Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

attendance. We will bring the uh May 11th planning commission meeting to order. Pacino here. B here. Heiser White here. Moody here. Oul here. Schneider here. And Madammore is absent. So that's six present, one absent. Okay. Um approval of agenda and minutes. Um has anybody everybody gotten a chance to look over this? If so, we can entertain a motion. Move to approve the agenda. Second. Second. Okay.

Approved or uh moved and approved. Uh are there any changes or any edits to the agenda staff? None. Uh meeting minutes. um entertain a motion if everyone has had an opportunity to look at it for the um April 27th meeting minutes. Move to approve. We have a second. Yeah. Second.

Second. Approved and seconded. On um to item three. Um so citizen comments. This is specific to non-aggenda related topics. Um, we can't take any action on this. It's just any comments. Any comments? Anybody online? Okay, moving past that, we'll close citizen comments. Uh, do we have any staff reports? No, we don't.

Thank you. No staff u disclosures, exparte communications. I will, as I always do with um variance 26001, Prairie West Estates expansion. Um Christy Roberts is the applicant and I um personally is well personally within business work with her a lot. I don't see it as a conflict. I'm not helping her on this, but if the commission feels otherwise, I will sit out if

is there any other moving on. Current planning projects, old business doesn't seem to be any new business. We will take plat 26005 paintbrush first edition fifth filing plat. So, uh, Emma, Derek, take it away. Sorry about the hair, Emma.

Share. I'm sure you enjoyed taking that uh shot at me. I appreciate it. No, it's No, no. Uh Emma is actually out of the country, so she's uh enjoying her time away. And so I'm going to use my my extensive knowledge on this project and will be presenting uh for Emma on the paintbrush edition first edition fifth filing final plat. Um, this is a this is a project that uh consists of nine residential single family lots on about 3 acres of property in the R1 zoning district. This is kind of located up at the north end of North 23rd Street. Um, if you're familiar with the Coughlin Pole Mountain or the Paintbrush edition subdivisions, it's up in that area. And this is kind of a this is actually almost this is the last final plat associated with that area up there. and it kind of completes the the road network, the sewer line, waterline infrastructure in the area. Um the within the staff report, you'll see just a little bit of a history of kind of what what's gone on. Um you know, this project started back in 2013 as a preliminary plat and then has continued forward um even before that with the Coughlin Pole Mountain third edition. the paintbrush edition plat was actually a a replplatting of a portion of the Coughlin Pole Mountain third edition in order to align some streets and and and address some uh topography as well as just some lot layout up in the area um that you're seeing as part of this actual final plat here. Um, as I mentioned, uh, you know, the, uh, property is all zoned R1. Um, so all the lots associated within the final plat meet and conform with the requirements of of the R1 zoning district. Um, you're seeing the completion of the street layout in this area. It's extension of

the streets in the area. Um, if you look at the map that's included in your pro or in your packet, uh, Battle Street will continue over and connect into Buford Street as well as, uh, uh, the extension there of 23rd Street, just a small portion of it. Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, city standard streets will be incorporated across through the whole subdivision um, providing access to all the lots. Um in this area too uh we will note that um it does comply with all the requirements of the approval that were associated with the preliminary plat. That's a essential component of approving a final plat. Secondly um the layout is in constant is in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat. Um, we have reviewed the plans for this subdivision. Um, and they are in compliance with all of Larmy municipal codes and standards and all the public and private employments will be secured through the improvement deferral agreement as required by the require as required by code prior to city council approval. and that with this uh design and this layout um it does meet all the applicable design standards set forth in code. Um all plats we do legal notice. Um this was published in the Larmy Boomerang and letters were sent to surrounding property owners within 300 ft. Um to date um of the writing of this staff report, we had received no public comments. Um I did receive a public comment following uh the writing of this report. Um there was the property owner that's located adjacent to this site um just on North 23rd Street. Just had questions about where the alleyway was going to be going and what the what might happen with some of that space that's kind of located in that uh north of the alleyway. Um I had those discussions with them. We're going to

stay in communication with him about some of the uh features of that space. He was just interested in it. Um but aside from that, received no other public comments. Um, aside from that, uh, we do recommend approval of the subdivision. Um, and so would be happy to take any questions that the commission might have on this project, but it's a pretty straightforward plaque kind of filling in the last area that's left on this. So, commission, any questions for Derek?

Derek, is there any problem with mud coming down off that escarpment? You mean behind? So like north of the lots that are on the north end. I mean there is some slope there. Um but it's what's been coming off those that hill forever.

And so that's kind of what we've you know the city has ownership of that property as well as the trail that's up on top. And so, you know, we've kind of taken our, you know, done what we can to keep the water the same coming off of that. Um, you'll see in the plat there is an easement that's located along the back back side of that for drainage. And so, that would allow for water to any water that might come off there to kind of go onto that space. um it the top based upon the topography some of it runs kind of east and west there along the back lines but then also is allowed to make it down the property lines. So if you look in the in the plat there's easements on the property lines and then those some of that water would go to the streets uh depending upon each of the lots and where some of that water goes but that's generally what happens with the water flow there. So does the water flow does some of the water flow across the lots or does it get diverted? Does it get diverted west?

So generally speaking, some of the water goes both directions and then goes down between the houses. If you really really want the detail, what I do know is the applicant and the applicants engineer are available um and they probably could give you a little bit more detail on exactly where the water goes if you would like that. Do you remember the issue we had with was it Richard's parks where folks were getting they were objecting I forgot what the issue was but they didn't want additional building done because it was causing mud to flow through their property maybe a year ago. Oh yeah. The So we're not in that kind of situation.

No, for the most part over here the we're not seeing as much water that was coming there. No. Um, and so it's not something that we've had any concern with, at least at this point. So, do we want to hear from the applicant? The applicant is here. So, yeah. So, yes, I think that'd be should. Yes.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Warren Greaser with Rosstone Development. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. You want to ask your question again to the applicant? So, actually there is there a way to is there a way to show the first page of the construction drawings? Yes, the plat's the most accessible thing. Really quickly,

so that doesn't really show the ditch that's behind there. Um, and it doesn't show the the contour lines. Um, could possibly email it to Nancy really quick and we can pull it up. One second. Okay. Is it all the I guess in the meantime, um, what I would say is I think the concern on the other side, Richard's Park side, is development going in above those homes. That's right. That's right. That's right. Here you have that trail system and open space owned by the city that's above these homes. And so there won't be no funny

additional water coming off. It'll just be what's historic. And when I believe when the trail went in, the grading was done in such a way that everything on the north end of the trail drains that direction and everything south of the trail drains south. Okay. And so it's it's actually less uh land that's draining down that slope than than historical. I used to live in that neighborhood and it was like when we had a really heavy rainfall it was just it was uh would get pretty muddy. Yeah. Any other questions while we're waiting for

Yeah. that to show up on the screen. Sending it I don't think You can go to the next page. Okay, it's it's pretty faint up there, but if you can see there's a right where our cursor is where it says north existing north north drainage ditch. So that is a ditch right there that runs all the way down behind all the homes that are up there existing and it and it comes into Greentop Street further down in the subdivision. So that catches a bunch of water that comes off the hill and carries it down into the storm sewer drainage system and into that pond at Reynolds Street.

Yeah. Okay. Good. Any any other questions for Mr. Greaser? I have a weird question. I don't know if we can entertain weird questions, but we'll try. You people need weird questions and even more of the planning people need weird questions. Is Buford Street discontinuous? It does. Do I remember correctly? But uh east of this area because this is where Buford Street ends, right? But isn't there another piece of Buford Street to the east? Or am I hallucinating?

Reluctant to say you're hallucinating. Um, so I did have mushrooms for lunch. Yeah, the the history the history behind that is Buford Street was on the major street plan and was planned to extend to the east through this property. Um during the platting of Coughlin Pull Mountain third edition, um there was a lot of discussion about how we were going to get over that ridge line with a major street without essentially cutting it all down and and essentially destroying that kind of bluff. Basically,

not only did the cost and all the logistics play a role, but also the the desire to protect that ridge line was a large portion of the conversation that happened in the community. And then through the major street amendments to the major street plan, we truncated Buford Street at that location and essentially stopped that east west connector from going anywhere further. The other portion of that conversation, which I think is important, is even once we got it across this portion of the property essentially to 30th Street, there was some pretty major roadblocks in terms of physical topography of extending Buford even past 30th Street as well. And so the the benefit of putting third or Buford and East West across there, we just felt like really wasn't worth what we were getting at in terms of the spacing and things like that that existed within the area. And so now what you'll have is Asphalt Lane, which is just north of Cirrus Sky, which will provide another east west connection. And so that's kind of your why it's not there, why it stops into the local subdivision.

Okay. I was just feeling sorry for Buford Street since it got truncated. Okay. And that's Freudian significance. It was during the original platting of Sears Sky that that all happened.

Thank you. Do we have any public comment associated with this? Thank you, Mr. Graaser. Any public comment? Nancy, is there anybody online? No one online. Okay. All right. Well, are do we have any discussion among the commission about this? If not, entertain a motion. I think we can entertain a motion now. Right. Okay. I I move to recommend that city council approve brush birth edition fifth filing final platt plat 26-00005 based on findings of active conclusion. We have a second.

You can probably moved and seconded. Uh Nancy, will you give us a roll call vote on that, please? Boutino I. Bull I. Heisler White I. Moody I. Ul I. Snider I. And Matamore is absent. So we have six yeses, zero nos, and one absent. Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Motion passes. on to the conditional use permit cup 26001721 Park Avenue the vital elementary school parking lot renovation Philip

good afternoon chair members of the commission before you tonight is the conditional use permit application for the proposed vital elementary parking lot renovation at 1721 East Park Avenue. If you recall last year, the school district came forth with a similar request for the same site um CUP25-12 in which the conversion of the school from a well from the site from a school from Vital Elementary School to administrative offices associated with the school district was uh applied for and approved last year by this commission. Um, and the reason that this is before you this evening is because uh this use requires a conditional use permit because it is located in a R1 neighborhood. Uh that was the case last year and that that is the case now because further expansion of the administrative use is being asked for with this addition of a parking lot of an off- streetet parking lot where if you remember in 2025 this board granted the conditional use um with on street parking sufficing as uh what was needed for the site. further funding came and now they're able to do an off- streetet parking lot which to us as staff is moving the site further into conformance and having less of an impact on the neighborhood. So, a little background there since it was pretty recent. Um, but looking at the plan, the proposed parking configuration provides 48 on street parking spaces, including an ADA space and a van accessible space. Um, so that's an adequate amount of parking that's required. I think total the

requirement for the site is 50 spaces, but given that we do have 27 spaces on street that are that can be accounted for, uh, we feel comfortable in the size of that parking lot being expanded. Uh so major component of the project obviously is the removal of the existing playground and replacing it with this parking lot. Right. So the total imperous surface that's being added with all this is 1874 square ft when all said and done which falls under the 2,000 square ft uh that would trigger a type three site plan think full sight comp full site plan conformance. So they are just under that and uh therefore type one site plan will s suffice for this site. Um so with that I think what you'll see in the site plan is a improved landscaping on that southern side which provides as a buffer and softens the parking lot. There are some landscape islands in there that are landscaped that you'll see. Um so yeah, as mentioned um we feel it will improve the overall appearance of that southern side of of the elementary school. Another important aspect given that it is R1, it is very close to existing neighborhoods is the lighting plan for the parking lot is going to be lighted. However, the phototric plan clearly shows that uh zero foot candles are going to be observed at the property line. So, we don't expect any spillover from um those light fixtures in the parking lot. Um

and pedestrian accessibility improvements um are shown on the site plan as well through the parking lot from the southern side there. Um, so I do have in your staff report before you all the um specific aspects of the site plan broken up um such as ingress, egress, offri street or I'll just go over them briefly um to address each one. ingress and egress there uh will be provided to the proposed parking lot via the existing approach and a new approach um from South 18th Street. they'll both be one way. Um, so there will definitely be a defined circulation of the parking lot. Um, which we feel will support vehicular and pedestrian circulation, safety, off- streetet parking. I already went over um 48 street 48 space parking lot there. off-site impacts, economic noise, glare, odor effects. I mentioned the lighting one. We don't expect any other ones. As as you all know, this was an elementary school for many years. Um, so we actually see it going in the opposite direction of intensity of use. With being an administrative office, you have far less trips going in. Um, you will, however, have meet larger meetings there from time to time. We've been informed trainings as well as some uh board meetings perhaps will be held there. So um you know but but as mentioned 48 on 48 off- streetet parking spaces as well as

an added 27 in that neighborhood we feel um is is adequate for those types of uses. um refues and service areas. There is a new uh new trash enclosure being proposed on site which you'll see um which is definitely an impro improvement from before. Um utilities aren't being affected. Um screening and buffering. I mentioned the landscaping improvements that are required as per code for parking lot perimeter landscaping. There will be a a sign on the southern side of the of the um lot and we will review on the the Park Avenue entrance. We will be reviewing that to make sure it it um meets setbacks and all the code requirements, but we've been told it's going to be a nice monument sign, which we don't perceive any issues there. So then moving on to the specific location if it's appropriate for the specific location related to intensity and bulk. I've already mentioned this before. We see as the planning staff sees this as moving in to the direction of a less intense use for an R1 neighborhood which we are in favor of. Um, public health, safety, and convenience. Again, I've I've mentioned this, the parking lot is is going to improve all of that. Um, we feel like with additional sidewalk access to the building, um, setbacks, walls, landscaping, buffer yards. Um, I think I've mentioned those that are applicable and so

other city departments did not um have issue with this uh or did not pro provide comments. We did receive three public comments that you all have received um prior to the meeting because it was advertised as required through the Larmy Boomerang mailings as well as the development sign on site. So it is staff's conclusion that the applicant application meets all of the required findings for approval u with the standard conditions included and we staff recommends uh approval of the of the project and I know there's two representatives from the school district as well to answer any questions and I'm glad to answer any as well. Okay, commission. Any questions for Philip?

I had one question. Um, so was did you has there is there a staff recommendation related to this issue related about related to the flag pole? And maybe we can ask the school district representatives whether they need the flag pole. they or not because it does guess it's not technically related to this the parking lot use but if it are it looked like the conditions were pulled from the other one too and restated so it if it's an appropriate time to consider the noise that the flag pole makes when it's not being used I just wanted to raise it and be responsive to that public comment

indeed I would defer to applicant as to how the flag pole is going to be handled because yeah, the public comment was that it was like banging in the wind and so it was kind of a constant noise that I don't know if that's going to be addressed or not. I mean, as far as is the flag pole I believe is staying, right? So, yeah. Yeah, by all means, please. Yeah, come.

Randy Wilson, chief operations officer for uh Alb County School District. Uh, all schools are supposed to have a flag pole at them. That's part of the uh uh statues that's coming out of the the state. So, yes, that would stay. Um, we could look at, you know, if there's a different place to put it. I'm sure because we have not been flying a flag on there because it has not been open that it's been making more noise than normal because it just sits there and rattles the the against the pole. Um but at this time, no no we are not considering taking the flight pole out. Um and so is it still considered a school? It's a school resource center, right?

That is correct. So, school resource centers, um, we I I believe, uh, going back there, the the reason there isn't one on Grand Avenue is because of the proximity to Grand Avenue, if I remember right, but that was, uh, 20 years ago that that was, and that's why there's not one at the Grand Avenue. Um, but uh if I could present it to the uh the board of education, but I don't think that at this time we would consider removing a flag pole.

Right. And the suggestion was there was a recognition that there might be a use for flag um that it might be too expensive to remove the flag pole. Um but um I think the request was could there be a consideration if the flag pole is not going to be used? Um could the ropes and the things that are making the noise be taken down even if the flag pole isn't

Yeah. I if if if it's not going to be used any longer, if if if the uh council deems that there won't be or the school board deems that there won't be a a flag pole there, we will remove the whole flag pole. Thank you. Any other questions for Philip or the applicant? Go ahead. Might be for Philips, might be for the applicant, but I'll ask and you can decide.

Um, you're muted on your mic. There you go. I guess I'm a little bit confused about the need for the parking lot and the chain of events that led to it because like you said when we voted they said that there was no need that parking was adequate at 27 spaces. But now you also said that infrequently more spaces would be needed but it should be less used. So why build such a large parking lot if it's expected to be used infrequently? chair um through you to um counselor I would say or commissioner I'm sorry um I would say with the advent of this being funded is why you're seeing this application. So, the the school district would have included this in the original cup um that you heard last year if they had had funding for it, which they did not. So, they asked whether the on street's parking spaces could be adequate. And we went through a minor administrative modification where we mailed everyone letters whether they were okay with, you know, the school district reducing the amount of parking required and then allowing that to all be on street parking, right? And that was only done because they didn't have funding to do off streetet. Their desire always was to have an off- streetet parking lot. Um, as staff, yes, I I see your point as far as it's working right now under the current conditional use presumably. However, with an off- streetet parking lot, you're definitely moving towards conformance, which we can support because, you know, off- streetet parking definitely uh reduces the impact to the neighborhood and and that's something that is supported and actually required,

right? it was actually outside of a lane that well they had to go through the process to have a reduction of parking and to have that on street. So, but it is up to this commission to um discuss that as to the necessity of this off- streetet parking lot. We however are as staff are in favor because it's moving the site further into conformance of current code. Are there other pending funding requests or needs that would then require another conditional use permit that we should be mindful of that may come down the pipe in the future or is this the extent of their foresee use?

Chair through you I would defer to Mr. Wilkerson on that. At this time, we don't foresee any other changes to this property. Um, one of the reasons we we put this through was uh we we had several of our um residents that live around it came and talked and asked the question of why we didn't go with this, why didn't you go with uh something like this? And we said, you know, with with being two weekend or two Wednesdays a month is when this is going to be busy, potentially busy. Uh we don't know how many people's going to show up for a a school board meeting. Um we did um find funding for this to to go but at this time there are no other changes additions coming to the vital elementary central office project.

There could be through the chair. Yeah there there always could be. Um I can't tell you that the next uh board of education won't want different changes. I I can't tell you that. Um if if the if the board uh directs the superintendent to do something different, then that comes down to me and we uh we make the uh application to the city. But uh through this board, I don't see any other changes coming to have to come through the addition and and uh go with this.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, Chris. Um, is there any chance that the parking lot could be used for, let's say, Freedom has a birthday when Washington Park is swamped and parking is at a premium that that the school district would say, "Hey, you know, want to park your car in our lot. We're not doing anything this weekend. Go ahead and use it."

Uh, through the chair, yes, that happens all the time on our Grand Avenue for football games and everything else. So, yes, I would see that being a a useful event. There is nothing, you know, going on on a Saturday in our schools. So yeah, that would that that's pretty common in all of our schools where people come in. Uh I'm going use an example of over at Slate Elementary when they were doing food trucks, people would come in, park in our parking lots, the food trucks also, and they would they would do the same thing. So I wouldn't see any problems with that. So if there was like some sign that said public parking allowed on weekends, that that would be cool. Yeah. I don't know that we'll do the signage, but yes, it's cool to be in there. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Yep. Okay, thank you, Philip. I do have one more question for you. Looking over these, these are these have a the plans have a note on it that says 95% construction set. They're not stamped. Um, that's a comment I, you know, we're supposed to see stamped sets of plans that come before public hearings, whatnot.

Chair. Yes. So it it is associated with the site plan when which we do have the the full set. So um I did not catch that that this is a different version. So I would defer to the applicant as to why there is a discrepancy there. Um, but for all intents and purposes, what we've reviewed and what we've approved with the conditions of approval, it should be enough with what you're seeing in the site plan. Um, to approve the conditional use in which the site plan itself is it's contingent on the approval of this, right?

Okay. Okay. We'll continue this discussion offline a little bit because state statute requires different but as long as it's going to be substantially same and what you're looking at had a stamp or it's you know it's there. I just had one uh qu last question for Philip. Um an issue in one of the comments was raised about the ownership of the slip of land across the street. Can you address whether that is city property or part of the school district's property?

No chair through you that that is school district property as well. So it's maintained by the school district. Yeah. Uh then I then I am curious from the applicant what the plans are for or maintaining that site because it I think it was used by this actively used by the school this maybe as a natural area. Um so could we get some information about the maintenance of that? It it just goes to the concerns about the neighboring property owners, which it sounds like you're sensitive to any.

Yeah. Uh through the chair. Yes. Uh great news on that. Actually, part of what is going into Vital is what we call our transition academy, which is uh students on a graduate or non-graduate track from age 18 to 21. We will be doing some things in this building with them. They have asked if they could take care of that land over there. They want to do some wild flowers. they want to be able to uh to uh uh cultivate them to cut them, bring them in and uh share them down at the uh uh farmers market and stuff. So, yes, I think we have some good plans going forward with that over there. And uh they will be taking care of that. And like I said, they are the 18 to 21 year olds. There's probably usually about 8 to 12 in in the uh school at a time. Uh and so they'll be taking care of that land over there for us. Yep.

Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Donald. So, uh, comment on the question. Um, I think this is a big improvement. It will be a big big improvement. This area looks pretty sad right now and pretty forlorn and I think this will be a big improvement especially with some of the landscaping. So, I'm kind of happy to see that. Um related to Sharon's question about landscaping, these are going to be little islands around the parking lot if this goes forward. Um will that be zeros escaped or will it be is it possible to zero escape it?

Chair through you. Um, so our code does require that a percentage of the landscape islands are living material, but they could be made that could meet that could be met by the trees that are planted in there and the rest could be rock mulch, right? Um, which I think would pro probably be close to zero escaped. However, all of them are being all of the islands have irrigation going to them. Oh,

they will. Okay. Okay. I just was wondering it could be difficult. And I have a question that's just related to this in general. It's from Mr. Wilkinson. Uh on the north side of the building, uh to use Philip's term, rock mulch. I'd never heard that phrase before. It's a different kind of mulch. Uh what's happening on the north side of the building with all those rocks? that was under the first cup and was approved by the city for the amount of trees and rock that we put in there. That was approved landscaping. So that's that's the final deal. And then some lights will go in on that side of the building. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um I guess do we have any public comment regarding this um item before us? Anything in anybody in the room? Anybody online? Okay, going once, going twice. I guess we'll close public comment um discussion amongst the commission. If not, I will entertain a motion.

I move to approve a conditional use permit for the Vital Elementary School parking lot renovation associated with the approved uh school resource center. uh ACSD1 administrative building within an or one single family residential zoning district located 1721 Park Avenue based on findings of fact and conclusions of law and subject to all staff's recommend recommended conditions. Do we have a second? Moved and seconded. Nancy, will you give us a roll call, please? Pacino I

Bull Heisler White Moody I Oul I Schneider I and Madammore absent that's six yeses zero nos and one absent chair okay thank you that conditional use permit was approved thank you um any long range planning projects discussion no okay we need to um variances is we adjourn as planning commission and readjourn as board of adjustment. Do we need a motion to go through that? Yes, please. Okay, move. I'll second that.

Okay, moved and seconded. Um we are now sitting as board of adjustment and the first item before us here is the variance uh VR-26-00001 Prairie West Estates expansion. Joseph, good evening. Good evening, chair. Uh small procedural thing. I do believe that for the board of adjustments we do need to swear in if we have any. Yes, if we have um what do we call them? Witnesses I suppose we need to come up state your name and um

what is the proper terminology that I need to use? Yeah, just swearing in of the witnesses. So, anyone that is prepared to testify chair would be appropriate to ask them to swear in.

Okay. So, anybody prepared or willing to testify, do you state and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You can just say yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Joseph. Chair Commission, tonight we have before you a variance for Prairie West Estates expansion. This is a current um mobile home park and one that is not utilizing all of its properties, which is something that is very different than what you all are very used to to seeing at this point. Um the project is located at 2 260 Franklin Street. Um just to orient you all, that's um to the west of the Jimmy Carter subdivision, which is on the corner of Franklin and Colorado. Um, so it kind of sits there between Colorado Avenue, then it goes the Jimmy's Carter subdivision and then um this mobile u this manufactured home park or community. Um this is within the R2M district. Um, if you remember your um, use chart, a manufactured home community is almost exclusively allowed in this zoning district, in this zoning district alone. Um, so there can be some, this is often an issue that we see that it's not in the correct zoning district. This one is within the correct zoning district. Um, so I did want to get that out of the way from the very beginning. Um, so this application is for four separate um, sections of code. I do want to point out that when we started this process out, the applicant had only asked for one, but through our pre-application

meeting, um, we did note that there might have been other issues that were not addressed in this. And our hope is to always bring this before you for a variance once um so that the applicant doesn't have to continuously come up here um to address this for each little thing. So we are hoping that um everything has been addressed sufficiently. Um so on December 22nd, planning staff met with the applicant and the owner of Prairie West Estates to discuss a proposed expansion to the existing manufactured home community. The community was initially approved through a conditional use permit on April 18th, 2006 and later modified through a variance approved on December 20th, 2006. I do want to point out that our code has changed significantly since that time. Um, conditional uses, for example, had to go before city council at that time. Um, and so they went before this body as well as city council to get this initial one approved. Um now we don't have to do that. You guys are the deciding body on cups and on variances. So we don't have to do that today. Um 2010 was the time that we implemented the unified development code. Um so as the time uh line suggests what the applicant had to abide by in 2006 was different than what it um was what it is today. And so some of the things that you'll see on here are missing from that that park. Um, doesn't mean that the park looks bad right now. We don't have very many issues with it, but the standards that we implement and require of anyone building new buildings is is the same and it includes the manufactured home parks.

going into the four separate uh requests for relief. The first one um is for the area um the minimum size of a lot that can hold a manufactured home community within code. It does say that manufactured home communities need to be a minimum of 20 contiguous acres. Um, this is to relieve some of the issues that we've seen historically, which is communities bisected by public roads that require setbacks that are um, pretty heavy. Um, it is trying to bring manufactured home communities into current status. This particular park is really on that line. It's it's almost 220 and if worse comes to worse um a a minor administrative modification can be applied in this case. We did just say to the applicant for ease of of this process to just put it into this variance if it was approved or if you guys wanted to make a motion to modify 20 contigu or slightly less than uh 20 contiguous acres was not something that the planning department had any major heartburn about and there is a process to approve that outside of this. Going into the other ones, we do kind of set a harder line in order to make sure that all standards are are implemented uniformally. One of those included the site perimeter landscaping. This is one of the uses that has pretty high levels of sight perimeter landscaping. Um it is our L4 perimeter landscaping which is our highest level that you can have. This is predominantly because you're having a higher intensity use around a lot of other generally lower intensity uses. Um so we can create that buffer space and screening

that includes higher setback requirements and more units of landscaping. But it is generally calculated the same way which is the the um linear square foot of that side deter determining how many units are required. The next one um is that all manufactured home communities shall be screened from adjacent development or public streets with a masonry wall or solid material fence at least 6 feet in height and adequate plantings. So that kind of goes along with the landscaping requirement. Uh this is not something that we see in very many of our communities here. I will say even in subdivisions and other communities, some of these these requirements are there. When these standards were approved, this was one of the ones that either the planning commission as well as um city council at the time required or did not strike from the code. The last one is um related to detached individual storage rooms with an area of no more than 150 square ft. We do require storage in things like multifamily units as well as manufactured home communities at the time. I think that there was a real concern about seeing everybody's stuff around their lots and you know the amount of storage that was available to them within their specific units. That's why this is here. Um the the no more then was to make sure that we didn't start getting excessive amounts of storage and um perhaps some some questions about whether or not this was a what the primary use was, whether it was storage unit use or not. I will say that the 20 contiguous acres um is probably pretty

pretty standard for the amount of amenities that are required there. There's parking requirements, there's landscaping requirements, there's storage requirements. Um and that's very likely why it was a fairly high number. Um, it can be more than that, can be less than that. But, um, I did feel like it was worthwhile to mention that this first one, the 20 contiguous acres was is one that can be approved through a minor administrative modification. However, we were not we figured that this was the easiest way to bundle it up and bring it before you. going into the findings of fact for this variance. Um, as you all know, um, there are six findings and all six of those findings have to be met met in order to approve a variance. Um, the first one is whether or not there are special circumstances or conditions fully described in the board's findings that are peculiar to the land or building for which the adjustment is sought and do not apply to generally to land or building in the neighborhood. and have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of the code. Um such as irregularity, narrowness, shallow shallowess of lots or exceptional topography. Um if you go out to the site, it's a fairly normal site. Um fairly flat. Um there is a drainage ditch currently there that's was part of the original design of the site to deal with storm water. Um, so generally the planning division found that no special circumstances or conditions existed that would just justify a regulatory relief. Um, I do want to mention that there is a

utility easement within there. Um, and it I believe it's a distribution line. Um, a water line that leads to a facility to the south of that. Um, so there is a utility easement on site. um not in the correct not in the normal location. Generally, you see these on the farthest edges of the property. This one is set in a little bit more than the others. Um the circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of code would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of such land or building. Uh the planning division found that strict application of the code would not deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property. The property is currently developed and functioning as a manufactured home community. An expansion of the use remains feasible under um compliant designs. Now, as we add to it, we would require some of those amenities that we've previously talked about that are not currently on site and were not required at the time. Um so, it would eat into some of the spaces that are there, but it doesn't render the the site undevelopable. It just limits the amount of spaces that can be on the site. Um the next question is related to solar and wind power. Um we rarely go over that in the same one the same instance applies tonight. Um it's not applicable for this specific project. The next one, the granting of the adjustment is necessary for reasonable use thereof and the proposed adjustment as granted is the minimum adjustment that will accomplish the purpose. Blind division found that the requested variance is not necessar necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. While the applicant has indicated a desire to accommodate storage rooms and additional vehicle storage, these

elements can be designed um to comply with applicable development standards. As such, the require the requested adjustment is not considered the minimum necessary. The next one, um, granting the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Um, I think, as we've discussed before, a lot of these standards is to buffer a pretty high intensity of use from surrounding uses. We have residential uses kind of surrounding this property. Um while we do have a county property to the north as well as a fairly old, fairly dilapidated um manufactured home community. Um our plan is to develop the current standards and mitigate some of the intensity of uses for any future development in the area. as you know if there was any redevelopment of BB barb which is the manufactured home community to the north we would require them to come into compliance um if they reach the threshold to to have to do that. Finally, the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use of or development of adjacent properties. Um, I think as far as altering the essential character of the neighborhood, the uses already there will just be a bigger use. It will be a more intense use. Um, and it's likely that the the we don't know what will be built, if anything, ever on the properties to the

north. Um, and so it's a little bit hard to say if it would impact those developments. So, legal not kind of in conclusion, legal notice was published in the boomerang on March 27th, 2026. If you all remember, this was brought before you all um last month and we postponed it due to attendance. Um we did not need to republish that in the newspaper because we postponed it to a date certain. Um letters were sent out to surrounding property owners within 300 ft of the subject property. Um, so I did print off and give you guys a a letter that or an email that was sent to us. I did forward this on before the last planning commission meeting it, but I it was pointed out that I did not include it in the staff report, so I wanted to make sure it was printed off and given to you all. Um, I did have other people inquiring about this specifically related to storm water drainage in the area, um, and any improvements. Um, I will just say that our our engineering department did look at this. There are some deficiencies in storm water in West Laramie that are pretty wellnown. Um, and this is not an exception to that rule. In conclusion, the planning division does recommend denying the variance based on findings of denial. Um, however, if there was one that we would be okay with, it would be that first one related to um to the area. Um, but yeah, I stand for questions. Okay, Joseph, I got a question. If we don't approve this the existing or if we do or don't approve this, does it affect

anything on the existing mobile home park? the part that um that that's kind of cross-hatched in the site plan. Just a point of clarification, are you are you meaning like if it's not up to to current standards or is that kind of going to be ignored as is? It is pretty much going to be ignored. We're not going to make them push back any units or anything like that. Um but but yeah. Okay,

that was my question too. And how I mean what is I I understand the rationale for doing that. Um, but it it's all it's all one parcel, right? And so that is this an amendment to or is it like a a different and separate parcel? Because I'm just thinking of the general principle that if you that you're essentially grandfathered in to circumstances that change unless you then propose a change and it triggers the requirement for a variance. But but why doesn't that requirement for a variance apply to the whole parcel?

Right. Well, those those were approved part of their conditional use and variance previously. Um, and so we had determined that, you know, it had already been approved this section of it. Um, and it would be more um heavy-handed and not within what we usually do. Now, I will say usually we don't see a manufactured home park partially completed, right? They're usually all complete. We don't really see very many manufactured home parks at all in the community and certainly not new or expanding ones. And so, um this is somewhat of a new new area for for us, but but that was the main reason why we didn't pursue bringing everything into full compliance at that point. And other than the items that they're requesting a variance from the four items, the new development is will be in compliance with the the current codes as they exist now. Is that correct?

Chair through you. Uh yeah, we have not gotten a full design of the project yet. Um we were going through the variance process prior to designing the entire project. But um yes whether these approved well once if these are approved then they will not be included. If it is approved then any design would have to incorporate all these and any other um specifications within code.

Any other questions? Um Joe, the land that's adjacent to the county. Um does the city make any exceptions to let's say landscape buffering? um when you're adjacent to undeveloped land in the county or is it we're going to have fencing and we're going to maintain the buffer adjacent to county undeveloped county land

chair through you um within this section of code which is specific to manufactured home communities there's not a different a differentiation in the landscaping section um that goes off of zoning types and adjacent um property types whether it's in the county or city um there is a difference. So we are looking at the use specific regulations for this specific use. So, manufactured home communities for every other use out there, we're looking at this landscaping specific standards that goes off of the surrounding either zoning or road types or those sorts of things. So, to answer I might have just a overansw answered your question so my apologies. Uh but in this one, no there is not a specific exemption for being close to the county.

Thanks. Question for the applicant or the personnel for the applicant. Any other questions for Joseph here? Okay. If our applicant would like to come forward and we have some questions for you, it sounds like and Christie, please state your name. Christy Roberts with Dwell. I'm here representing the applicant this evening. Um should I speak first? Please.

Well, thank you for the opportunity um to speak tonight. Uh even after hearing staff's report, our team continues to believe that this request meets the variance criteria when the full context of the property is considered. Um, first the special circumstances. I think it's important to acknowledge the unique circumstances of this property which Joseph even alluded to. Um, it was lawfully established in 2006 as a 17.4 acre site. Um, it was originally approved for up to 125 spaces well before the 2010 code introduced the 20 acre minimum. The combination of this pre-existing approval, partial buildout, and post2010 regulatory changes creates a circumstance that is unique to this property. Um, I don't I don't even think there are any 20 acre mobile home parks in Laramie. Um, I did look up ones that adjoin the county and there aren't any. So, um, these sight specific constraints were not created by the applicant. um and I think they satisfy the requirement for special circumstances. Second, reasonable use. Um reasonable use should include the ability to complete a development that was previously approved and initiated in good faith. Uh the standard is not whether some use remains. It's whether the code creates a practical difficulty in achieve achieving a permitted use. Applying today's standards to prevent completion of that development effectively imposes the 2010 code retroactively, preventing the property from achieving its originally intended and entitled use. So, um I think that clearly meets the reasonable use standard. Third, uh the minimum necessary adjustment. The variances we've

requested are targeted and specific to the constraints of this site. Do want to mention that the landscape buffer yard width on the north and the east are code compliant. I don't know if they're compliant points wise, but the width is. So, um the requirements prior would meet that width requirement. We're only requesting for the reduced buffer um adjoining the existing mobile har mobile home park and unincorporated land. Um I do also want to mo note that the L2 buffer that we're proposing exceeds the L1 buffer of the zoning district. Um and we're going to maintain that L4 buffering on all other boundaries. Strict application of this of the code in this instance does not achieve better compliance. It creates competing requirements that can't be reasonably satisfied within the constraints of the site. The required parking and storage that we want to provide to meet the current provisions of code um and reduce unregulated outdoor storage don't feasibly work with the 20ft buffer yard on the west. And fourth, harmony with the code in the neighborhood. This is not new. It's not incompatible. It's an existing residential use expanding within its intended zoning district. Um we think that the separation between the two manufactured home community would artificially deide divide like uses not protect them. Um, we think our proposal instead promotes a cohesive integration, improved site organization and better living conditions for the residents and that's fully consistent with the intent of our code. So, in closing, I think um at the end of

the day, we all came here for the same reason. It's to make Larmy a better place to live, work, and play. That's why you are volunteering your time on a beautiful sunny afternoon. Uh it's why it's what I've dedicated my career to. Our code is important, but no code can anticipate every unique circumstances circumstance or every sightsp specific challenge. That's exactly why the variance process exists and why these decisions are entrusted to you. The question before the board is not simply whether the code exists, but whether strict application of the code in this case produces the best outcome for the property, the neighborhood and the community as a whole. Does this request improve the site? Does it support housing in Laramie, which is desperately needed, functionality, and long-term investment in our community? Ultimately, does it make Laramie better? Does it make it worse? We believe the proposed results uh the proposal results in a better outcome for the property and for Larmy. The findings can be made. We respectfully request your approval. And I do have um a handout here that kind of simplifies what we're asking in a more cohesive. Y

Thank you. Um, any questions I can answer for you? Yes. I got one. Oh, I think we need one more. Sorry. I smoke. Okay, questions for the applicant. So, um,

M. Roberts, uh, thank you for the handout. Uh, would denial of the variant skill expansion.

Um, I I don't have the answer to that. The owner would have to evaluate the cost usability of that. So, I don't have to pay the bill. It does re raise an interesting question of if you know something was approved years ago, I think this is what 15 16 years ago, does that entitle the property owner to turn back the clock in terms of the evolving standards of uh property design or property standards? Because if it's 16 years, is 20 years okay or 30 years or 50 years?

We are at 20 years. It's 20 years.

Um but I think that the variance that we've asked for is very specific. We are complying with the minimum lot size, the separation of units, the roadway widths, the storage, the off- streetet parking. like we're we're plan on complying with the majority of that section. These particular ones that we've asked for a variance for um they reduce the functionality of the site. So, one of the new requirements is 150 square ft of camper and large vehicle parking. Well, the original plan in 2006 didn't have that requirement. And so in order for us to meet that and you know they they conflict,

uh, Miss Roberts, um, I thought there was language in in your write up that said that you were going to provide the 150 square ft of storage. That's what we'd like to do. Yes.

That and so um I was under the impression that that the the west boundary which is reducing the the buffer strip that it was going to be used for additional storage space and parking. And so that the the 150 square foot is is integrated into the minimum lot sizes and all the things you that you can provide that without the large buffer. We can provide the onsite storage units. So that's a different requirement than the oversized parking. It's the oversized parking requirement that we want to use that buffer for. And also because this developer already has a mobile home park, he believes that most residents need some additional storage area.

It would be an amenity for their community. Yep. And and for I mean there's for each one of these lots, there's there's room for a vehicle, I assume. Right. It's just Wyoming way of having multiple vehicles and a big old truck. It's a camper, right? And so so being trying to accommodate the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Yes. Based on experience of the existing development, right? Based on what's already occurring. Okay. Thank you.

Well, one one other other question. So I I sort of have heard some things that that there was a desire for continuity or communication with the I guess it's called the BB bar B mobile home. I mean why why wouldn't those residents desire a fence and a and a large buffer um for for their privacy of of their mobile home. I I don't know that it's any different than it being next to single family residences that, you know, they they don't want to see a mobile home park next to them.

Yeah. I mean, I'm going to make a huge assumption of why that fence and separation is in the code, but I believe it's to separate the mobile home park use from other uses, not to separate to create a a cohesive community. Right? If somebody wants to create a cohesive community, it wouldn't be codified, right? They could say, "Oh, I want to put up a fence." And you put up a fence. But it's in the code for some reason other than creating a cohesive community. It's for separation of uses. Yeah. I Anyways, thanks.

There there was one specific comment, public comment that was submitted by somebody who says they live in a trailer court and and they would value the landscaping. Um, and I think the the and and I my I guess my question to that point was if I'm reading the site plan, right, the buffer and the compliant buffet buffer does exist and is being put in place on the other side to give the existing uh homes within this parcel that open space versus the built space. And so what was the reason for putting it um uh on uh up against the B bar?

Putting what the reduced buffer where you're asking for the variance is because you don't have that landscaping as a buffer on the west side, but you do on the east side.

Yeah. So actually there is a constraint on that west side and it's the waterline easement that Joseph mentioned. Um, we can't obviously build anything other than a road or driveway over that. Um, and there's not enough room to the west to put mobile home parks or mobile homes of current, you know, configurations over there. Anyway, so in order to utilize that space efficiently, we wanted to put the oversized parking there because that will fit um if the landscaping buffer yard is reduced. So, does that answer your question?

Yes. I've got one question for you on the screening on the west side on this handout that you gave us. Code requirement says it's a solid fence fence requirement. The proposed says that it's modified between similar uses and the result is a context sensitive. What does that exactly mean? What are you planning to do in that on that west side for like a buffer fence or a screening? I just plan on doing landscaping compliant with the L2 buffer yard. So, not a fence. So, landscaping, not a fence.

Landscaping, not a fence. Yep. And it's just context specific because it's specific to the actual situation of that west side which is adjoining unincorporated and similar use.

Any other questions? Yes. Um, so I'm curious if you know the answer, but um, what would be the annual revenue difference between planning um, going through with your plan as is versus if you followed the current code compliant, if you made it code compliance, like how many fewer sites would you have if you followed all of the co the codes versus how many sites you have planned now? Would it be a reduction of like 10% of revenue or 20% to follow the codes? Do you know?

I I don't know. I didn't I didn't calculate that out. So, it would be that area of um Well, it would be multiple things in this situation, right?

Because it would render the land west of the water easement pretty much useless. Um maybe we could do some parallel parking. I don't even know. Um it and then the other reduction would be the requirement of the oversized vehicle square footage. So those would be the two biggest things. I don't know that percentage or number of sites. So sorry.

So So there's no the 150 square feet for the parking that's not included in any of these sites. Uh, no. There's a requirement in the code for an additional square footage off outside of the lots. So, it can't be on the lots or it doesn't count if it's on the lots for oversized vehicles. There is on parking on the lots included for the residents, but it would be additional parking within the community, but not on your individual lot for a camper, a trailer, a oversized vehicle that is part of the code now was not in 200 something.

He said 66 spaces. Is that right? 300 square feet per two lots or something. It's some random. So you suggested 109 spaces per So the variance indicated that 109 spaces would fit in to the area that they've designed. Um the previous variance uh was for 125 spaces.

So 125 spaces would meet the the code right now. I'm sorry. I might have missed part of the conversation because I was looking up like the differences between the previous one approved in 2006 versus um the the lot how many lots there were are are you talking about exactly right are you talking about parking space requirements or are you talking about the spaces for units

if if we have to to include the 150 square feet per space how many more spaces do they lose and you know what the revenue there is uh by by not being able to put so many lots in one. I I'm not phrasing this very well. It wasund the originally improved was 125 units and we've proposed 109 nine. So we're losing 16 unit spaces to meet current code and that's with an approved variance. Okay. So we would lose even more. Yes, that's the number I'm looking for, sir.

Okay. Thank you. how many more you would lose. But that was good. Thank you. We don't know. Any other any other questions, comments, concerns? I I had just I I What is your view of is is this one single parcel that includes the existing? It is. The the part it's all owned by the same owner and it's one parcel, right? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Well, I think that's all. Christie, thank you. Thank you.

Is there any public comment on this? Any online, Nancy? Anybody? Okay. Okay. Well, we'll we'll close public comment unless is there any other comment in the room? No. Okay. Um discussion among the commission.

Well, just just to remind folks, Joe talked about it a couple times, but um if if we were to to deny, they would still be able to with the with the 20 the 20 acre. They've got a way to make that to keep developing the variance. We deny it the v this variance. It doesn't shut down that they're not 20 20 acres,

right? It would ultimately reduce the number of units they could put on. It sounds like which is interesting that we're discussing reducing units when on another meeting in a couple of weeks or at some point we'll just be discussing how Laram has a housing shortage. Um so I guess if there's any other discussion if there's not any other discussion I'll entertain a motion or more discussion. I guess the assessment that was done and also introducing the comments that you know item number A that does talk about special circumstances and uniqueness probably does warrant a little bit of discussion whether or not we agree which um planning that no special circumstances or conditions exist that would justify regulatory review to me that's bigger ones in our discussion whether or not we agree or disagree with that finding based on everything that's been shared.

Yeah, this is an interesting one because it's been improved previously throughout time and then code changed in the middle of the development and um now we're in a way trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Yeah, I I I appreciate that comment and that's the piece that's troubling me. I I do feel like that the proposed findings of fact and the conclusion of law that have been offered by the applicant do give a potential potential basis for um approving rather than denying because we do have to have those findings of fact and conclusions of law. Um, but I I I am troubled by the argument that um just because it was approved before um that they they they should have a right to it and that it's I'm not convinced it's a special circumstance. And I and I'm also troubled by the carving up um into two pieces because um I don't know how different that I mean the the basic approach of a of of allowing a nonconforming use essentially grandfathering it in is because you're treating the parcel as a whole and if there's a change to the parcel um then then the parcel needs to come into compliance. So, personally, I'm I'm not convinced of the of the either the legal validity of that approach or I'm trouble and I'm troubled by the precedent that that it might set. Um but um but on the other hand, I I do think that these are, you know, findings of facts that could be used to support a

decision to approve the variance. and and I do think that the addition of the housing is an important asset for the for the community. So that those are my thoughts. Yeah.

Well, I do I think your your point for sure has a lot of validity because you know over time things change, communities become more and maybe mature um in their the way that they want things to be done and that's why we have this review process. Again, same with like a site plan, they expire after two years, then you have to go back and um if the code changes, you have to bring it back up to compliance to a degree or go through the variance process. I think the only concern that trying to get the existing parcel or the existing area of that parcel that's already there would mean re you know dislocating people from some existing houses and I don't think any of us want to say we're in support of that. So I don't know any other discussion. So, so, so by just that considering this western part that that they're looking to expand, they're they're sort of getting a a grace by by not causing compliance with the the the trailer court to the to the east. Right. So I mean I I think we've seen a lot of proposals where we've had to apply that idea that when you're grandfathered in when there's a change and in this case we're just saying we're not going to try to drag in the eastern part but but the western part needs to be in compliance with existing code. So, which I think denial or the approving the the recommended denial, you know, just they just have to do it per per code. You know, it's not um it's not like you're saying you can't develop lots on this uh this western part of it. um you just might not be able to provide additional storage

and and oversized parking and you have to put the fence on the west side with with a landscape buffer. That's kind of what they would have to do, right?

Yeah, I I Yeah, I think so. And you know it's it's part of our our view point in doing this is we can't consider economic impacts or benefits or anything which is kind of unfortunate because anytime we do any engineering or anything we consider the costbenefit analysis of something and you know we can look at this and there's so many lots and um you know it's lines on a paper from us but the owner they look at it and it might be you know on the borderline of a go no-go which we didn't have that information to say one way or the other. But, you know, this proposal if it we don't approve it, you know, the owner could say, "Well, it's not valuable enough for me to go in a different direction, so we're not going to do anything and leave it set where it is." And then we lose a number of housing opportunities for folks. Uh,

I think the point about the fencing too as well is that the intent, what was the intent of that in code? And I think the intent in code probably was to separate different types of housing. Not the same. Like for example, we we heard another type of expansion of a community. I don't think there's a fence around that one. Right. We don't have fences around subdivisions. I don't think required in the remainder. Maybe we So I think the spirit of that is more to intend like if it was single family or other types industrial, I'm not sure, whatever the other uses were, not the same use. So I think that has a little bit of a different is needs to be interpreted in that way because I think that's what code meant. I didn't write code but I would think that's what code meant.

I think and I might be wrong. I don't know the code inside and out but I do know if we have a subdivision next to like an arterial and I'm thinking of like Vista Drive. There's a fence that separates that main road from the subdivision. But to your point, every time we see a subdivision come in or an additional aspect of that subdivision, we're not seeing a fence around it. But then

maybe maybe Barb goes away, you know, maybe they decide to not be a mobile home park anymore and and it is converted into single single residences as a future um land development and you don't have the fence accomplishing that objective of different right but in that in that scenario I think it would require either some sort of a site plan through the city because you wouldn't be probably putting houses on little tiny slivers of a lot like that. But it's all hypothetical.

So I guess we've hashed this around enough um one way or the other we need to make a motion on it if we want to support it. Like um Sharon was saying, we've got to find findings of fact for all of these things and going the other way is the easy way. I don't know that we have enough information for findings of fact if we were to approve it. Do you think we've got enough to stand on those?

They were they were spelled out in this handout we got. Um so the has provided findings of fact that was for approval. If you agree with those findings here, if I could jump in just and as as you know, if you're reversing or not going with staff's recommendation and coming up with your own findings, we we always recommend maybe postponing and putting together those uh findings. things um that you all can agree on rather than making them making them up tonight, you know. So, I'm just putting that out there.

So, with that, the owner would request that you make a decision tonight. Okay. Okay. That helps. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

It it is I mean it is more vulnerable. The decision would be more vulnerable if we didn't you know, a decision to approve without taking the time, as Philip suggested, would be more vulnerable to challenge, but but I do think that you have that the findings of that law have have been provided. Um, I I'm I'm prepared to make the motion. I don't know how it's going to do, but just to move things forward, I'm prepared to make the motion as it was recommended uh to deny it. and see how we vote on that and then go from there. That's one path.

Yeah. I mean, chair, I'll stand for a motion one way or the other, however we want to go. I move to deny the requested variance from Laram Municipal Code sections 15140 A3. Oh, wow. Whole bunch of numbers here. 1540 140 A4. 15 14140 A5 and 15 14140 B2 located on 260 Franklin Street based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Chair, if I could just clarify, 2260 Franklin Street. Is that correct? 2260 correct? Yes, we have a second. We say no. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Chair, please call a roll or uh Nancy, let's call the role. UNIO I B Heisler White. Moody. Hi. Oul, I Schneider. No.

Madammore absent. That's four yeses, two nos, and one absent, chair. Okay. Thank you. Motion passes in denial. Okay. Thank you. Next. Um item of business is variance 26 or V it might be 8B V-26-00003 2444 Overland uh metal siding variance request. Hello.

Yes, honorable chair. We usually try to split these variances up because they do have a lot of discussion, but uh fortunately it's just the way the cookie crumbles, right? So, this second variance um before you is for property located at 2444 Overland Street and the applicant is requesting a variance from Laramie Municipal Code table 151480-1 that have to do with residential design standards and allowable and prohibited materials in residential zoning districts. By way of background, the building permit for this project was issued on April 15, 2025. Construction proceeded and near the completion of the project, a building inspector identified that metal siding had been had been installed as one of the exterior siding materials. And as you'll see in table 151480-1, metal siding is not an allowable exterior material in residential zoning districts. The material that was installed was not the siding material shown in the approved building permit plans and revised plans were not submitted for the building department to review prior to installation. staff does recognize the applicant's concern regarding project completion and the cost and inconvenience associated with replacing material that has already been installed. I should I should say replacing prohibited materials that have already been installed. However, the variance criteria require that the board, as you well know, need to meet all of all of the findings of fact in order to grant the variance. Um, so I'll jump through

these findings and staff's um, opinion of those and recommendation and then turn it over to you all. But finding A requires that there be spec special circumstances or conditions that are peculiar to the land or building that do not generally apply to other properties in the neighborhood. Staff does not find that this criteria is met. Uh the request is not based on an irregular lot. Unusual topography, narrowness, shallowess, or other physical condition unique to the property. Instead, the need of the variance arose because the siding material was installed that was different from the approved plans and was not reviewed or approved by the building department. Finding B requires that strict application of the code would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land or building. Staff does not find that this criteria has been met because the property can continue to be used for residential purposes and the structure can still be completed using approved exterior materials that are allowed under the table mentioned before. Finding C is not applicable. Finding D requires that the adjustment be necessary for the reasonable use of the property and that the adjustment be the minimum necessary to accomplish that purpose. Staff does not find that this criteria has been met. The variance is not necessary for the reasonable residential use of the property because the home can be completed with compliant exterior materials. Finding E requires that granting the variance be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the code and not be injurious to the neighborhood and otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This one I um I I'm not going to say that metal siding is going to be injurious to the neighborhood around it,

but I will say that we do have residential design standards in place for a reason. um is to create some form of uniformity, some form of predictability of what your neighbor's house is going to look like in 50 years. Um and when the code was created with these residential design standards, metal siding just didn't really fit in with um what what the planning division and the city council of the day that approved this table thought that was appropriate in residential areas. Um so staff does not find that the criteria has been met for for this finding either. Um as mentioned the purpose of these standards is to provide consistency and compatibility. Um, granting the variance would allow a material that is expressly not permitted and would not and would undermine consistent application uniformity treating everyone the same way uh that find themselves with property in in the residential zoning districts. Finding F again this one um requires that the variance not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. you will see that you receive some positive comments from neighbors on this variance request and you know that you you can do with those what you will right um however you know we it's it's we sent these letters out to approximately 30 40 people and you got a couple of letters in support of a variance so I want to make that point as well Um staff notes that this particular action may not visibly alter the broader com character of the community in a significant way, but we still remain

concerned that approving the variance could create long-term risk by allowing a prohibited material um that is expressly prohibited in code for residential areas. So in summary, staff finds that the request does not meet any of the required variance criteria in LMC section as it as is required for variances. The request is not tied to a unique physical condition of the property strict and and so forth which I just said. Um and and at the end of the day, this was work that was already completed unfortunately and the variance was asked for after the fact, not beforehand. I want to note that as well, which is unfortunate. Um so it is up if some of you have called and said you've went by there. So it is 90% 95%. There's a couple areas that aren't finished. So denying this request as staff has recommended would require the applicant to replace the exterior material with an approved um material. So it would you know it would certainly be an an obstacle to overcome. However, we have code for a reason to create uniformity um to create predictability. And so we stand by the recommendation that we've made and can answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for Phil? Yes. Donald, you want to go first? Sure.

My question is, is this a variance? Like I thought that a variance would be if they were going to use the material, they're proposing it, it would come to us for planning commission, we would consider it, and then we would approve or disapprove. not at like after the fact allowance. Like if I start a business, build a business on my property and then I operate it, then can I get a like I don't I guess I'm a little bit confused about the sequencing of variances and whether that's even an appropriate item for us to be considering because it's isn't it a legal item at that point and not a variance anymore because they violated something? I guess I'm confused because again everything we've ever done and the definition of a variance from my understanding is a more future proposed use like the trailer park

chair through you. Ideally yes the work would not be completed. However, this is an avenue for this body to approve the variance after the fact and allow this to happen. Um, we've regularly heard variances unfortunately that come to us like this and you know the the applicant states he unknowingly put this material up which that you know that it is what it is right however it wasn't approved therefore you are exactly right we don't have to go we we don't have to go through this process right we could require the applicant uh we could just say that this upon finalist inspection isn't going to be passed because of this siding. Um, won't get a seat, won't get a certificate of occupancy, won't be able to be lived in all because of this. We we could require the applicant to tear it all down, then request the variance. However, we are offering this opportunity for the applicant to go through the variance process in case this body can find that the criteria are met and continue on with the project. But we do unfortunately hear these after the fact regularly.

Great question. Don, you had a question. So, Philillip, why exactly does this this property is is near my house and uh I thought it looks nice, looks good, it looks fine. Uh does the same I just I'm just baffled by uh not wanting to have a high-end sighting put up on a house. Uh and I assume metal rules are okay. Are they

chair through you? A couple things there. Um one, it is clearly prohibited in the table. Metal siding of any kind in this in this R1 neighborhood. Um so that's all I can say to that. The second point of your question, yeah, for roofs are a different story. Um that would be a roof, not an exterior um facade material because it it does stay. I should have mentioned that it is facade materials that that that table refers to. It looks damn good to me.

And you're not the only one who thinks that. I mean we have had other and I want to make that clear that you know we're we're we have to make the recommendation we I made because the code is as it as it state stated in order for that table to be changed a text amendment would need to take place which I'm not going to make any predictions on whether that it would be approved or not but that's the proper process is to say hey actually there are newer metal uh facade materials that do work in residential areas. Here's some examples. And the the code could be changed in that manner, but as it's stated, um it we we can't recommend approval of it because of it's prohibited across the board in residential.

It is prohibited is giving me flashbacks to Catholic school. Um how long would it take to change the code? I mean realistically are we talking about months a year? Yeah. So it is three readings by council and then it is so it is generally the the fastest pace we've seen is between two and three months including public notice requirements and a hearing by this body or rather the planning commission. Um and then three readings by council. But yeah, I mean you're looking at two to three months u at the fastest uh and realistically six months.

I mean it could be six months. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

So Phillip, I've got a question for you and you've started to allude to it, but would the city planning staff support a text amendment that incorporated this maybe with a little bit more, you know, teeth to it? chair. I think we do live in a changing world, right, when it comes to materials that that that are, you know, being used. So, I think we could definitely entertain um a a work session perhaps or or that's a four-letter word, right? We don't want any more work sessions, but Oh, yeah, you're here, too. Sorry. Um, but I I certainly appreciate the fact that we are in a changing we're always in a changing environment construction. So I don't I don't see us expressly against the idea of new building materials being included in that table. No.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, Chris.

So I I I think that the the prohibition of metal sighting is more aesthetic. you know that that there's more variations of really poor metal sighting versus really good metal sighting. And what what they have is excellent. It is really sharp looking. I I love the out what they did with that. Um and so if you have a text amendment, you know, the the the thing to rrestle the ground is how do you decide what's a goodlooking metal sighting versus a badl looking metal sighting? you go Australia with all the the the the bright the bright metal. It's it's it's it's it's difficult. It's very difficult. I am I am so conflicted because it looks so damn good. Um and whether if they had gone to the building department and said this is what we want. Do you think that the building department would have said yeah you can do that. I mean it is is is is what they would have proposed i.e. what they put in so egregious that the building department would have said no that's just we're we're not going to do it or they said oh yeah you know that look pretty good you know and they would have got the approval anyways

so chair through you I mean we've classified this the building department as and the planning department both view this as metal siding which is the issue which is why we're in front of you it's not a different type of material

um that It's not separated in code anywhere that this is nicer metal siding and this is not. It's just metal siding across the board. So, I can't say that the building department would have code to stand on to approve something even if it was brought they would have told them no and they would have used an approved building material. Right? That's what would have happened and and we wouldn't be in this process. But, um it's not differentiated. So, so no, I can't say that they would have supported it. No.

Um, you just trying to figure out how to how to make this happen. Um, you know, whether whether there's a a a fee like a a a serious you did really wrong fee of not, you know, getting approval for a change of material. By the way, what do you know what the original material was that they were going to put on on the on the house? I'd defer to the to the applicant.

Yeah. But would would there be any kind of kind of penalty fee associated with something like this? Maybe getting to Janna's question of instead of a variance, why not just, you know, penalize him somehow? Well, don't we have metal sighting in Laramie? We I know we have like aluminum sighting on homes, right? B level. I grew up in a B level. It wasn't here. But when did that go into an effect? Do you I mean with the the 2010 code or whatever. So it's always everything predating that could have had and still does because I'm pretty confident that there is some in there.

Well, what but what what they actually have in the code is is metal sighting with clapboard. So, so it would it would be a metal sighting that has the the it looks like a a lap straight bolt, you know, with the overlapping things which which you see a lot of alum my house was aluminum sided with that sort of lap board look to it. And I and I think if they had put in a lap board metal, it would have been been okay, but it it's they're they're straight sheets. That's kind of a fine point anyways. No.

Uh Jake, uh I think it'd be useful to hear from the applicant. Uh I'd also like to ask, would this be doable? Cuz I'm just thinking this is this is a nicely done job. And I would hate to see the sighting be removed and then presumably dumped at considerable expense by the homeowner uh or the uh or the contractor or maybe they split the cost or whatever the hell. Is there any way in which uh if uh planning would consider this to change the code for this specific kind of high-end metal sighting to let the sighting stay up for 12 months or until a decision is made by city council

chair through you? I think so that that's that's not something that we can support and I and I'll tell you why. It's because there's a bigger um issue at play here. Of course, the findings all six of them cannot be met, right? But we we as planning as the planning division, as the code administration division have to stick with what's approved. If we don't say because we caught this, right? a building inspector with routine inspectors inspections of the site caught this in time and yeah it's 90% done not 100% done right so I would say by granting this or or really trying to find a way to grant this then we'd be sending the message that approved plans don't matter and they do matter that's why we have code and we have approved plans and if you want to have something done differently you can ask on the front end. You know, unfortunately that we're in this situation, but I I could not support that. No.

Okay. Thank you, Philip. Can we hear from the applicant?

Uh, please state your name. Yes.

Russ Biker Miller, owner of Pitst Contracting, chair, esteemed commissioners. Um the situation was uh a little bit interesting because what happened was um we had no idea that that was not uh something that was in the in the uh requirements for not having this the metal sighting. Uh matter of fact, we referred to the code administration. That's who I get my permits from. And the chief of the inspectors of that, which is Lucas Whit, uh was the one that was surprised by it as well and came to me after the planning department said, "Hey, you cannot use this sighting on here. They had to come and stop us." So that's the reason he said there was 95% done. We're almost finished with it. Okay. had we known prior to starting the starting that now it was not on the drawings because it was supposed to be an addition that we put a twotory edition on his house and um it was supposed to be just a matching well the customer b changed his mind decided he wanted to to do a whole house renovation which there's three types of sighting on it there's actually rock on the bottom for full full waste coat and there's also wood exits all over the place okay And then of course partial metal sighting. Um that did not uh come to their attention. They said nothing to us during the process. And we had multiple inspections. Okay. You know, electrical, plumbing, all kinds of things in multiple places because when you do a remodel, you have new construction on the outside, you have remodeling construction on the inside. So we had multiple times that they came there. Some of that material was already on the walls. They didn't know that. They found out that that was a pro problem from the planning department said hey you can't put this on here then came and stopped us at the end and that's how it that's the occurrence I would have never put that on there had I known initially we would have done something else my clients very oft to you know hey what can we put on let's do something that's

nice strong this kind of thing and of course that fulfills those kind of things um that being said uh when we got stopped we we can only get a co we can't finish there's you know paces to be done the trouble was I didn't know my code administration did not know and that's that's where the the problem is what I suggest is that there's a few things that can't be used for sighting if the plan department has something changed let's say 6 months from now we add another unit of measure we say well we can't use brick whatever that gets added to the list of things you can't put on an exterior that should be then handed to the code administst ministration and say, "Here's the things you can't put on the outside of this facade." If that's the case that when I go and get a get a permit, I'll be handed those things because it's very common for a model project for a customer say, "Hey, you know, you're in here. Let's go ahead and do the kitchen to let's go ahead and add to the the outside sighting. Those kinds of things happen." There's no way for me to know. What I would have said to him was, "Hey, I can't do it." Well, I didn't know that. And that's the whole trouble with it. Otherwise, we would have gotten the variance prior to like you guys were asking earlier, which certainly would have been. In this case, we would have just said no to something else. So, it's a combination of really a perfect storm. He changed, we didn't know. Even code administration didn't know. If my code administration would have known, I think would have been a lot different policing because they would have said something as soon as we started putting it up because they came in multiple times for inspections.

Yeah. Thank you. Questions? Yes, Chris. What do you mean by code administration? Is this someone internal to your company or the the the city the city code administration? Yeah. Lucas Wood is the head of it and we have two inspectors, him and Bryce Lopez, and they come in and look at our our work. That's who we go to and we put in for, you know, a permit to do the the renovation for the house. Um, they approved what we what I had on there. On the drawing itself, it was match the existing sighting. That's what we were going to do because we were building onto the house. Match existing sighting. I'm sorry. Match existing sighting which means that you know our addition which was fairly large and twotory we were going to match what was what was already there and keep going around. He says you know I really would like to make the make it look nicer. So we went with the whole entire house. It's a change. Code administration's fine with that. We let them know where every way we go. But

so you told you told code administration you were going to change your and we can't hide it. We're going all the way around the whole building when they're coming for inspection. So, it's not like we're, you know, getting by with something. As we're walking inside for an inspection for like gas, we had a couple gas inspections cuz we had to do multiple c multiple piping in his house. Well, as they come in there, they're walking right past the outside. They were putting out and and the sighting is up.

And sighting is up. Yeah. The rock was going on, the sign was going on, some of the some of the facads were going on. Well, if they don't say anything, we keep continue to to work after the fact is why we did the variance at the very end cuz we thought this has kind of caught us all by surprise. I apologize. I did not know. My code administration did not know. You're the the city code administration. The city code administration did not know. Lucas, which will let you know that he was was surprised by this as well. And he's the one actually came to me and said, "You've got to stop." I have a question. So, kind of oblitigating circumstances in my case, I guess. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

When did you record or did you have any documentation of when the inspectors came and did not tell you to do any uh there should be there should be a record of when they did did a lot of inspection. Hey, can you come and do the inspection? And then they come and do it and leave. And and and the code the people that were coming to visit for the inspections, they knew of this change in going from second story matching existing sighting to something. That's correct. So yeah, and they did it multiple times. Bryce and and Lucas came both. Do you have a question? Dar, if I can jump in.

Yeah, Phil. And and this isn't generally how we like to do the the setup where it's like both of us are, but I I need to jump in just real quick because it without documentation from Lucas Wit, the chief uh building inspector, that this type of material is approved, which I don't believe we have. Um he he and his other building inspector are there specifically to look at other parts as um Russ mentioned, right? Electrical, you know, um stuff to do inside. And so I I don't think this has any merit because it's still a prohibited material at the end of the day. There is no documentation approving this from our building department. I just want to make that clear.

I I don't understand what what you say. There's no approval of the sighting is what you're saying or no approval of Yeah, I mean I think one of the commissioners asked if there was any record from the building department asking or or stating specifically that this type of siding was approved. Absolutely not. This is where we need to keep the conversation through you, I think, so that it isn't a back and forth. I apologize, sir. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't understand probably through you through chair. Um

yeah, I mean we've got this back and I think it's our job to listen to, you know, everybody's point of perspective and point of view. Yes, sir. Um and I think as long as we're cordial about it, we can go about it however we can. But um I guess Philip, a question to you. The I'm kind of un because I don't have the plans in front of us, but it said match existing sighting. Was the match exist? Was the existing sighting metal sighting? No, it wasn't. So, what was presented on the plans to the city was not ultimately what was built. Is that correct? That is correct, sir.

Thank you. I I don't claim to have asked for that. That's that's not the not the issue. The issue was that we changed. We did not know that we couldn't change to that extreme and then they saw it, didn't realize it cuz they didn't know and then found out later. Right. That's that's the scenario. Right. Yeah. Circumstances are weird is what they end up being in this case.

Right. Right. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Any Sure. I just I um so in in your uh cover letter this the the sighting is described as a combination and this is the overall sighting I think you were talking about the different types of sighting of is a combination of versetta stone tongue and groove blue stained pine and pro panel what what percentage um of the overall just roughly is the prop panel I mean is it like 75% or 15% 50 I would say Maybe maybe 50 to 70. Yeah. 50 maybe 60. Yeah. Okay. Somewhere in there.

So it's Yeah. It's not a small piece of No, it's it's a special. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any other questions from the applicant? Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I guess that's all we have questions for you. Are there any other comments?

I'm sorry. Sharon does have one more question. I I just wanted to check with you in terms of I if we do we do have to make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support a decision. So if we make a different decision than what's recommended um it it there is reason to um postpone to make sure we have time to do that and make a valid decision. Is that something that um you would um be willing to consider postponement of making a decision on this point until the next meeting? Yes, ma'am. You you would be willing to three of Sorry. Through you, sir. Okay. Yep. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Thank you. That's I think that's all. Um do we have any other comments, public comments? Any Yes, sir. Please state your name. Nice to meet you, sir. Could you restate your name, please? Uh, Brian Hulan. Brian.

Yeah. The the homeowner at 2444. Um, I had a few items I was going to hand out. I don't have one for everyone, but um it's the letter uh basically signed from all of my immediate neighbors um talking about how they they they like the design. And then there's some close-up photos so you can kind of understand the percentage that the prop panel uh covers for the uh the entire build. much of what Russ said, um, I'm not going to rehash. Um, but I I've been an engineer for 30 years. Uh, and I travel the world, uh, in the military. So, I've been in for 26 years. And Propan is something that I've seen all over Europe. It's what I've seen all over uh, the Middle East as well. So, when we started to look at it and recognizing that the original designs do talk for uh like sighting, uh what I had on there, the house was built in 1984. It had uh horrible lap sighting. One of the photos on there can show you the original house that I started remodeling in 2003, I think. Um but oil oil dipped shakes uh cedar shakes um very difficult to find, very difficult to match. And so that's what really kind of started the conversation. Hey, what can we look at? And then when I looked at my experience, what I've seen over overseas, uh what I know as an engineer, uh I I immediately went to to Russ about the metal sighting. So that's where it really came from. Uh there was no indication that that was a prohibited item. Uh you can drive all over my neighborhood. There's not two single houses in my neighborhood that are similar. Not not two. Uh there are cinder block buildings. There are aluminum siding. There is a brick twostory that was down here on Ivansson back in the 70s that was moved. That's two uh two houses over. There are no two similar houses in my neighborhood. Uh

which is great. Um, when I first looked at Prop Panel, it is the given the top durability code on the International Building Code, which is what something I'm really super familiar with. So, from my perspective, I never would have thought Laramie would have fallen inside of the International Building Code. So, to think that that was outside code was kind of caught me off guard. Uh, and then I talked to one of the city engineers who's no longer down there and talked to him about how Laramie nests in the the larger building code things and he's like, "Yeah, we typically fall inside international building code." So, to me, I had no indication that this would be outside. Uh, and then with the uh the permits or the uh inspections coming in, I I talked to a couple of the inspectors. So, it was there. It was in front of them. I as an engineer, uh, when I go to inspect one item, I don't just look at the one item. I look at the collective. That's just that's what an engineer does. Um, and that's what a guy in the military does as well. So um the industry standard for weather it specifically the top code for industry standard for weather exposed structures which is what I went after because I am facing to this well to the southwest the big open field that's between Corell neighborhood and the 15. Um, I do get pounded by the wind in this in the winter, which is why I've done a lot of landscaping on the backside. But when you look at Pro Panel, it is rated for 50 to 70 years of durability. Uh, it has the lowest maintenance cost and the highest durability of any building material out there. And so, under International Building Code, to me, it was a no-brainer. Uh, so that's kind of what drove drove me to that conversation. Um, and I did in 2007 I did lose that roof to that the tornado that came through in ' 07.

Um, I didn't get a direct hit. It was just across the road, but based on the hail and the winds, I lost that. So, that's what drove me to the steel uh siding and the roof as well. So, just want to throw that out there. Okay. So, all right. Thank you. Do we have any questions for order? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Question. It seems to me as though although I'd like to hear from the code inspector folks or folk uh it seems to me the city owns a bit of this. uh it should have been caught and I really uh when I hear you know the rules is the rules uh and as I say I heard that a lot in Catholic school uh sometimes stupid happens and I think we need to show a little bit of flexibility Uh this looks like uh if we basically uh go with planning's recommendation, we're imposing a lot of cost on someone who acted in good faith and an honest mistake and uh someone in uh uh inspection is that the term in code enforcement uh who missed something that should have been obvious and it's not anybody's fault. Stuff happens but I would be very lo uh to go with planning on this. What I what I would suggest is we postpone and we hear from the code folks who visited the property or at least hear from them either in writing uh that they did go to the house, they did inspect the house and they missed something that they should have known and it's uh otherwise we're somebody's going to spend a lot of money. it's going to waste a lot of money and that

seems unnecessary. I guess Philip, is that something that would be reasonable to get either a note from either Bryce or Lucas indicating something like that or have them come down here and share their opinions or their thoughts with us? I know it doesn't comply, it still doesn't comply with code and we have to, you know, work through all of these findings of fact, but is that something that would potentially be possible?

Honorable chair, I I would say there's two things at issue here, and I think you mentioned them uh quite well. The criteria still need to be met regardless of if that something was missed or not. So can I can can I ask you a question on that? Based on the findings of fact, we as the planning commission or the board of adjustment, we are not sort of appointed this position as expert witnesses or experts or any of this. We're just supposed to act with, you know, as reasonable lay people, give or take, you know, based on our experiences, maybe not our professions, um though those definitely influence us. Our findings of fact can be based upon that and not specifically code related. They can they be subjective to our interpretation. So chair again I would say you know for one I I want to go back very quickly to my previous statement. I'm not admitting that the code inspectors missed anything. Um I I don't have any record, the applicant has provided no record of any dates or anything that was said written or otherwise that this was approved. Right? So I I I just want to make that clear that our building inspectors are out every day. We are down to two building inspectors where we should have four. We're budgeted for four. they are going from project to project. The only reason I'm mentioning this is because they are looking at what they are going to inspect, right? So when I I I understand, you know, when I'm going to

but they're they're not going to one house a day. They're going to like 12 a day, right? So anyway, I just want to go back to my previous statement that saying even if something were missed, I'm not saying something was missed. I'm I so anyway to that point as far as subjectivity to the to this the risk you run to the findings the risk you run there is the the legal risk of is you are your findings going to hold up if this decision is appealed

right so on that the on the appeals as I understand it the appeals of a uh planning commission decision or a board of adjustment decision is only procedural. It's not on the subject matter because again that goes back to what I was saying. We are not we're not, you know, appointed based on our our our occupations or our professions. We are supposed to be acting as community people, right? As lay people from lay people's perspective. May we have, you know, Sharon, you're a lawyer. I'm an engineer, engineer, geologist, veterinarian. They all kind of and I'm sorry. I don't know what you do, Jenna.

It's okay. But it all in it all kind of informs our our decisions, if you will. Um, but we're not expected to act in the same capacity on the planning commission or the board of adjustment as I am like when I'm working under my engineering stamp. It's totally different ballgame, right? So to your point, for it to be challenged could be possible, but it's only a procedural challenge that can be brought. Did we follow the laws or the rules of like Robert Robert's rules to to get something to a decision? Am I incorrect?

Well, I think we do have the criteria are the criteria and they spelled out. So, so we we but we may have a different view of whether the criteria for granting a variance have been met and that's why I would also recommend that we postpone and then the question is and and we might just want to at least have a brief discussion of it now looking at those criteria the the six of them and and um they um that's than the staff report. I think if I recall correctly, the staff report finds that that none of the criteria are met for us to to then that justifies denial for us to approve the variance. All of the criteria have to be met. Um, but we could postpone and then take the time and um, I don't know if the staff would be interested in working with us or not, but we have to come up with findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the decision to approve it.

Okay. Thank you, Jarren. and through you to to um Commissioner Buchino, I would I would say that our stance likely will not change on what we're recommending.

And you know, you can you can and this is discussion among us. You can completely understand the position that the planning commission I mean sorry the planning staff is taking because of the need of the integrity to enforce the process. But that's why there's a larger group of us with diverse viewpoints to then factor in these other factors. But the factors that we have to consider are those ones that are spelled out in the municipal code for granting a variance. Um I I would like to just take a few minutes to quickly look at those together and see if there's a likelihood that there is agreement that those factors could be met in this case. Um we did we don't have the benefit of what we had before where somebody spelled the applicant spelled them out. But if we feel like they can be met and the work for us to do and I'd be prepared to take a crack at drafting it is to be able to hear it again um and consider at that time specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that support granting the variance. And that is that's the process you were recommending that we follow that we don't act on it now without those findings of fact when we were discussing the previous matter

chair through you uh to commissioner Pacino um I I think a cursory review of if any of the finding or or if all of the findings right could be met is probably not a bad exercise and if there is some footing there that you all can agree to I think there's a path forward for postponing. So,

okay, thank you. So, I I guess to that end under I think I'm looking at these right. So, Philip, correct me if I am wrong or confirm that I'm right. Under page two, item A, those are the conditions. Correct. Um, it's item A, item B, item C, D, E, and F. Those are the the the bold items or the bold text rather are the items that we need to find fightings for if we're going to try and support this. Is that correct? Yeah, that is correct.

Thank you. So item A then is the there are special circumstances or conditions which fully describe in the board's findings that are peculiar to the land or building for which the adjustment is sought and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood and have not resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of code such as irregular irregularity, narrowness or shallowess of lot or exceptional topographical conditions. And I'd be I'd be open to I mean now that the applicant is here and has seen these finding effects. I mean he he he may have some viewpoints. He didn't really spelled them out in his cover letter but I don't know. I just comment. Um I think A is the toughest the toughest hall, but the the applicant made a point that his house is exposed and when you go to it, it's it's it's open land to the west of him. And if he wants the highest quality, most durable, most windproof, long-term material on his house that is exposed to the Wyoming winds and so forth and suns and I mean that might be

I think we're contriving a variance to get something moved through. Yeah. I mean what you're describing I agree but so is every other home on the block. Like I thought that the conversation not necessarily it's it's right on the edge more towards holistically approving that as a building material because you know we've talked in many meetings about is this a system systemic change that is needed or is it truly a special set of circumstances and the fact that there are some breakdowns in communication is not the special set of circumstances. So, I think we just have to be careful in contriving a situation. That that that to me feels like

without really working hard to try to contrive something, you're going to have a hard time meeting meeting A and we waste we're wasting our time to try to to con. So and like I mean B says the circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or building. Not not really. No. And if if we can't meet that one then we don't as much as we might want a grant of variance we don't have a legal basis for doing

AB and D are tough are tough halls. Um, but to to to John's point in the very beginning, um, well, I mean I I mean I was saying is this really not a a board of adjustment issue, you know, as opposed to getting getting the the the city and and the and the applicant to to work something out if that's a compromise of sorts or gosh, we could have it was, as Donald said, it was an innocent these were all innocent a perfect storm of events and you know just can come up with something reasonable that isn't codified. And you know what another just thinking through the whole like long-term process and viewports what would really be unfortunate is if we deny this variance and then in a year this type of same building materials back on the list and then you know we're following what we're supposed to do and there's no way around it and then the building materials change and then allow it. Um,

chair, if I could jump in, I I I think some middle ground here. Um, I mean, there there you can't really add a condition to a disapproval, right? But I think with the flexibility that the code administration department has, I think we could in writing put something down that said we're not going to require you to replace this siding until after a text amendment process that you bring forward as kind of this systemic change that was referred to and addressing the bigger issue because I think the points brought forward are are you know Great, right? It's it's durable. It's just not allowed. It's prohibited, right? We we can't just allow it, right? But I think there are some very good arguments to be made to include this type of material and then it would be up to city council to address that. And I think, you know, we could easily put something in writing that's said if, you know, if it works with kind of the exterior of the house staying that way for, you know, up to six months, right? I mean, that's another thing. But I think there is some middle ground there. I think we can work with the applicant by if they want to have this material and they're willing to go to another process to make it allowable an allowable material in residential, then yes, we deny that that the variance is denied. But then we're not we're not going to come over there and rip the materials down tomorrow, right? We could wait till

So it would be like a a a con a conditional denial. No, I think it wouldn't I think we just we we either postpone it or we deny it. I don't feel like we have the basis to approve. Yeah. So it would be more like a denial, but then on the backside the building department would work through some terms. Yeah. I mean, it still was something, but it would still be an unapproved material with the potential that if it never was adopted by the city, it would have to be replaced.

Well, so the risk that the applicant runs by having this material, getting this variance denied, and then not taking it down or that the the project won't be final, right? It won't be seeded essentially. I mean he'll so what take that as it as it is right um but you know given the you know given the six-month time frame of doing a text amendment hopefully sooner right then an approved material could be placed and there wouldn't be further penalty put on the applicant until the result of a text amendment addressing residential facads standards was done.

Yeah. I guess I guess we don't want to hear from the applicant again and see if that's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Please come up here and and give us your perspective on what Philip had just mentioned.

Thank you, sir. Um we were not trying to set a precedent by any means. Once again, um the use of this material is not we're trying not trying to push through and make a change to the code. It was, and I'm totally with Philip on the fact that we've only got two inspectors. It wasn't that they were overworked. They do a great job. A matter of fact, I have nothing but praise for our guys that are doing it, which is there's only two of them, Bryce and and uh Lucas. Lucas is the one that openly admitted that he did not know about that. That's the whole thing behind this. If he doesn't know, then of course I don't know. And that that will cause a whole problem. So, I'm not here to try and push through a a change to the code.

I I guess I'll I'll go back to what we're the whole discussion here is trying we're trying to find a way to move this forward to make you not have to rip it out and that seems to be if I'm m not mistaken one of sounds like a six month then rip it out it seems like it's pretty close to the only avenue we have because based on code and based on what we have to do as a planning commission to find findings of fact and conclusions of law is going to be very difficult. The city really does, as you one of your commissioners said, uh the city does own some of this. I mean, he uh Lucas should be asked this question.

I don't disagree, but you've heard the saying that there, you know, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I think it goes both ways. Okay. So, so if he doesn't know, then I didn't know either.

I I Yeah, I hate to say that, but I think that's probably true. And at the end of the day, we still have to find these conclusions to some degree to be able to support and pass and and approve a variance. And I think what Philip is is offering is an alternative way to do that. It'll take a little longer, of course, but it would require changing code as a text amendment to allow that. Is that portion of the code, Philip? Is that just a table of approved uses? So it would just be an additional line in that code that would have to go through the readings. Is that correct? Yeah. So it wouldn't be a tremendous undertaking to be able to do that. It would just be an extensive time

extensive. It would be an extended much more extended timeline than the variance that is potentially seemingly not going to find legs. Okay. So thank you sir. So, and I guess with that I I didn't get an answer from you, but is that text amendment something that you as the applicant and then the owner would be in support of if it meant delaying the CO for another four to 6 months? Or would the option of denying it, ripping the sighting off and putting an approved sighting on be a better option? Yeah, I'm good to to wait till six months and try to move it forward. Okay.

The one question I would ask right now is we're not complete and what that means is I have wood. I don't have gutters. So when it rains or snows, right? He's only got a little teeny bit to do. It's like eight pieces. I don't know.

I think that's something that that that the building department would have to work through with you guys based on this and based on something that I don't know how we would do that from the planning commissions or the board of adjustments. perspective, Philip, but how would that work? What do we need to do today as the board of adjustment to be able to give maybe direction, if that's the right word, to the building department to work through something so that they can finish closing up the house, seal it up, and then start the process of the text amendment.

Well, chair, I want to be very clear that we're not making any promises tonight as to a decision on a text amendment either. And I think we're all clear on that, but it just needs to be said. Um, I think there's two options. I think one is to deny the variance based on the findings of fact not being met tonight. I think the second option is to postpone it to a un to a undetermined date. And I don't know if that's okay if we have to set a date to be postponed to. So, in a motion, I believe chair um we could postpone until after the city council has had opportunity to review um a a text amendment and that doesn't give us an a specific date, but it also doesn't take it totally out of the books. Um so,

okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. I think we can work with that. And chair, just to add again, I I I want to be completely clear that, you know, there I I think we're all in the same boat. We run the risk of finishing the project and then it's still not being passed. Right.

Correct. Right. I And I think that's Yeah. Because the text amendment is not a guarantee that it will be passed. It's just another avenue that that I guess potentially could delay the replacement of the sighting, but also has the opportunity that it could stay. So, I think we're trying to find a middle ground to be able to find an alternative way to to allow that sighting that's been installed to remain, but it's not a guarantee. I'm sorry, Nancy. Yes.

No, you're totally fine. Chair, I was um to your question about the you know, can you direct uh the building staff, you know, code administration staff, I don't know that that's the purview of this board. Um so I just that's all I wanted to say on that. Okay, noted. Thank you.

Speaks for itself, but I think we have the action for us is either to deny their based on the findings of fact and conclusions all that they given us or or postpone the matter. Um, and we were given a phrasing of to postpone it um until the time uh until a time during which the council has a chance to sit in.

Yeah, I think that's right. So, I guess with that being said, is there any other discussion amongst the commission? And if not, I guess I will entertain a motion or the motion. I haven't done Did I'm sorry. Did I ask for public comment on this yet? I think I did. Um yeah, Brian came up during Oh, yes. Okay. public comment. Okay. So, we are we're good to proceed.

Hey, we're going to try it. I'd like to make a motion to postpone variance VR-26-000032444 overland uh metal sighting variance based on findings of fact and law until city councils have the opportunity to review a text amendment to LMC 15.14.080-1-residential design guidelines. Does that work very good? Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. Second by Jenna. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Nancy will please give us a roll call. Boutino I.

Sorry. This uh voting block has old names on it. Hold on. Give me one second. Um Bull. Hi. Heisler White. Hi Moody. Hi Oul. I Snider I and Matamore is absent. So that's six yeses, zero nos, and one absent here.

Okay, thank you. So that motion passed that and that uh variance has been tabled until such time the city council gets a text amendment. So that being said, the applicant um would suggest you would work with the planning department to kind of start the process to understand what a text amendment includes so you can get rolling. Yes. I'm sorry. I should have caught this, but we had no time period included in the motion. We did. It was until definitely. I mean that it's Yeah, there was a milestone of the city council reviewing that section of code,

but there was none there there was no u date that the applicant was required to file a text amendment or anything like that. So, I'm not sure how we go back and do that, but we'd feel much more comfortable if we had a date in mind because there's really no Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, there's no date. There's or the actual text amendment to be heard. I see what you're saying. So, how do we can weify that?

I don't know if you've done this before, but it would be a motion to reconsider. Um, and so you would bring that that item back to the floor. Um, and it would be somebody that voted in favor, which of is the board, you know, um, minus the one that's absent. So any of you could make a motion to reconsider variance um 260003. Um and then at that point the motion comes back on the floor and then you would then u make an amendment to the motion to then add it. So Philip just to be clear what you're asking for is a time frame on the applicant to submit that.

Correct. And and we would we would like two a two month two to three three months max. So I would say I would recommend three months. Okay. Well to submit it to you so to start the ball roll. Okay. Okay. So we need a motion too. Well, I will move to reconsider the action taken on variance-26-00003.

Second. Second. Second. Okay. Moved in a second. All in favor? Then I will. Uh would it be best though if I restate the action that we would be taking? I think for the record um just to be clear that would be great.

Okay. So, u my amended action uh would be to postpone variance dash 26-003 244 Overland metal sighting variance request to a date after the city council has had a chance to review a text amendment. Uh and um uh yes um and um and also um the applicant of this variance uh has submitted a proposed text amendment uh by

June 1st. August. No, three months. Three months. They have most three months. So, August, let's not make it Sunday or Saturday. August 15th. That's what that would be. It's just a table. Why not a month? Two months. Yeah. Okay. So, how about how about July July 20th? That's a Monday. Could you read that back to us maybe?

Oh, you're asking a lot. Yeah. So, no to so it's the the motion that was previously stated and then adding the applica the applicant must submit a proposed amendment by July 20th, 2028. There's two

or 26. Sorry, my I don't know why I wrote eight in my notes. Yes, 2026. I was at the edge of the page. It kind of ran off. There are two conditions to the postponement and one one is um they have the original the city council has a chance to consider a text amendment and the applicant has submitted a proposed text amendment to the planning department no later than July 20th 2026. Good.

Okay. Are we good for a second? I'll second. Okay. Okay. Been moved and second. Do we have a roll call, please? Sure. It would be appropriate um since this is an amendment to accept public comment on the amendment um forward. Okay. Do we have any public comment on the amendment? Yes, sir. Can you please come?

Be deployed with the military the whole month of July. Could we slip that into August? Um, that's as good a reason as any. So, yes, sir. I I believe so. I didn't we could probably amend the amend the Yes. Okay. Wh which which date in August would be appropriate? I actually return on the 26th of July. So it could be it could be the last week of July. Oh, so you missed it by Just so that just so the applicant's clear though, this is not when it's going to be heard. This is when you have to apply. Correct. Right. You have to have it to the planning department. You don't have to be here for anything.

You just have to have the application in by that date. Scratch what I said there. I thought I had to be here. No, no, sir. I I don't believe so. It just has to be submitted to your department by that date. By that date and then the public hearings wouldn't be until I mean we could work with you on your return when that's okay that works, sir. Okay. Very good. Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion and we have a second. Can we please have the roll call? Boutino. I uh Bull. Hi Heisler White. Hi Moody. Hi Oul. Hi Snider. Hi

Madammore. Absent. That's six yeses, zero nos, and one absent. Chair, thank you. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Um chair. Yes. I apologize, but we've just amended the main motion. So now we do need to go back to the motion. Okay. So now we need a a motion on the main or a vote. So we're back to the main motion as it had previously been approved. Okay. Um to postpone. Okay. So um it's the original postponement u that was made by Kendra. Okay. And stuff. So now it's just approving as amended to add in the applicants opportunity for the time and we need a motion for that.

It's already been made. So, we're back to reconsidering that main motion. Okay. But we do need to revote on that main motion. Okay. Very good. Is there any other discussion on that first motion or can we have a vote? Okay. Let's have a roll call vote, please. Hi. Bull. Heisler White. Hi. Moody. Hi. Otul. Hi. Schneider. Hi. And Madamore absent. That's six yeses, zero nos, and one absent. Chair. Okay. Thank you. Motion passes. Can we now adjourn? Motion to adjurnn. I second. Second. All in favor? I I meeting is concluded. Thank you all.