any other questions?

So did they actually do traffic counts on Box Elder and out of your business? Because I thought the report showed that it just used industry standard numbers for... that kind of established what it showed.

You know, I don't want to speak out of turn. I read the report this morning, but with your leeway, I will sit down and go through it as you guys are listening to other comments. And if I may come back up and address your question, I just don't want to speak incorrectly.

Any other questions? When was the traffic study And you may need to refer to your notes again. When was it conducted? Was it prior to the Papa Street construction?

No, it was just completed in the last three or four weeks. In the last three or four weeks.

Mr. Chairman, I believe in speaking with our city engineer that they used traffic counts prior to construction. The study itself was completed recently, but the counts were prior to construction.

And Mr. Collins, do you know the answer to the commissioner's question as to the traffic counts?

My understanding and Mr. Beamer honestly has seen a lot more of these traffic studies than I have is we use kind of ratios or multipliers for based on the square footage or the type of business it is right out of the IT manual rather than actual customer numbers. I did participate in a call with the applicant and our traffic engineer and they talked about some of the operational, you know, time, you know, what time they're open and, you know, their estimation for amount of traffic and customers per day and things like that. But I believe most of it is based on industry standard ITE manual ratios.

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Any other questions?

Thank you. Thank you.

Now's the time when we ask members of the audience to come forward and either support or in opposition to this case. Please remember to state your name and address clearly into the microphone for the record. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or opposition to this case, please come forward now.

Mr. Chairman, while I have a chance, before I forget, I want to enter the traffic study as exhibit H, please. Okay, as noted, thank you.

Good evening, Councilor. Good evening, Commission. My name's Pat Sweeney. I reside at 951 North Kimball, which is a heck of a lot, quite a ways away from Poplar Wine and Spirits and the Derby Club. But I have, for some reason, I remember all of these discussions in relationship to the additional parking lot when that all occurred. And I honestly, I believe good on Mike and Dave Reed when they added that parking lot. It's a very nice parking lot and well-landscaped, well-maintained. And it didn't make sense for me that they couldn't exit out onto Box Helder. But They did that to get support from the neighborhood. There also were a lot of acquisitions at the time about drug paraphernalia, and this would be a CD addition to the neighborhood, which absolutely hasn't been the case over the years. The acquisitions were actually a false pretense, I believe. But I would speak really in favor. I think this makes a lot of sense to give another access point to alleviate some of the congestion because, you know, when Poplar is going full strength. There's, you're not supposed to take a left-hand turn, uh, exiting onto Poplar, uh, per, per city, uh, in for good reason, but people do it all the time, turning out a mini Mart, um, in, um, um, I've done it myself. Um, so, um, but, um, uh, but, I really think this makes great sense. This has been a great addition to the community. They've ran a first class business and I don't believe the bar currently is operational but the liquor store has always done a great job and I don't think there's been a lot of complaints from the neighborhood but The timing is right. It'll be a great expense. I don't know if they've got numbers yet, but I'm guessing in today's world, that's probably going to be $50,000 to make those improvements onto box elders. But anyway, I'm totally in support, speaking in support, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner Sweeney. Any questions? Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak in support or in opposition to this case?

Seeing nobody else wishing to speak on this case, the chair hereby closes the public comment portion of the public hearing and calls for a motion on the conditional use permit to approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or postpone to a date certain. Discussion will occur after there is a motion and a second. Reminder, there are two requests that must be considered, a temporary access and a permanent access. And I think we'll start with the permanent access first to see if there's an appetite to approve that. And that will alleviate the need to consider the temporary access permit. Do we have a motion to grant a permanent access?

I make the motion.

Move by Commissioner Elston to approve permanent access. Do we have a second? Second by Commissioner Hunter, sorry. And the motion is second. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Chairman, please include those findings as well. They're listed in the staff report if you need to take a look at those.

Commissioner Elston, can you name the findings for us, please?

Including the findings? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Elston, would you like to amend your motion to include the findings and relevant factors that are listed in the staff report? Yes, I do.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, attorney. Do you accept those changes? Okay. We have a motion and a second, including the findings.

Discussion?

I don't know if this is a question back for the council, but one of the concerns that was brought up by the neighborhood, or one of the neighbors, was that an additional uncontrolled access points could become a source of accidents. So I'm wondering if you indeed are worried about accidents in your own parking lot, since for the next two years, you're going to become a thoroughfare for traffic coming and trying to avoid Poplar. Yeah.

The public hearing is actually closed.

So I can raise the concern too.

You can raise the concern and we can discuss it. I mean, I think anytime somebody's looking to take a shortcut maybe across from, but there is no access on the Poplar Street now.

Right. And now you're also opening this up as potential thoroughfare. The shortcut. Right. So now the shortcut becomes the alley. It becomes the parking lot.

But I don't understand why they would be using the alley as a shortcut to where they would be going down to Box Elder Street and using Box Elder Street. Is that it? From my perspective, I don't see how that's really relevant here, but that's just for discussion. I'll speak in favor of the permanent access. I agree with this access onto Box Elder Street. I know there's always a hesitancy to mix and match residential and commercial, but regardless, we get traffic from all over this community using streets all over, and the traffic study clearly states that There's no foreseeable future with this additional traffic onto Box Elder. So I'll be supporting this motion. Any further discussion?

Please cast your vote. Please record the vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

Your condition of use permit has been approved. I'm sure Craig will be in touch with any future directives.

Do we table the conditional use?

This was a conditional use permit. Yeah. Case number two. Second case tonight will be S.U.B. 1121-2026, Vacation and Replat to Create the Conger Addition Number One, located at 1023 North Kimball Street. The applicant is Donald Conger. Can we please get staff support at this time? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This application requests a vacation and replat of blocks 55 through 59, block 33, North Casper Addition. to create the congregation number one at 1023 North Kimball Street. The 0.28 acre property is currently vacant and is zoned R3, one to four unit residential. Proposal would consolidate five existing lots into two newly configured lots intended to support future residential development. Planning and zoning commission is reviewing the request pursuant to chapter 1624 of the Casper Municipal Code. The commission's action on the plat is advisory to the city council with approvals forwarded as a do pass recommendation and denials forwarded as a do not pass recommendation. All required procedural steps, including mailed notice, property posting and publication of legal notice have been completed. And as of today, we had one public comment received. The proposed replat is designed to improve the functionality of the property while maintaining consistency with the existing zoning and surrounding residential neighborhood. The reconfiguration would create two lots of approximately 6,250 square feet each. Based on our three zoning standards, each lot would have sufficient area to support multifamily development with the potential for up to four dwelling units per lot, subject to applicable building permit requirements and code compliance. The proposal does not change the property zoning designation or introduce land uses that are inconsistent with the surrounding area. Staff's review found that the resulting lots satisfy applicable frontage, dimensional, and area requirements of the Casper Municipal Code. The Commission's role is to conduct a public hearing and determine whether the vacation and replat comply with Title 16 before making a recommendation to the City Council. I have six exhibits. A is the application for replat. B, public notice sent to property owners. C, legal notice sent to the Star Tribune. D, photo of the public notice sign on the property. E, memo to the chairperson, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And F, letter of opposition from 914 North Kimball Street. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the report and the exhibits are noted. Does anyone on the commission have any preliminary questions for staff about the report? Next, I'll ask the applicants to please come forward to the microphone, state your name and address for the record, and explain your application to the commission. Nobody's here?

Apparently not.

Well, then I'm not going to thank the applicant. Now is the time when we ask members of the audience to come forward in either support or in opposition to the case. Please remember to state your name and address clearly into the microphone. For the record, anyone wishing to speak in support of or opposition to this case, please come forward now.

Howdy, my name is Nick O'Hara. I live at 1033 North Kimball. Depending on when you're looking at the property, If you're looking from the street view to the property, I would be located on the left-hand side. I've lived in this town my whole life. My family is the third generation. I just kind of want to know some ins and outs in regards to the parking, rezoning, traffic, property taxes, noise. Drainage is obviously going to be a big issue. I did happen to snap some pictures as I came in from Rollins. I apologize for my demeanor. I just got off of work. And then I just had a few questions for obviously the applicant, but he or she is not here today. So I also would like to address maybe an impact study if that would be possible to see if that's going to affect traffic, property value, Is that going to bring up any other issues that maybe I'm not aware of as an average citizen?

Keep in mind that all we're looking at approving tonight is a replant. We're not looking at any development. Just combining four lots into two lots. Five lots. I'm sorry, five lots into two lots. Thank you, Chairman. What's that?

I appreciate that.

So that's what this commission is looking at. today. I can tell you from my personal experience, this would not generate the level of traffic to need a traffic impact study for something like this.

Okay, so that would be a little bit overkill.

It would be required by municipal code, for example. Outstanding. The applicant would not be required to do so.

I guess what I'm trying to say is having that in a residential area with housing and then having a fourplex added to that is that going to impact the drainage as far as the plot layout and other areas before it, I guess what I'm trying to say is that can cause issues with the drainage because it'll flood there.

I probably shouldn't be speaking on behalf of the city. So I'll defer to Craig on some of these questions for you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the use of the property is not changing. Um, The fourplex, assuming that's what the applicant wants to do, which I believe is true, or two fourplexes could be built today under the current zoning without the need for a realignment of the property lines. When we review building permits, that is the time when we'd look at setbacks and parking spaces and things like that, but that is beyond the purview of what we're doing tonight.

Okay. Okay. Can I get some clarification on exactly what this meeting is here for?

Yeah, this is nothing but a replant. We're combining five lots down into two lots.

Okay. That's all I'm going to do. The applicant is just looking for approval to do that? Correct. So will there be future meetings that I could attend to address any other issues as far as the city?

this unless I don't think there'll be any further notification on this because it's already a zoned permission permitted use. I mean, so right. So there's nothing they're looking to do outside of what's not permitted to be done in this neighborhood.

So there'll be no zoning changes, anything like that. Correct. Outstanding. Thank you. No, thank you. I guess my concern councilman is, is, uh, not so much the parking, um, Maybe the noise is a concern as well. Drainage is probably the biggest. The way that's designed, how that gutter system works, it all comes to between my house and the property in question. So it's going to definitely flood. And I have pictures today of how much runoff there's been on there. So that's my concern. I also met with the construction worker or the person doing the construction, as well as the owner. And I asked him a few questions as far as surveying. Yes, they are within the parameters of having a fourplex housing residential. But I was privy to him saying that they would allow parking to be inside of the property as opposed to on the street parking, meaning there was parking supposed to be in front of If both of the places are looking at each other, so to speak, the parking would be in the front entrance there and that the alleyway would be both directions open to traffic. So my concern is when it rains hard like that, all that soil from the alleyway is going to make its way into that, whether he chooses to use asphalt or some other type of soil. And with the sewage drainage being right there, is that going to affect Are we going to have to change the sidewalks? Am I going to have to pay for half of the sidewalks? Those are some of the concerns that I'm looking for. So I don't know if there's going to be another meeting or how I would go about asking more questions, maybe directly to...

It would not be a question for this commission. It would be a question for city staff. If you're really concerned about drainage, probably the city engineering department would be your best bet to ask those technical questions.

I do fire protection, so I understand water flow and how it works. Um, so yeah, thank you for helping me in that direction. Thank you. That's all I have.

Anybody else wish to speak in favor or opposition to this case?

I'm not opposed.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Pat Sweeney. Um, I have three properties on North Kimball, 933, which flooded today off the alley, 951, which is my residence, and 1012 North Kimball, which is a rental for my goddaughter. So thanks for those clarifications. That helps. I'm not against the replanting. I actually owned two of the lots and sold them to a different person after I tore the house down that had been burnt out and then sold to the person that I think sold both the house that's now gone uh, that's net next to Nick. Um, sorry. I don't have the addresses of the total of five lots. Um, so, um, my understanding with this replant is, is, uh, desire to build two four plexes, um, on the two. So in, uh, talking to city staff, um, I didn't know what the requirements were for off street, quote unquote off street. And I guess it's 1.21 or 1.25 vehicles per unit. And that's a whole different thing that I believe needs updated. But Typically, there's two cars involved with each unit, not just 1.21 cars. And so he's only going to, according to my measurements, he's probably going to have room for 10 across the back or across the front. And I don't know what the plan is. So those... Those are my concerns. And I know, I believe you got a letter today from Mrs. Franklin at 914 North Kimball. And she's got traffic concerns down there, especially once the pool gets reopened and with the park. And during the summer months, we have a lot of kids back and forth on that in the tightness of the street to begin with. So those are, I guess, all of the neighbors concerns. I too have, you know, concern about the drainage. And so would we address those through the engineering department or? That's correct.

Again, this, this, Commission here is simply looking at the replan, finding the five lots into two. We're not looking at access. We're not looking at parking. We're not looking at drainage. Just simply if it's permitted to combine the five lots into two lots.

And then just procedurally, thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chairman. So this would have to get approved also through city council. No, yeah.

Mr. Chairman, yes, it's a via resolution, which is normally consent item.

OK, and somebody could counsel could pull that from consent. You would know better than me, counselor.

Two counselors.

And then at that point in time, could some of these questions be clarified for the neighborhood? I'm going to defer to staff for that question.

Mr. Chairman, where, you know, council carries a lot of weight, they can request lots of things. Um, I think that their, uh, their legal counsel may direct them to focus on what the, uh, what the question is. And the question is, does it meet the city code with regard to what's being requested? And that's a combination. Um, As we've discussed, traffic is not a component of a replat. There is a building permit process, and I would also, in addition to the engineering office, I think I would work with the building official to talk about some of these details, who I think oversees also the drainage and parking layout and things like that. But the council, it would be abnormal for the council to request anything beyond what we've discussed tonight. in my opinion.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor or opposition to this case, please come forward. No, please ask a question of the staff.

So I just have a staff question. So when you drive by these properties, there are already footers. So because, so as my understanding, because they own the property, they're allowed to start construction, even though it hasn't been replotted. So if we were to not replat, that would pretty much hurt what they've already started.

In this case, Mr. Chairman, it's a little different because it's a permitted use. The replat is not a, a necessary, it's probably something that maybe their financing requested or, or some, who knows why they requested it, but it's not a requirement. So they could continue building, um, what they want to build with the existing layout and just build right over the five lot lines.

So this may have just been the title company saying it'd be cleaner if you had two properties instead of five.

That would be my guess. I wish the applicant was here to, to answer that. I'm, I'm guessing at this point, but, um, all I can say is that the, um, construction that's underway is not conditioned on this replant.

Okay.

Anybody else wish to speak in favor or opposition to this case? Seeing nobody else wish to speak in this case, the chair hereby closes. Oh, sorry. I thought you were leaving. I won't close it.

In regards, With that change, does that bring any difference to construction, obviously? Okay. So with that being said, I'm not opposed to the construction. I'm just concerned about the impact of having those rezoned. Does that affect? It's not rezoning.

It's simply a replat. Replatting. Again, your best bet is to talk your concerns over with the engineering department and or the building officials.

Okay. So is this council or commission going to move forward in replatting this? You're going to find out here in just a minute. So once it's, once it's made that decision, we can't go back. So am I a little late to the party by not consulting with other parties?

Your concerns really have nothing to do with this replat. Your concerns have to do with the building that's going on. Right. And I think that's where we're having a disconnect.

Yes. Yes, that's part of the worries, but what I'm asking is once these two properties become one property, is that replatting? Can you specify what replatting means?

Replatting is, right now, this is platted as five separate lots, which may be 40 feet in width. He's now going to create two lots, one being 100 feet and one being 75 feet in width. I don't know what they are. It's lines on paper, basically. It's just lines on paper. I mean, that's one lot is going to be 75 feet and one is going to be 50 feet.

So we're taking five pieces and making them two pieces or one piece. That's all we're doing here. Okay. We're erasing the lines. Yes. Okay. I just, I'm.

No, I can understand the confusion.

But regardless of what we decide today, they can move forward. Anyways, they don't need what our decision is.

I'm past that. Yes, ma'am, I understand. Thank you.

So if you look up there for the blue lines.

I do, yes.

That used to be five lots, and he wants to make those two. The two would look like those.

And this is simply for their finances, as was discussed? We don't know, because the applicant's not here.

So that used to be five lots, and that's the way he wants to make those two. Right.

Well, I'm eventually going to have the lot next to me, so I'm going to have to go through this all over again. So I'm in the learning process as well. However, I'm not opposed to it. I just had some concerns. So thank you.

Now the public hearing is closed. I now call for a motion on the replat to approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or postpone to a date certain. Discussion will occur after there is a motion and a second. Approved to approve by Commissioner Ruble. Second. Second by Commissioner Plochek. I'm going to motion and a second. Is there any discussion? There being no further discussion, we will now vote. Any abstentions or nay votes? Please cast your vote. Please record the vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

Thank you.

The third case tonight will be CUP-1133-2026. Request for conditional use permit to allow a security resident in an M1 zoning district located at 535 North Lenox Street. The applicant is the Hupp Family Bypass Trust. Can we please get a stats report at this time?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The application requests a conditional use permit to allow security residents within an M1 zoning district at 535 North Lenox Street. The property consists of approximately a quarter acre and contains an existing industrial warehouse building formerly associated with a machine shop. While residential uses are not permitted by right in the M1 district, the municipal code allows certain security residences through the conditional use permit process when they're associated with and necessary for the principal industrial use of the property. All required public notification and procedural requirements have been completed, including mailing notice to nearby property owners, posting the property and publication of legal notice. As of the date of the staff report, one letter of support signed by three individuals has been received. The Planning and Zoning Commission has authority to act on conditional use permit requests and must evaluate the proposal using the applicable review criteria contained in Section 17-12-240. The applicant proposes to continue using the building as a warehouse for the storage of materials, records, tools, and equipment associated with the former family business. The business itself has not proposed to resume operations. Instead, the applicant seeks to construct an apartment within the existing structure for a tenant who would provide onsite presence, security and stewardship of the property. The commission may consider whether the proposed residence remains incidental and subordinate to the principal warehouse use of the site. Staff review notes that the proposed apartment would be located entirely within the existing building and would not require exterior modifications. Only one dwelling unit is proposed. Traffic impacts are expected to be similar to those associated with a single family residence and a similar security residence was previously approved within the surrounding industrial area. The commission must determine whether the request satisfies the required findings regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses, protection of neighboring properties and promotion of the public convenience, welfare and intent of the zoning ordinance. I have six exhibits. A is the application for a conditional use permit. B is the public notice sent to property owners within 300 feet. C is legal notice sent to the Star Tribune. D, photo of the public notice sign on the property. E, memo to the chairperson, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And F, letter of support submitted by the applicant from 510 and 517 North Lenox and 612 North Beverly. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer.

Thank you for the report and the notice. Anybody on the commission have any preliminary questions? Next, I would ask the applicant to please come forward to the microphone, state your name and address for the record, and explain your application to the commission.

Good evening.

My name is Jim McCarney. I'm a representative of Blue Line Customs and also Donna Huff here from the Huff Family Trust. We're just here to make ourselves available for any questions that you may have.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Getting off easy. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Now is the time when we ask members of the audience to come forward in either support or in opposition to the case. Please remember to state your name and address clearly into the microphone for the record. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to the case, please come forward now. Seeing nobody else wishing to speak on this case, the chair hereby closes the public comment portion of the public hearing and calls for motion on the conditional use permit to approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or postpone to a date certain. Discussion will occur after there is a motion and a second. With the noted conditions? Does she need to read that entire?

Mr. Chairman, we don't need to read it, but would that include the findings of 17-12-240 G and H and the relevant factors that are in your staff report? Yes.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Plochek. Second by Commissioner Hutchison. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? There being no further discussion, we will now vote. Just close the discussion.

Okay, there is discussion.

If we approve a security officer, could that ever...

be assumed that that's a residence. I mean, would they use?

Mr. Chairman, I might need some help from my attorney friend at the other end of the table on this, but the code states that once a conditional use permit is exercised, it runs with the land forever. So however necessary for security purposes, if that becomes unnecessary in the future, I'm not sure exactly how that works.

It's a really good question, Mr. Chairman, but yes, conditional use permits do run with the land except for daycare permits, which do not. So unless there's a way to show that it's no longer necessary for security, it probably is running with the land and it would be questionable whether you could remove it or not.

Any further discussion?

Mr. Chairman, I guess I have a question. So the security is for the vacant building? Is that what I would understand? There's no business in the building at this time?

Mr. Chairman, the material submitted by the applicant has some pictures. There's a supplement that I hope was included in your packet. My understanding is that all the original equipment and files and other such things are still in the building, and they're concerned with theft and theft. those high dollar items are still there even though the business is not functioning. So it's functioning more as a warehouse.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? We'll now vote. Any abstentions and nay votes? Please cast your vote. Please record the vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

Application for Conditional Use Permit has been approved. I'm sure Craig will be in touch with further instructions. The fourth case tonight will be ANX-1123-2026, SUB-1124-2026. and ZC dash 1125 dash 2026 and annexation of 0.2, four acres, which has been combined with a vacation and replant of lot one block for the Heights edition to create the Nissan edition located the Southeast corner of Murado drive and Blanco drive annex parcel has requested PUD zoning to match the existing zoning of the property. and surrounding area. The applicants, Eastgate Branch, LLC, and Hayden, Neeson, and Amy Munoz, trustees for Hayden A. Neeson Living Trust. Can we please get a staff report at this time?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The application before the Planning and Zoning Commission includes a coordinated annexation, final plat and zoning request involving approximately 0.24 acres of unplatted land located south of 1620 Blanco Drive. The annexed area would be combined with the existing Lot 1, Block 4 of the Heights addition through a vacation or replat process to create the Neeson addition, a single residential lot totaling approximately 1.52 acres. The applicants have requested PUD zoning for the annexed property so that the zoning designation remains consistent with the existing residential parcel and surrounding neighborhoods. Commission is being asked to evaluate whether the annexation satisfied the applicable requirements of Wyoming statutes, including findings related to public health, safety, and welfare, logical municipal expansion, service availability, and contiguity with existing city limits. Staff's review indicates that the property is adjacent to the current city boundary, is functionally integrated with the surrounding residential area, and can reasonably be served by municipal infrastructure and services. The annexation would place the entire property under a single municipal jurisdiction and regulatory framework. The proposed plat does not create additional lots or increase residential density. Instead it enlarges an existing residential parcel by incorporating the annexed land. Staff notes that Blanco Drive currently terminates at the southern boundary of the subdivision and has not been extended through the property. To address potential future roadway connectivity, staff recommends a condition requiring the property owner to participate in the cost of construction of one half of any future extension of Blanco Drive adjacent to the property, including associated street, utility, sidewalk, and engineering improvements. Your requested PUD zoning is consistent with the existing zoning of the property and surrounding area and will not introduce new land uses or alter to the residential character of the neighborhood. As the date of the staff report all Procedural requirements including mailed notice, property posting and publication of legal notice has been completed and no public comments were received. The commission's role is to conduct a public hearing, receive testimony and determine whether the application satisfy applicable statutory and code requirements before forwarding recommendations to the city council. I have seven exhibits. Petition for an annexation. is A, B is the application for a zone change, C, application for a replat, D, public notice sent to property owners, E, legal notice sent to the Star Tribune, F, photo of the public notice sign on the property, and G, memo to the chairperson and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. With that, I will turn it over to you.

Thank you for the report and the exhibits are noted. Anyone on the commission have any preliminary questions for staff?

Mr. Chairman, is there any time in the future that it looks like Blanco Drive will be extended on and that property developed behind it?

Mr. Chairman, I'm unaware of any future plans, but the reason we left the stub there was to allow for future development to the south. But I have not heard of any impending ideas to do that at this time.

Any other questions?

Next, I'll ask the applicant to please come forward to the microphone, state your name and address for the record, and explain your application to the commissioner.

Hello there. My name is Austin Luebers. I'm a civil engineer for CEPI. My residence is 6369 Pitman Circle. Mostly here to answer questions, but just a quick overview on why this happening is when the owner purchased this land, it had a landscape berm on the east, west, and south end. That was all integrated into the same irrigation plan. And when they went to build the fence, they realized they did not own the southern berm. Hence why they want to push the boundary 35 feet in that point. two, four acres to now own the berm that they irrigate.

Makes sense to me. Any questions for Mr. Lurz? You're not busy. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Now is the time when we ask members of the audience to come forward to either support or in opposition to the case. Please remember to state your name and address clearly into the microphone for the record. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to the case, please come forward now. Seeing nobody else wishing to speak on the case, the chair hereby closes the public comment portion of the public hearing and calls for a motion on ANX-1123-2026 to approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or postpone to a date certain. Moved by Commissioner Wibble. Sorry. Second by Commissioner Hunter. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Quick question for Craig.

You said that one of the conditions was if Murado goes any further, they have to pay for half the street. I'm Blanco. Doesn't that seem odd for a homeowner to have to pay for

Mr. Chairman, I would say it's always consistent that the adjacent property owner, whether it's included in the price of the lot or the original developer, always has to pay for the adjacent street. And our requirement is always to build streets and utilities all the way through subdivisions. In this case, the recommended condition was meant to be equitable for the any future developer to the south would not have to build a street across property that they don't own.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would point out just for the record that we're talking about the annexation and that condition is on the plat during the next piece.

Any other discussion? That being no further discussion, we'll now vote. Any abstentions or nay votes? Please cast your vote. Please record the vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

The chair hereby calls for a motion on SUB-1124-2026. To approve, approve with conditions denied, table postponed to a date certain. Moved by Commissioner Rubel. With conditions. Second. Second by Commissioner Plochek. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? There being no further discussion, we will now vote. Please record the vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

The chair hereby calls for a motion on ZOC-1125-2026 to approve, approve with conditions denied, table, or postpone to a date certain. Moved by Commissioner Rubel. Second by Commissioner Hutchison. Any discussion? Please cast your vote. Please record the vote.

With all members voting aye, the motion carries.

You can let your client know that the annexation zone change and plat have been approved. Thank you, Craig. Yeah, it will be going to council. The fifth case tonight will be ANX-1126-2026 and ZOC-1127-2026. Annexation of 2583 Bryan Evansville Road described as 0.5 acres, more or less. Portion of track seven, Bryan Stanko subdivision. And request zone set property is M2. Applicant is Anything 23, LLC 3. Please get your staff report at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The application includes a request to annex approximately a half acre located at 2583 Brian Evansville Road, described as a portion of track 7 of the Brian Stanko subdivision, together with a request to establish M2 zoning upon annexation. The property is currently developed with an industrial building as is contiguous with the city limits along its western boundary. According to the applicant, the annexation is being requested to facilitate connection to the municipal water and sewer services in conjunction with ongoing improvements to Bryan Evansville Road. All required public notification procedural requirements have been completed pursuant to Casper Municipal Code. These actions include mailing notice to property owners, posting of the property, and publication of a legal notice. As of the date of the staff report, no public comments have been received. The Planning and Zoning Commission's role is to conduct a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council regarding both the annexation and zoning request. Staff's review of the statutory annexation criteria indicates that the property is adjacent to existing city limits and is located within an established industrial corridor. Indexation would allow access to municipal water and sewer services while extending regulatory oversight and municipal services already available in the vicinity, including police, fire, building inspection, and zoning administration. Staff found that the property is functionally integrated with the surrounding urban area and represents a logical and feasible extension of the city's boundaries and services. The requested M2 zoning is consistent with the existing character of the area, which contains industrial development, both within the city and in a adjacent unincorporated areas. The zoning district permits a variety of industrial manufacturing storage and related commercial uses and is generally compatible with the surrounding land use pattern. The commission must determine whether the annexation satisfies the requirements of Wyoming statutes and whether their proposed zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan before forwarding a recommendation to the city council. I have six exhibits. A is the petition for annexation. B, application for a zone change. C, public notice. E, legal notice sent to the Star Tribune. E, public notice signed on the property. And F, memo to the chairman and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And that concludes my report.

Thank you for the report. And the exhibits are noted. Does anyone on the commission have any preliminary questions for staff about the report? Craig, I've got a question for you on the annexation of zoning request. The property to the south of this property that we're looking to annex, it looks to me like it's landlocked, and this probably may not be relevant to this discussion, but where does that property have access to public right-of-way? The property to the south. Correct. Immediately to the south adjacent. So. Immediately to the south.

2585. Correct. And that, if you remember, we looked at the annexation of that property as well as the one to the east a month or two ago. So those are also in process. That part was absent for that meeting. Yes. So that whole block of white that you see up there right now is in the process of annexation. So, but yes, I would... say that that property, although that property owner owns both properties, that one and the one to the east, so they have access, but we would not allow the creation of a lot that did not have frontage on a street if that were up to us, but as it exists in the county today.

Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Next, I would ask the applicants to please come forward to the microphone, state your name and address for the record, and explain your application to the commission. Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead. OK. Julie and Bruce Hitt. We live at 1104 South Durban. And we're wanting to annex into the city, basically because the city decided to put that street in.

Any questions?

Okay. Thank you. You've had to sit through a long meeting. Now is the time to ask members of the audience to come forward and either support or in opposition to the case, please remember to state your name and address clearly. Enter the microphone for the record. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to the case, please come forward now. Seeing nobody else wish to speak on this case, the chair hereby closes the public comment portion of the public hearing and calls for a motion on ANX-1126-2026 to approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or postpone to a date certain.

I move to approve ANX-1126.

Approved by Commissioner Hutchison. Second by