Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner, would you call the role please? Pacino here. B here. Eisler White here. Moody here. Oul here. Schneider here. And Madammore here. That's seven present, zero absent. Uh, next order of business is approval of the agenda and minutes. I understand that staff wishes to change the agenda.

Well, honorable chair. Yes. I believe the change has to do with the postponement of the UR. Is that correct? I'm sorry. No, chair, we would just we'll keep the agenda as is. We'll just we'll when that item comes up, I'll mention that uh our recommended motion is going to change and so it'll allow you to take public comment if you want to do that and uh but we'd like to keep it on the agenda just since it's been noticed. So, great. Uh chair entertain a motion approve the agenda.

I just have one quick I think it's just wanted to clarify. We have Todd Feeser listed as assistant city manager, which he used to be, but he is the city manager now, right? So, I did want to just Okay. Well, I want I would I would propose that we amend the agenda to reflect that. That's in the new business item six. B I favor I Hi. I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended.

Also move to approve uh the agenda as amended. Second. All those in favor? I finding commission meeting minutes. 22326. Got a motion to approve the minutes. I'll move to approve the amendments from uh February 23rd, 2026. Second. All those in favor? I I.

Now, we'll start with citizen comments, but this will be on non-aggenda items. Anybody's wants to talk about the URA uh can wait till we get to that item and we will take public comments as usual on that. So this public comment period is for non-aggenda items. So does anybody care to address the commission? Wendy,

my name is Wendy Chapman. Um, I just wanted to ask about the time of this meeting at 4:30 is hard for a lot of people to get here and I wonder if that could be changed to a time that's more similar to city council. Thanks, Wendy. sign in. Uh, why do we meet at 4:30?

Marble, I chair, I can chime in. I could take a look at the bylaws, but off the top of my head, I don't think that it's written in there a time. So, I think it would just need to be discussed as a commission and a motion made and I mean for subsequent meetings, right? I mean so we can advertise properly but I think that's just up to the discretion of the commission. We take it under adisement go from there. Any other public comments on non-aggenda items? Seeing none are any online? Right. We'll carry on. Uh any planning commission staff reports or comments?

Yes. We have a couple I can go first. Um, two announcements this evening. Uh, the first being that the Forge Exchange, the public engagement space for the comprehensive plan is open till the end of the month. So, if you haven't made it by, we still have this week uh, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday to come by and uh, complete the exercises there. But we will be shutting that space down after 3 months uh next Tuesday. So the end of the month. What are the hours of that club?

I can forward that to you, but it's does anybody know off the top of their head? I mean, we can pull it up real quick. It's like three hours in the morning. It's three hours different times a day. So that's why it's not easy for me to recall. Oh, okay. Um, it's on our Google listing here. So, Wednesday 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Thursday 2 to 5:00 p.m. Fridays 8 to 11 a.m.

Thank you, Joseph. And of course, by appointment. Yes. Uh the second announcement I have um this uh commission with their boards and commission money that they received to raise awareness about what this commission does uh that money that was given to uh by city council to every board and commission. you all, if you if you recall a couple months ago, um decided to spend a portion of that on new development uh review signs that make it easier to for the public to understand what's going on on a site. So, we we of course still have the number uh an email on there, but then we have the QR code where it takes you to the applications page where you can find more information on the project. But we just wanted to let you know that those are were printed and we've already have a couple out in the community. But these will replace all of these red development review signs.

Excellent.

Um, so those are my announcements. I believe Director Teny has one as well. Chair Commission, I have two. So I hope that's what Okay. Um uh first first off what um I would just like to remind uh the planning commission you all were u should be aware of this but uh we are working on a downtown development plan with the downtown development authority and so uh Wednesday Thursday and Friday there's multiple events and opportunities to engage with the consultants uh downtown businesses DDA members um really pretty much anybody in the community that cares about downtown uh to go to those meetings, schedule events. Um there's a survey available online. And so I'm just putting that out as a reminder. All the information if you're curious about all the different times and things that you can do, um they're found on the downtown development authorities web page. If you go to their page on the link from the city of Laramese page, um you'll see a big old header that says downtown development plan and you can see the link to the survey, the schedule of events, where everything is at. Um, as Philip noted, uh, the downtown development, uh, plan also has engaged the forge space. So, as part in part with the comprehensive plan, so you can also, as Philip just mentioned, the different times available then or by appointment. Uh, we'll talk to you about the downtown um, at that space as well. And so, um, that'd be my first announcement. Second announcement. Um I sent an email out last week about uh a joint work session with the city council on April 14th. Um like I mentioned, we're thinking your portion start about 7ish 7:30. If you can attend, that'd be

great. Um really the opportunity there is to go over the downtown development and plan and to hear uh what kind of what the public input uh that we received over the last 3 days as well as prior to this um and through the forge space and so to it's really going to be a first opportunity for both planning commission and council just to hear about that process how it's going what we're hearing and to get some direction and guidance from planning commission and council at that time in a work session format. So, um, that's all I have. So, you have a question for staff?

I didn't have a question. I just had a comment. Uh, some of you may have seen the signs that have gone up around the city parks, which are really nice signs. And I figure they probably cost a,000 or 2,000 bucks each. And I was surprised and pleased when I stopped to talk to the folks that they made them in-house. And I thought they're really, really tasteful and really nice. At Lapril Park, there was kind of a very depressed sound. The sign that looked like it should be on Prozac. Small little miserable sign. And these are proper signs. So, it's really the guys did a really nice guys and gals did a really nice job. Yeah, the I'll just note, as much as I'd like to say we had something to do with it, we really did. Our parks and recck department and the city manager's office really guided that. So, kudos to them. Those signs do look really nice. So yeah.

Okay. Nothing else. We will go on to uh disclosures, exparte communications or potential conflicts of interest. No.

Well, as you know, uh we met with Derek Tiny. You and I met with Derek Tiny. And the reason was because of this blight designation uh for the property. I was contacted by two people, both of them were in this room, uh, who asked me about this and I had not read the minutes and I didn't know what they're they were talking about. And then I read this strange document by AVI about the blight designation. And so uh uh we met with Derek just to ask Derek some questions and get some clarifications on the whole blight process and uh the the designation for funding how the taxation thing works. So uh I heard from two people. I told them this was new to me and I I assume this issue is going to be postponed today. But I learned something. Ditto. I did too. So, let's see any other. All right, we can carry on. We will go to resolution 2026-04, Westside Urban Renewal Plan and Project. Derek, take it away. Chair, Commission, um the item before you is a is proposed as a resolution. Um a resolution is how uh we would adopt a urban renewal plan and project. Um what I'm going to do though is I'm going to I'm going to keep my conversation pretty brief today just simply uh based upon previous actions that uh the city council took last week. um in a process that the city council was working on

related to this, they ultimately postponed action on the item that they were considering that is related to this item that's before you. So instead of uh requesting that you advance or do anything with this item, um our recommendation at this point is going to be to recommend that you postpone this item to the second meeting in April, which would be April 27th. Um, and then what that will allow the council to do is kind of finish up with their process and then for you all to revisit this process, revisit this process if applicable uh depending upon what council decides to do with the uh URA blight designation. Um this uh I'll just note for today's for today's purpose the urban renewal westside plan and project is similar to the north fourth street plan and project that you all considered about a year ago give or take and so uh we're just this would be just one of the steps in the process planning commission requiring your approval as well as ultimately city council doing a similar step to what you're seeing here before the planning commission. Um because we're recommending postponement, I'm not going to go into very much deep detail. I'm just going to wait and save my presentation if that's okay with you, chair, uh for when the item is actually presented. My only recommendation would be maybe to provide still an opportunity for any members of the public who might want to provide any public comment since they if they showed up and they want to provide it now. They'll also have an opportunity on April 27th to provide public comment if they want to wait until that time as well. But, um, I think that that'd be the only thing that I would request or at least allow for that to happen. So, other than that, I'd be happy to take, uh, questions at this point or, uh, allow you to take public comments.

Uh, I have one question. I believe it's state statute that council, the elected body, has to declare a blight before it comes to planning commission, which is the reason for the postponement. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. They the city council was considering the designation of blight and that's the item that they postponed at their last meeting which was last Tuesday. So, right. So, we have to wait on their action. And I just wanted to clarify you're you were proposing a specific date for it to come back which was April April 6th is our next meeting Monday.

The second meeting in April. So two meetings from now the 13th. Correct. The 20th I believe. Did I give Oh oh no you're right. So it is it's the it would be this this first meeting would be the second Monday which is on the 13th and the second meeting is on the 27th. Correct. The 27th is the second meeting for planning commission and that's what I would recommend that you postpone it to. So before we make a motion to uh postpone, is it the wish of the commission that we allow public comment?

Seeing no objection, we'll open it up to public comment. I know there's a lot of people here. I'm not a big fan of the threeminut rule, but would appreciate it if you don't repeat yourself and uh keep your comments as brief as possible because we got a lot to go through tonight. So, uh, who's first? Sock it to us.

Chairman Mador, members of the commission, my name is State your name for the record first.

My name is Brett Glass, and while I'm not currently serving on planning and zoning, I've been a member of the zoning board of adjustment. Uh there are many reasons why this proposed resolution should be voted down. Uh including that it would be harmful to our community, would impact our tax base, and would violate legislative intent. Um but the most important reason is that uh you um just just like the zoning board of adjustment when I served on it u base your actions on finding findings of fact and conclusions of law and by those criteria the area in question does not qualify under state law as being blighted. Here's the important part of the law which uh in your handouts you can see you can see the most important part in highlighted in red there. A blighted area means an area by which by reason of the presence of and then there's a long list of possible conditions there substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth growth of a municipality retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health safety morals or welfare in its present condition and use. So, one of those things highlighted in red has to be true for the resolution to be valid and for a blight declaration to be valid, but none of them is. Is the area impairing or arresting the growth of Laram? Nope. Uh, we've grown right around it um over to West Laram and in 2023 council officially approved a growth plan for Laram that doesn't include that area as a growth area. Now the second point is it retarding the provision of housing accommodations. It's not doing that either. There's a huge development starting between uh between 9th Street and Third Street along Bill Nye. Um old Slade was just demolished and there's

going to be housing there and more building is going on all over the city. So it's not stopping us from developing housing. Um now is it an economic or social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare? No, it's just vacant land. It's certainly not rife with crime, danger, or disease, or any of the things that are mentioned in the statute. And so, this area fails all of the tests in the law. It's not blighted according to Wyoming law, and hence does not qualify as an urban renewal area. Thus, according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, you should decline to send this resolution to council. uh consistent with the rule of law. Please vote nay on this item when it comes to a vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh next, who's wants to

Thank you members of the council. I really appreciate the work you're putting in to uh supporting our community. My name is Mav Ben David. I am a retired professor from the zoologology department. I taught wildlife ecology for 25 years and I'm also the vice chair of the Albany County Planning and Zoning Commission. So, I know how much work you put into this and I do appreciate it. I'm here as an ecologist who is very concerned about all the planning uh that you have already passed in this blighting proposal uh surrounding the Laram River. You don't need to wear a coat today in March. It has been uh unseasonably warm winter with no precipitation. And the Lammy River is a major corridor, a major wildlife habitat for multiple species, both aquatic and terrestrial. And any development in the adjacent uh land will be detrimental to any of this species if we start developing. My point is before you make a decision, and I emailed all of you this morning. I hope you got my email. Please do your due diligence in requiring the planners to provide you with all the data about what wildlife may be damaged as well as if we have a freak storm and a flood similar to the one we had in June 2010. Uh what are the mitigation engineering mitigation uh uh processes? Please, I know how much it is, how much work you're doing already, but please do yourself a favor. We don't

want to be 5 years down the line sitting here and regretting that we approved this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sign in.

Who's next? My name is Anne Brand and I am the executive director of a Larmy based nonprofit, the Albany County Conservancy. And this afternoon I sent you all a letter that I had submitted on behalf of our members to the Larmy City Council meeting that discussed this urban renewal plan. And just to state clearly, the letter does identify species easily um researched when you type in Larmy River Green Belt, that information comes up because because of databases that exist like the wind database. So you can look up that information about those species that are mentioned in this letter. Um, the Larmy River Green Belt is utilized by the University of Wyoming students as well as the Albony County Public School System and I also know that the Autobond is very active regarding bird counts and other things. So, the information should be very accurate. I would like to draw your attention to the fact of externalities. My group has been very proactive not only in the public engagement component of wildlife in the community but also advocacy and that has included litigation um regarding some things that have been overlooked at the county level in particular and I'd like to see the city not fall into the same pattern and and to take time now just like Morav points out um externality impacts the community economically and this community definitely deres um income because of

the uniqueness of the Larmy Basin and that directly ties into wildlife and my nonprofit recently filed a petition in federal court looking specifically at eagle externalities. It's a economic externality. And so I just want to have you realize the concerns of the members of the conservancy and ask you to look very seriously when um looking at information. Morav's suggestion to have all that information before you is really important. And if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me.

Thank you. Who's next?

Hi, my name is Florence Sanchez Dakota and I was born and raised on the west side. For several years, I was a caregiver for my parents. One of the saving graces for me was being able to go onto the green belt and be by running water and that feeling, that freshness, that energy, smelling the vegetation. Many of us don't have access or can't go into the mountains or any of the other places where people go for sports. The only contact we have for nature is the green belt. I sat there one time on a on a bench and I played statue with the little white muskrat that came up and mink that stood there and watched me for a while. I've run into deer and fox and I had a um cousin who was special needs took her to the green belt and watched the family of owls that were up in the tree. Listening to the hawks scream and even being able to stand on that bridge and watch the minnows that are in the water. There's life. There's energy that's revitalizing. I went and I sat there one time. It was it was a hard time and I was sitting by the uh sitting on the bank as close as I could and there was a big bush here and down here I heard a splash and it was like, "Wow, what was that?" It was pretty deep. And I had my eyes closed and and thinking and for some reason it said, you know, "Open your eyes." And about the time I opened

my eyes, right there in front of me, the heron was coming up out of the water. And it was such such a feeling, such a connection. That's that's a living entity that I think helps give life to those that go and sit there and participate and do the walk and smell the fresh air and fights the mosquitoes. On the other hand, when you go on the other side where it's got the trees all planted and it's more manicured and everything and you're way away from the river, you don't get that feeling. There's not that much wildlife. You don't have and it's more like an urban walk. So on the side of where this development is being looked at, I think will be a detriment to the population of Laram, especially of those who who need that contact with nature and can't get it any place else. Thank you.

Thank you. Who's next? My name is Wendy Chapman and I've lived on the west side for 27 years. Um, designated designating the 4G land as blighted seems to be quite an exaggeration. It is a flood plane and a wildlife corridor. As far as urban renewal goes, this land was never urban and does not need renewal. This isn't just a nimi thing. As things stand now, many of our westside neighbors already experience flooding during heavy rainstorms. The city's plans to improve the storm sewer system have yet to be funded, and the thought of building on a flood plane before the storm sewer issue is resolved would only be asking for trouble for current residents and taxpayers on the west side. When the time comes, I ask you to please vote no on the proposed blight designation for the 4G property. Thank you. not sign.

Anybody else?

Hello.

Hello. I'm Siobhan Kelly, a Westside resident. I've been thinking lately about John Lewis, the civil rights leader. I was in a room with him when he talked about the beloved community and it was in the context of environmental justice. I would like to talk just touch briefly on three items. Flooding, financing, and faith. So Wendy talked about flooding. My my house and Wendy's house and many of our neighbors homes show up on page seven of the plan. And yes, we are concerned about flooding. And the 100red-year designation doesn't really put it into perspective. It's more like there's a 26% chance of flooding within a 30-year mortgage period. As for financing, this plan describes tax increment financing, it gives us no idea of how much the plan will cost to implement. So in that respect they certainly are asking for us to make a leap of faith that this that the engineering will work that the financing will work even though it does take money away from our schools. Finally, I would like to talk about the Westside Visioning Plan. We haven't really heard

about it much in association with this new plan that bears our neighborhood's name. I'd like to point out that the urban renewal bylaws for that group agency bylaws under 5.7 the review criteria for projects requesting tax increment financing assistance. Under item two, the project is in accordance with the development policies and physical patterns identified in the comprehensive plan. You'll find that in the Westside plan and project in front of you, but this says and any other official plans and pos policies for the specified area. And I would like for you to have this if I don't know

how it can work

how that works. Thank you. Um this visioning plan was financed by the city. It was undertaken by the city and presented May 11th, 2024. It's a 97page document expressing the vision of Westside residents. I would also like to to draw your attention to appendix A in the westside plan and project. It talks about concerns of flooding and other things that did come up during the sixhour public interaction where arguably we weren't quite introduced to this plan. It was just a series of poster boards. We couldn't quite tell what was going on. This plan, on the other hand, took about four months. It included visioning sessions, surveys, stakeholder interviews, and a community hotline. Among the things they found is that this community seeks smallcale development. They include on page 27 a section that specifically addresses the community's response to the 4G site. I think that you'll find that very pertinent to your decision making and it defines principles of meaningful engagement on page 39. So finally, you'll find in the introduction to the Westside Visioning

document, it says, "The primary goal of this study was to showcase the dreams, concerns, and desires of the Westside residents in a document that could be delivered to decision makers in Laramie. I propose that that is you and thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Good afternoon. My name is Eric Henderson. I'm a resident of Westside. In August of 2025, I was quite proud at the work that went into a historic designation of the west side. That space was within 300 ft of the zoned uh changed area from I2 to R3. And in that in that effort to make historic designation of the west side, um, so many so many great entities came together and collaborated into that into that work. We're going to we're going to recognize that work May 2nd, 2026 at the Lincoln Community Center, a school that's been repurposed with a great history in in our in our westside area. What's not been incorporated into this situation is is any explanation to me that warrants a determination that the natural area which is the corridor is mentioned in four of the last speakers for a wildlife corridor. Uh the one the species not recom that not recognized that that I've witnessed in the area uh raccoon. I I am I'm interested in uh what other species are are there. Not during any process has there been available information made to the public to my awareness of any wildlife impact study. That's greatly concerning to me in that regard. But more more importantly, uh flooding was me was mentioned, right? Well, flooding is something that we continue to gain uh assurance, if you

will, from city staff and and other design with a property interest, mind you, that there's that there's a that there's a uh there's an option to take care of that concern. Well, we haven't seen that. And we have increased surface area uh imperous surface area substantially in the west side since that time. And even within the actual historic uh designated area like and similar characteristics are detracting from that already uh valued historic designation that was received in and designated in August of 2025. just just less than 12 months and we've transitioned to another project initiative that will detract even further. We're not going to have the wildlife as we have multi-unit den dense housing that's allowable by our three uh proposals. That's not going to happen there. and any investment that goes in there. I don't want it to be my city uh fees and taxes that support that uh that relief to that 4G owner or any other owner passing down that might develop it. I'm not interested in that because it's it's fearful for me that my property value will see a decrease when only 300 ft from multi-unit housing. And at this point, I will reserve the rest of my comments for April 27th. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Anybody online? Clerk, seeing no other comments and nobody else wish I'll close public comments. Uh, we have a request to postpone this item. But before we do, I would like to make a comment that uh TIFF and it's been publicized on the internet and other places that TIFF financing uh is going to take money away from schools and other things. TIFF financing assumes that any property that goes under a URRA has a tax base of X as of a date certain. And once it becomes a URA project, the value of it will increase depending basically on what the uh fair market value is of whatever is built on that land. So if nothing is built on the land, then it stays at that X figure. That X figure stays with the county. So nothing gets taken away from the county. If there's a development there, any increase in value and property tax would be X + Y. With X + Y involved, that X still goes to the county. If if the project isn't built, they still get X. at the end of whichever however the ordinance is

written either 15 to 25 years that X + Y will revert to the county so that in practical purposes the county doesn't have any decrease in funds neither does the school district and at the end of 15 to 25 years uh that money will go back to the county on the finished project and when the URRA is done. The URRA has a finite limit. So, uh just so people understand that it's not going to cost anybody anything uh in the school district if a project gets approved or not. It's going to stay the same. So, except for inflation. So, this property generates what about $3,700 a year in tax revenue. And if nothing's built, it's going to be 3,700 a year in tax revenue to the county. And if something is built, it's still going to be $3,700 a year to the county. So there's been a lot of uh confusion about that. So just wanted to correct that for the record. So anybody else in the commission have any comments?

Tenn, I have a question. So, city council is reviewing the light designation and will be making a determination on that. Correct. Depending upon that outcome, this in turn will come back. Yes. If they decide no, it will not come back. Correct. Because they that plan it will not come back. That is correct. Yes, it comes back. We don't make the determination of blight. That is a city council decision. We just have our decision would be on the outcome of that. this well yeah we won't decide on the blight we will decide on the plan to deal with the blight

that to clarify our role in this process any other discussion

what happens in our if in our infinite wisdom after the city has designated this a blighted area we do not vote in favor of the resolution what's the consequence of that vote Well, you're going to have to bump that one up to a higher pay grade. Would anybody on staff care to reduce that or we want to wait till the actual occurrence? Chair Commission. So if that was if that was to occur, city council still gets to make a decision on whether they want to declare a URA. So I mean, so it'll still go to city council. They'll have your resolution and recommendation not to make that a designated urban renewal plan and project area. So and then council will have to decide that. So,

so, so they have an override. So, we would, we're simply making a recommendation and they can override that. They're recommending bodying. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Right. Thank you. Any other discussion? Someone want to make a motion to postpone this item? I move to postpone this item. Second. Do we have to read the number the title? The date certain. Let's do date certain.

All right, I'll take it. Uh the motion is to uh postpone resolution 2026-04, Westside Urban Renewal Plan and Project to the April 27th meeting. I second. Second. All right. All those in favor? I I motion carries unanimous. Sure. Who's the second on that? Was it who was the second? Me. Janna. Thank you.

And if I may, I want to thank the West Side for showing up as they always do. That's one thing I like about the West Side. you always show up and you've always got something to say and you're always welcome. So, thank you very much for coming. Next item of business, let me flip the page here, is text amendment 26-01 UDC text amendment update on building codes. Derek, take it away. Chair, Commission, I am just going to simply do a brief introduction and let someone else take it away, but appreciate the opportunity to come back up here. Um, before you is a is a text amendment to the development code. Um, I am going to be I'm going to introduce you. Some of you know uh Lucas Wit. He's our chief building official at the city of Larmy and he is uh the one in charge of of how our buildings physically get constructed in our community. And uh just for a little bit of brief context um the codes that you're going to or the amendments that you're going to see is part of our municipal code. Um, and really the portion of the codes that we're that Lucas are going to walk that Lucas is going to walk you through are related to uh building codes and specifics that are in those building codes that we've adopted into our municipal code. And uh because we have an international building code, we're permitted to make modifications and make changes. And so the changes that you'll see um before you are are changes to the building code, but we put them into our municipal code so people know that they're going to we're making those

changes. We can't change the international building code. We don't have that authority. That's not our not our code to mess with, but we can make our amendments here locally. And so what I'm going to do is I'm going to uh have Lucas Wit come up. Like I said, Lucas Wit is our chief building official. and I'll kind of let him just kind of go through why we landed on the on the codes that you see before you and kind of what led up to that process and then he'll run through those codes. Um, most of these I'll just let you know are kind of technical. Um, but that's okay. You are it's it's fine. Feel free to ask Lucas questions. Um, but he'll give you an idea why we're bringing these ones forward to you versus maybe some of the many others that we could bring towards you for you. Uh so uh without further ado, I'll bring up Lucas Whit. So chair, commission, thank you for taking the time to hear this text amendment. U just to give you a quick background on this. So back in December, we held a meeting with our contractors. We invited about 500 contractors. Um we had 25 show up. Although that sounds like a low number, it's about double what we had the last time we did it. So, um these are a couple things there. Code changes. At that meeting that we had, we had a couple contractors that provided us with some options um some code changes they wanted to see come forward. And the other ones are ones that that our staff my staff um provided. So, um like Derek said, if you guys have comments or questions throughout these as I go through them, just just let me know. Um so first of all this first one is um it's a clarification of what we've been doing in in city limits. So um this ties into sprinkler systems specifically for

one and two family dwellings. So, uh, back in 2012, they, uh, the international code council had suggested that all single family homes or two family homes be provided with sprinkler systems throughout. At that point, the city had decided not to uh, follow that. The problem was it wasn't changed in um, the UDC. So, this is kind of that that code change is what we're following. If I may, sure. Uh just point of clarification, you're talking about a fire suppression sprinkler system and not a lawn sprinkler system. Chair, correct? Yes, that yes, just for the record.

Yep. Sorry for that. So, yes, it's it is a house sprinkler system suppression system for the entire house. So this code just clarifies that the city of Larmy is not choosing to follow that code that one and two family dwellings are not required to install sprinkler systems throughout suppression systems throughout the house. Um the second one is um related to more mechanical code. So, in that section, any any intake or um exhaust that comes out of your house, that pipe needs to be protected to prevent critters or bugs or debris from flying in there. The problem that we're seeing in our area is once you get down to that quarter inch, they're supposed to have quarter inch to/ in half inch openings. So, it can be screens, it can be louvers. The problem that we're seeing on that is in our area it gets cold enough that those are starting to freeze over. So what we are suggesting is rather than the quarter inch we're strictly just saying 1/2 in openings. We're sticking within the code but we are going to the largest amount possible. This should still allow any air to come through but should still keep debris and all those critters out. Um when we had presented this in the work session to council, they were looking for other options. This is kind of within the code. This is our option changes keeping it at that largest amount possible. Uh number three is talking about um egress windows. So this has been in in code for a while.

We are just um suggesting putting some additional language in that code to make it clear. Uh so what it's talking about is if you have an existing window in your house, egress window, and you want to um widen that window to put in either an egress or just make your window bigger, we need to have some kind of engineering to to show that the the bigger one we see, right? Egress windows are a big one here in town. There's a lot of rentals. Um, and so if they're widening, especially in concrete, like in the basement, we just need to make sure that those are being provided with engineering because it's bigger than what was existing.

Uh, yes, if I may, once you make the opening bigger, the lentil is useless. So, it would have to be replaced. I mean, so why do we need an engineer to do that? uh that could be done by an architect or any kind of draftsman. It's so long as it's compliant with code, you've got the right overhang and you're carrying sufficient weight, you should be able to get that out of the code book. So, right now we're looking at $6 to $8,000 for an egress window installed in a in a basement, a concrete walled basement. How much would an another engineer stamp on it cost? Another thousand dollars. You know, we're I I I see an architect could do that or a good contractor should be able to take it out of the code book and it's pretty much all in the code book. That's that's my only concern about that. Anybody who cuts a linel is a fool. I mean, they're going to end up, but if you're going to cut it, you almost always replace it. I've done this a lot in my past life. You know, it's pretty obvious when you need a new lintil. Sure. Chair. Um, so this, just to clarify, so in code, you are allowed to have up to a two-ft opening without a lintil. So you could have concrete there, and that allows you to not have that lentil. And just for clarification, most of the time in those lentils, you see a steel um L

angle iron

that goes that goes in there to support that extra opening. So the twoft allows you to not require a lintil. If you go wider than that, then a lintil is required. So they're not necessarily cutting the lintils out because it's not required if it's under 2 ft. So if it goes bigger than that, that's where we would require the engineer. And and the reason for the engineer is um they do have lentils in code and they do cover some of that, but most contractors that I've run into, they end up getting engineers involved anyways because it's a it's steel and most of them don't have the experience with that. Um so that's where we're asking for for an engineered fix on that. Well, what is the minimum size required under Laram code for an egress window?

So, it's 5.7 square ft. So, you could what what we have had in the past is um they might keep that opening. So, if there's an existing opening that's larger than 2 feet, that's that's problem, then then it's not a problem. They could cut down if they wanted to. Um, it's when they start widening that opening and that's where we're running into issues.

All right. I just think it adds a extra $1,000 to every egress window that gets put in, but I can live with it. I already put mine in, so any other questions. Okay. Um, number four, uh, we're diving into energy codes. So, we've got a couple that go into the energy code. This first one specifically talks about um the the International Energy Code has requirements for new builds, for um additions or alterations. And as each code comes out with that energy code, it's getting more and more strict. Um, we've seen a lot of these codes driven from we'll just California, other western states that that get really strict with these. And what we've seen is um like we'll just take a new residential house. So, if somebody submits a plan for a new residential house, they can either follow the energy code as it's written or they can provide something called a RESS check. And that is a program that's free online and it allows the homeowner or the contractor to use tradeoffs. So, if we'll just use if if you have to have the current code in in a wall is R30. And if you don't feel like you want to pay the money to have spray foam done in that house, that's really the only way to accomplish that without going to like a 2x8 wall. You can use resch check to say, I'm going to put in better windows and I'm going to lessen that R30 down to what we see most of the time is an R21. So, it's it's becoming a hang-up as far

as uh plan reviews go. So, what we're suggesting and what we've kind of followed suit with the city of Cheyenne is they've created their own table that um is we feel like is more applicable to Laramie and really the the main change is in that wall cavity. So, if you've seen the change in there, uh what we're suggesting is an R 21 in the walls, an R49 in the ceiling, which is already required. Um any windows has to be at a 030, which is code, and there's a few other changes in there for basement walls, for um crawl space walls. And the and the biggest reason for this is the 21 change is like I said when people are submitting res checks they end up putting in a 21 anyway. So that we feel like this change suits Larmy and it speeds up the process for plan review for contractors and homeowners to be able to get their permits quicker in our process.

Yes. Um through you chair. I just I'm just trying to understand I don't want to lose the flexibility of the res check. And so as I'm reading the text amendment that's provided in the staff report, it says for for new single family residences either this table or the current code adopted res check shall be accepted. So just explain that last part.

Sure. Sorry. And I could I should have clarified that. So chair through you. Um so they can use prescriptively they can follow the new table that we have or if they don't want to they can still use rescheck as an option. They still could use that that free um website to be able to to submit that. So if they don't want to comply with what's in the table, then they they submit what how do you I'm I'm just trying to understand the hangup that results from the from the res check process. What they provide you something that then you have to you don't have to second guess or re-evaluate. You can rely on resch check but you need what do you need to do?

Sure. Through you so sure. So the res check I'll just say um as that person goes in and and puts in all their information they're putting in the all all the R values. Additionally they're putting in window sizes. They're putting in door sizes. So there's a lot of extra information that we just need to double check where this table. Okay. They're they're basically saying we're going to use this for everything. Thank you.

Yeah. Any other questions? Okay. Uh the next section out of the energy code deals um with something called a blower door test. So this is an alternative method that people can use as as a way to um pass inspection for their um insulation values. It it is an additional cost. It's a third party that they pay for somebody to come in. Basically, what they do is they close all their doors, all their windows except for one, and then this machine that goes out one window for ventilation, they test how tight the house is. And what it said re before this was um it's required. What we're just saying is you may use it as an alternative method. We're just clarifying in the in the text that it is an alternative method to use in the future. Uh number six um is also out of the energy code. It's one that um was brought to our attention that um it it was a change that suggests that any future fireplaces that are installed cannot use a pilot light. So, every time you want to fire up your fireplace, you got to re you got to relight every single time. So, we feel like we've had pilot lights on fireplaces for years. We feel like this maybe is an extra step. Um, admittedly, I have not done the math on how much extra energy somebody's using with just a pilot light on, but we don't feel like it's enough to cause people. So, again, this is an if if you want to put one in

without a pilot light, that is your option, but we are not requiring it through our city code. Um number seven is additionally at the energy code. This one we are uh requesting to just remove al together. This one talks about um high efficacy lighting. So what this code currently states is that all new bulbs fixtures all have to be LED. and um we are basically choosing to give the homeowner or the builder the option to choose not to. So, we're removing this requirement to say that um if you choose to put in LEDs, you can, but it's not not every single one has to be. Um some people still choose to put in the older fixtures. They can't find them in in LEDs. So that's an option that people can choose. Uh number eight is along the same lines uh the same line. This this one specifically talks about uh the current code requires that all um switches or all lighting has to be controlled by either a dimmer switch or an automatic shut off. So, if somebody walks out of their living room, if you have an automatic shut off on there and the lights go out, you're saving energy. That's their thought process. Again, we're choosing to remove it and say that if you want to have just a regular switch in your house that doesn't cost an additional $7 to put in on every single one, that's your option. We feel like it's it should be up to the homeowner or the contractor to be able to put that in if they choose to.

Uh number nine is um a change that we feel like fits larie. Um, this encode requires on a before drywall is done, before insulation's done at our what we call a roughin inspection, the person if you have a walk-in shower, you would have to fill that shower base with water and then it has to hold that water for a period of 15 minutes. What we've seen and what our concern is, um, if we're in the middle of winter, a normal winter where it's actually cold, and they fill those up, then as you drain that water down through, now you have water, you have condensation in your line already, and that could freeze and break pipes. What we what we would like to do is remove it and you can just do an air test. That's still you still block you're still filling it with air that for that 15 minutes and it pressure checks all of those joints just like a water would just like water would. Uh number 10 um is also talking about the plumbing code. Um, so what this one talks about is saying that that all fixtures and fittings have to have to be smooth and impervious surface for water, for um any debris that gets in there, food, anything like that. It has to be smooth so so your clog your drain doesn't clog. Um, what we are seeing is people using what they're called corrugated pipes, flexible pipes, and those they can't be used if they're not a smooth surface on the inside. So, if you're using a flex pipe, more than likely you got ridges on the inside, you're trapping debris and we're getting

more clogs. So what we are suggesting is to to to not be allowed to use those um just to prevent any clogging or any problems with uh flooding or or clogging of drains. And lastly um this one is one that we have also seen as a holdup for plan review. So currently all um sleeping rooms, all well pretty much sleeping rooms uh require a fire or smoke alarm in each one of those for houses. Uh what we get currently is you get sleeping rooms, but then we get offices, we get dens, we get things that are could potentially be used as sleeping rooms. So what we're saying is if it's a room specifically with an egress window already installed in it, that we are just asking that those also have smoke alarms in them. That way we don't have somebody building those and then turning them into sleeping rooms. They're already prepped for it. You've already got your egress window. This just requires them to put in a smoke alarm in there as well. They're already wiring the house. They're literally just tying that into the system. That is the last of my codes. You if you guys have any other questions, I appreciate the the time. questions. Not a question, but uh how do I put this? I'm a caveter. You know what a caveter is?

Yeah. I like whining. Uh and uh a lot of our builders like whining and I hear a lot of whining about goddamn city, you know. And so I think this is a really useful exercise. I really appreciate you went through this and initially on the written comments you got what two comments from one person and then you held an open meeting and then you got the suggestion some of them were rejected but a lot of them you've accepted and I chose there's there's bend in the system there's flexibility in the system and I think this is really good stuff to see being done so I appreciate you doing this

yeah I'll just say that I was at the December meeting and I like this. It's shows some flexibility, but it's a good start. There's got to be more and find some more. Sharon, you had something?

Um, well, I I also was pleased to see the engagement. was just curious whether um the people who came to that December meeting um whether you whether initiative was taken to give them specific notice about the consideration a heads up about the consideration at the planning commission of these matters I mean it's not required but it is would have probably been appreciated was that something that was done chairs were you are are you specifically asking if We gave planning commission a heads up or are you talking about contractors?

Yeah, just a heads up to the contractors who had come to the meeting because they're not necessarily going to follow exactly when action is going to be taken on these. So that I was just curious. True. Yeah, we we did send out um the the one guy that did give us um the comment ahead of time. We did let him know. Um and then yeah, we've we've tried to be as open as we can with them about um the codes that were brought up in that meeting and the ones that we are bringing forward.

Uh just so you know, I was at the meeting and the biggest complaint seemed to be that nobody answering the phone and the computer was slow. So that's just like everything else.

Yeah. And I just I mean I thought for the 25 people I heard you say showed up at that meeting to give feedback. Um I think that's very valuable feedback and and I and they're probably interested in knowing which of the suggestions that were made um were accepted and a lot of them were um and which weren't. And so that's why I think this this meeting of the planning commission is probably of particular interest to those 25 people. True. You get to be here anyway. But don't know.

Did the document the the uh prepared document, the code update, city council work session, blah blah blah. Did that go out to the contractors? Did you send that out to them? Chair through you. I believe we did. I know we had reached out to um either either everyone that um proposed something in that meeting or ones that had come up to us afterwards and asked, you know, are you guys bringing this forward? I would have to double check um if if it went out to every single contractor like we did with the invite, but it went out to the folks who showed up. Correct. Okay, great.

Okay. Yeah. So, it sounds like we didn't send it to everyone, but we did the ones that that came. All right. Anything else, Jake? And I guess the chair will entertain a motion. Um, I'll move to recommend that the city council approve amendments to uh, Larie Municipal Code Title 15 for the purpose of updating, amending, adding, and deleting select sections of the ICC 2024 code within the city code as recommended by staff. A second.

Got a second. Uh, all those in favor I. Motion carries unanimously. Our next order of business we requires us to adjourn as a planning commission and reconvene as the board of adjustment. Anybody care to make that motion? I we I move we adjourn and uh and then reassemble without changing our places as uh the uh order of adjustment. Before we do that, do we have a second?

Second. Anybody want to take five? I want to go to the bathroom. Okay. So before we vote on this, why don't we take a temporary adjournment that is 541 and 546 we will reconvene as the border adjustment. Yes.

you. There looks like he's there. Uh we had a motion on the floor to uh adjourn and reconvene as the board of adjustment. All those in favor say I. I. I. Hi. We're now sitting as the board of adjustment. Are there any witnesses who wish to speak on this variance? Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth? Nothing but the truth. All right. Thank you very much. We will now commence. Uh, who's taking this one? Joe,

chair, commissioner. Um, this is a variance um for a setback uh within the neighbors of Laramie River mobile home community, formerly known as Le for those of us who have been here for a while. Um, located at 1664 Cedar Street. Um, kind of before we go through this, um, I do want to kind of preface this as we did bring this before you guys. It was not noticed at the beginning of the year. We did postpone this item because we needed a certified surveyor to submit uh to stamp the documents that were provided. We did get those eventually which you have in your packet now. Um but during that time we did get a request um to include the entire code section within um as a memo attached to this document. So you did have that attached to this. And just for complete clarity and everything like that, I do want to go through the specific section that we are talking about here um related to setbacks primarily because they are different than your normal um setback requirements um that you guys may normally see. So, if you'll um deal with me for a second, um on exhibit A page two, um it does say all manufactured homes and extensions thereof, accessory structures, and other buildings shall be set back 20 ft from the boundary of a manufactured home community, 40 ft from the edge of a public ride ofway, uh 10 ft from a private interior drive or walking or parking area or other common space, and 16 ft from any other manufactured home. I did want to make sure that that was clear to you guys from the very beginning that this is different than what you guys normally view um within zoning districts. This is use specific and we don't have very many of these in

code where we have a specific use that has different setbacks from anywhere. Um but with that kind of nailed down, I am going to go through um just kind of the background of the application. Um on December 9th, the city of Larame pling division received a variance application for the setback um violation for manufactured homes located within um the manufactured home community previously mentioned. Um during a inspection um for coing the the units that were there on the site or three units that were there on site um it was notice noted by planning staff as well as um the city building officials that um the units were not placed correctly. um meeting the required setbacks. Um um these setbacks were not the original setbacks that the owner would have seen with the previous units that were on site. Um the units that were on site previously were considered grandfathered in, as is the use on the site. Um and so um any new units that were brought in would have to meet the the setback requirements um because they would have lost the grandfathered status on there. Um now um as we're going through this, we do have to find findings of fact um for these variances. Um as some of you know already um in order to approve a variance all findings of fact do need to be um met uh and it is a um majority of the entire body which does not matter today because you all

are here. Um but the first finding that we do um review is whether or not there are any special circumstances or conditions fully described in the board's findings um that are partic peculiar to the land or building for which the adjustment is sought and do not apply generally to land or building in buildings in the neighborhood. Um the plan division concluded that there was no special circumstances or conditions existing regarding the land or building that would justify the reg regulatory relief. Um near neighbors of Laramie River is similar to other manufactured home parks um in the community in that spaces were originally laid out to accommodate trailers of the time period. Um, as we've moved through time, we have seen generally larger trailers brought into same-siz lots, which does kind of create um, some issues in these areas. With the increased size of manufactured homes throughout the industry, the community historical space configuration no longer meets the requirements um, of of the element MC section that we've previously gone over. Um while previous trailers were exempt due to being grandfathered into previous code, the removal and installation of the new structures um require compliance with current municipal co code including their setbacks. The second one is whether or not there are circumstances or conditions um where strict application of the provision of the code would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of such land or building. Um this is kind of what we call the takings clause right there. Is this considered a takings of some sort? Um what code was written um does not permit manufactured own communities to you to be used within the B1 zoning district. Um the property itself is grandfathered

in and the use itself is grandfathered in. Um it does not leave the property without any viable uses. uh nor does it prevent the owner from using the property in the same general level of use enjoyed by the property that's currently used there. Um uh as well as any other uh uses that are within the the B1 zoning district. Um this was also a question that we had previously whether or not the how long the B1 zoning district has been there. Um D1 zoning district has been there since at least 95. um it was not the original date that it was put in there, but it did ultimately change um throughout the time that it was owned and has been there for couple decades at this point. Um the third finding um finding C um is not particularly applicable to this case um at all um because there's no solar or wind units being requested on this site. Um generally you guys do not review that one um and so it would not um be counted against them. Um D the grad the granting of the adjustment is necessary for reasonable use thereof and the adjustment as granted is the minimum adjustment that will accomplish the purpose. Um I will say there's a slight change in this because I did have to go out to the site um after this was written and and look at it. um on the surveying there are boxes on on each site. Those are not the units themselves. Those are the parking pads. Um and so that kind of messed me up when I was reviewing the actual units. Um you know, if we were looking at specifically the ones that were in violation, 74, 77, and 79, um 74 is about 20, maybe

probably a little bit more on its current setback. 77 is about 12 and a half um from the from the property line and 79 is about 14. I'm saying about because I'm not a surveyor and I'm going from the property line. Um however um kind of looking at this um the I think generally speaking with the size of the unit and everything this would be the minimum amount that would be required judging by the fact that 10 ft do does need to be set back off of the private interior drive. Um the other side you know set back would be the minimum that they would need in order to get this passed through. Um if applicable the circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application the provision of code would deprive the applicant of access to alternative Oh sorry already did that one. Um moving on to the next page. The granting of 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. I will say that this has been here at least since the early 80s, this unit. So, if we're talking about being injurious to the to the neighborhood around it, we would probably say that it's not. However, um I think it's fairly clear with the change of zoning on the site that it was desired by your predecessors as well as city council um that this use was not allowed within that that area. Um it's not what we're going over today. We're just going over whether or not the variance is applicable. Um that could potentially be a conversation for some

other time. Um but really the variance is not considered um continuous with or consistent with the general purpose of code. Um we do allow things to be grandfathered in and we do allow some leniency. um as far as you know setbacks either through minor administrative modifications um are those things. This kind of does go beyond our general um way that we have applied code in the past um to to these sorts of sites. Finally, the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which his property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair appropriate use or development of adjacent properties. Like I said, this has been here for decades um at this point. And um very likely would not um alter or hurt anything in the general area. However, um I think that people do have the general assumption that things will slowly at the very least come into conformance, which this is not. Um this is moving farther away from conformance. Um I do want to point out that while I have mentioned 74 um sites 74,77 and 789, the applicant did request full variance of this provision of code for everything along the southern boundary. Um there is some concerns that planning commission or city the planning division um has about this especially considering that um the south the further furthest most southeast portion of the property does act as a little bit of an island being surrounded on the north the west and the south sides completely by um

public rideway. way. Um, historically speaking, um, we're we're seeing a lot of this with our manufactured home parks. They're pretty dated in the way that they're they're laid out. Um, with newer manufactured home parks, you do see primarily internal drive drives with no units accessing public streets. Um and as the code is written, I think that that is uh the desire of this code is to see things move closer to that. Um they do have those just on the other side with that. Um legal notice was published in the Larmy Boomerang on March 7th, 2026, and letters were sent out to surrounding property owners within 300 ft of the subject property. Um, prior to uh, writing the staff report, planning division received a few inquiries, two or three inquiries um, but no comments were received. Again, we do ask that people submit written comments to us so that we can appropriately um, convey them to you guys if if they do feel so inclined. Um with that um the uh the planning division does recommend that the uh planning commission move to deny the request for the variance um from Laru Municipal Code 1514140A.6. Um and we do have the representative the of the applicant here, Mr. Vanfleet. um as well as potentially some people online um who do work for TCC. Um and I also stand for questions.

Well, I' I've got a few on this one. Let's go to point A. Special circumstances or conditions. I think in my humble opinion, there is a special circumstance in the fact that uh when this was built, it complied with zoning and zoning changed and probably the owner just was too lazy or whatever to do anything. We now have an owner who's willing to improve a dilapidated property and but he's faced with the 40-foot setback rule. The special circumstance in my opinion is as 40% back from the ride ofway, but the ride ofway includes an 80 foot landscaped area between his property and the road. To me, that makes it a special circumstance. I think that he is forced to either reduce the size of the units he can put in there or not use the property, plant grass on it or something. I mean, so he's done this with three that are not in compliance with current code conditions. So I think that's a special circumstance, the fact that it's 40 ft uh from the rideway, but there's an 80ft landscape area and I think some consideration ought to be made on that. Our second point is uh staff has determined that strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or building. If you can't put a mobile home park on a on a piece of dirt in a mobile home park, I think that is denying him reasonable use of the property. I mean,

should he just subdiv redo this and start building town homes or, you know, it is more than reasonable that he put mobile homes in a mobile home park and that I can't see any other thing that can go in there. I I lived through the through the Bronx. Yeah. If I could jump in real quick before before uh commission comments, I would encourage you to offer the applicant a chance to to voice his concerns and and give a little background on the variance as well. Okay with the commission. Yeah.

I uh Joe, there's a statement in Mr. and fleets latter. Strict enforcement will eliminate homes for approximately 25 families, Larmy families, and discourage the applicant to make improvements and increased affordable housing in the area. Uh, is that statement accurate? Because I thought the setback requirement applies only to the three new manufactured homes on lots 74, 77, and 79. And I assumed the other 22 homes are grandfathered.

Chair through you. Uh yes. Anything that is currently set on the sites are grandfathered in. We're not requiring them to be removed. Um it's the new ones that are coming in that we do hold to to current standards. Um yes. So it only impacts three of the units which are currently not being used. So it doesn't impact the other 22. It Yes. And any others that are coming in in the future. Could I ask one other question? This area is right by the Laram River. Does this area flood?

Uh I don't know. Like it was not something that we've seen his like I have not seen that specifically and I'm the one that's in these mobile home communities the most. Um, I'll just say the blank banks over there are pretty high compared to the river itself. Okay. Okay. So, there's a levy of some kind. It It appears that way. Yeah. Okay. I would have just This should be on the flood plane, but the levey probably prevents flooding. My asking me I can certainly look that up, but I do not believe that this is within this flood plane. No.

Okay. Chris, you had uh your hand up. Yeah, chair. Um, in the letter from the, uh, attorney Brown and Heisler, they they state specifically what the variance they're requesting is. And there's there's two requests. One is that all trailers located on the southern boundary of the park uh get a variance and also that there's a dimensional variance for lots on the southern border of the park with respect to the um uh I I I think the the distance from the property line. Um you know there there's really no comment about lots 74, 77, and 79. They're they're asking for an all-inclusive on the southern boundary exclusion for any of these setbacks uh right ofway or property line um on that whole whole boundary which is which is quite extensive. I mean there's then then are there any and this is maybe something that the applicant can can address. Um, but would there be then if if if we approved these dimensional variances, then there would be they could they could they could put the houses, you know, 10 ft or 5t from the property line. there wouldn't be any any uh standard setback standard when if we gave them that dimensional um var uh uh variance and you know there all that's required is to put a trailer back on a lot that fits the setbacks and and I think the primary

one being 20 ft from the property line and it's not stopping them from putting a trailer on on that lot. It just can't be a humong a much larger trailer that that won't fit on these small lots uh with the existing setback. So, I just wanted to make sure if we had clarity with what the variance we are considering actually is. Is it slots 74, 77, and 79 or the whole or these these dimensional var variances across the whole southern boundary? share through you. Um, as the applicant did uh write in theirs, they are requesting the entire southern boundary. From my interpretation, I am mentioning these three because they were the onus of the initial variance, the kind of tipping point that did bring this before us. Um, can certainly ask the applicant himself what um what he would like specifically and if that's changed at all. Um but but yeah, and to the other point that um um Commissioner Moody was was making a like for like change of of units, something that is the exact same size, the exact same dimensions, does continue the grandfathering clause. So if it is the exact same dimensions which arguably is very difficult with the current manufacturing standards then we we no longer come to this issue of of setbacks or anything like that. So we again we come back to the reasonable use problem. If you can't get a trailer the same size as is being replaced, that's an unreasonable request, isn't it? I mean, unless he

wants to you want the somebody to build custom trailers to old sizes, you know. So, to me, that doesn't seem reasonable. Sure. I'm going to take that as a question.

Yeah. Um, I think I think that there would be some adjustments that need to be made. Correct. Either a change in size of the trailers themselves, repositioning of the trailers, maybe the lots themselves would need to be um enlarged, maybe the trailers would have to be placed at a bias, an angle. Um, disagree with you that it is taking away a use, but that is your prerogative to to make that decision. Would we we'd like to hear from the applicant? Set the consent to the commission. The applicant, would you state your name for the record?

My name is Jeff Van Fleet and I represent uh Neighbors of Laramie, also known as TCC Management. Um I'm an attorney at Brownenheiser here locally. Um, I've been in front of city council and various commissions for uh a number of things over the years and uh I think it's important that you look at this issue. I think if we all used common sense, we could just say this makes sense. In 1981, Lee's trailer park added u 13 spaces to the to their lot to their current layout. And back then the council said the people who were on this council then said it makes sense to have a trailer park here. It's the best use for that particular piece of property. And they allowed lease to add 13 more lots. Now how long has leed been there prior to that? I I don't know. Right. I've dug through the u various notes for the um the planning commission. Um, I'm in the 70s right now and I've yet to find where it was added to the city. Uh, maybe I'll get back to the 60s and I can find the exact date. Uh, the point being is it's been there a long time. A lot of the trailers that are in there right now were put in there back in the 60s and 70s and early 80s. They're not a place that we want to have people living in. Right. And I can tell you working with the state and trying to get a trailer removed is um like an act of God. Um it takes 11 to 13 months for me to get a title on a trailer that someone's abandoned. What happens in these trailers is because they're unckempt by a lot of

people. Somebody leaves, somebody else just moves in. We don't, you know, my client doesn't get paid rent. We go to do an eviction and we find out the person who lived there died, right? Somebody else moved in. Why? Not because they're criminals. They needed a place to live, right? And somebody said there's a place to live. And my clients are doing their best to improve this area. And so what they've done is they've tried to bring in new houses, right? Because we all deserve to have decent place to live. Mobile homes are an affordable lowincome housing. If I build a house, I only have to be 15 25 ft off the road, right? If I own a mobile home, I have to be 65 ft off the road. Okay? So, it almost doesn't seem fair. If you look at the layout of the high the road going through there, the road is 80 80 feet wide, right? And I'm talking all the way from where the asphalt just starts to trickle into the dirt from one side to the other, it's 80 ft. Okay? South of Curtis, there's another 40T until you get to the fence line. Okay? North of Curtis from where the asphalt starts to end to the fence is 80 feet. You called the chair the landscape area. And if you look and if you've been down that road, you know there's a line of trees that are there, bushes. They're exactly 40 feet. Almost as if somebody before us said, "Hey, we need to have a

40 foot strip of buffer of barrier of setback." And so they put that in there. There's a 40ft strip that runs all the way along the south side of the fence. Now, the UDC, which is, as was stated earlier, is an international code. wasn't built for Laramie or Wyoming or anybody here. The UD UDC says setbacks go from the edge of the property line. Right? What our code what our ordinance says is from the rightway. Now, I'm an attorney and so I thought rightway meant road, right? because our statute defines it as a road, but the UD UDC defines it as the edge of a property line to the next edge of the property line. So, there's a 200 ft strip which tapers down to 150 ft on the east side that is set aside for the rideway. And it doesn't make sense, right? Um, I would love for us just bill to sit here and say, "Let's apply common sense. It's been there for 50, 60 years, and what we're trying to do now is to give people upgraded, better housing." Well, I would think we'd want to encourage that, right? I have grown kids who have looked for housing and it's a difficult challenge, but we have, of course, our law that we have to follow, and I respect our law. And so there's a few things that we have to look at. The great thing about the UDC is that it is a national and international code, right? And so we don't have to figure out just what's happened here in Laramie. We can look everywhere. And so the first thing that we're required to do under Wyoming statute 151608 is we have to look at the mandatory

requirements to that must be met to grant a variance. The first one being spec special circumstances or conditions exist that are peculiar to the specific property and do not generally apply to the neighboring properties. Okay, we don't have to create this. It already exists. There's a court in the Rochester City Council versus Rochester Zoning Board granted a variance because the law at issue was irregular and uniquely shaped. It contained a naturally existing water feature and they had challenging challenging topographical features due to the proximity of the existing natural water feature. Uh the these these unique physical characteristics satisfied the requirement that hardship arise from conditions affecting the specific property rather than the district generally. Like the Rochester case, our land is irregular in shaped. It's very uniquely shaped. It contains a natural existing water feature. Ours being the river. Then we've got those tall walls. It is on the very west side where we have no nothing out there. Uh there's a flood zone that kind of just lips on the very edge. And as a result, nothing's out there. And then the topographical features being that as you heard earlier today in the planning commission talking about environmental issues um there's nothing happening on that land to concern let's say the environment but if I bring in a developer and put it in apartment complex and then I've got this impervious surface everywhere for sidewalks and access and everything like that we all of a sudden have a real issue out there right do We want all that happening next to the river. We already have residences and homes for

people that have been there for decades. And and further, and this is really important, we didn't ask for it to be B1, right? You heard uh the city say that it was 1995, but we know at the very um latest the park existed in 1981, right? There's no nothing on the record to show that the owners asked for a change. And if you look at what B1 is used for, according to our ordinance, B1, the B1 district is intended for retail and office uses uses. The district includes retail centers that provide shopping service to the surrounding neighborhoods and community. Look at that area map and tell me where the surrounding community is. There's nothing around there except for one auto storage wreck shot uh diagonal from the park. There's no reason that it should be one and that's B1. And that's that is not the fault of my client that the city chose to do that in 1995. I think today 30 years later we can all look back and say it's not a B1 area. Nobody's ever built residences out there. there's nothing out there to support that use. And as the chair said, there's an 80 foot landscaped area. The second factor we have to look at is the strict application of zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property and the variance is the minimum adjustment necessary. This land has been used for a trailer park for 50 years. The infrastructure in that park is for a trailer park. When you remove a trailer, you now have an empty lot. I can't build a a house there, right? I can't do

anything with it until all of those lots on the one through 14 on the on the west side and then 70 through 87 on the east side until all those people leave. Right. Some of them have been there since the 70s and 80s. It seems unfair to just slowly wait them out or force them out of a house they've had for decades because we're worried about a setback period, a setback distance for a road that's 80 ft away. The most reasonable use for the property is a mobile home park based on the historical use and the internal infrastructure. We cannot practically turn it into anything else. And there was discussion about the three trailers that have been placed and that brought this whole uh issue to before the council. Yes, it was three. But we don't want anybody living in a 70y old or 60 year old trailer. Right. So that's why we have asked for the 70 through 87 which is the lots on the the west side and then 1 through 14 which is the lots on the east side there along Curtis because we want to give everybody decent housing. Right? If you've been out there some of those shacks and sheds people have put up over the years they're rough. Right? I I wouldn't have my kid in there. Right? And neither would the owners. That's why they want to get new housing in there, new skirting. make it look good. If you look at the ones they've put in there, they look really nice. I think we all know we need affordable housing here, and I would hope that the the planning uh the commission would want to uh open up affordable housing and not take away

the housing we have because if we don't get the variance, what happens to these trailers as they fall apart? I then spend a year trying to get a title for them so that we can take them down to the dump because I have to have a title to take them to the dump or to the recycling place, right? And then we don't replace them because they don't make a shorter trailer, right? Um those are called RVs and I, you know, this isn't an RV park and I don't want anybody living in an RV long time, right? I want them living in a home. I grew up in a mobile home. I think I turned out okay. My wife might disagree, but you know, I think I'm okay. Um, so we don't want to decrease affordable housing and we don't want to also leave a dilapitated area because we're not going to force those people out, right? So, we're going to wait for the decades that it takes and then it's going to be unsightly. We would rather put in new places and then give people opportunities to move into new places so we can get the old places out, right? That seems like the right thing to do. The third factor is granting the variance harmonizes with the zoning ordinance purpose. It will not harm the neighborhood or public ware welfare. I think you heard the city say basically that um granting the variance is not going to harm the area. We have plenty of room between the uh mobile home park and the road for landscaping or a road to be widened. Uh the artiller road can only be 100 ft according to city ordinance. They only need another 20 ft. That's 10 ft on each side. We still got 70 ft on our side and 30 on the other. So I'm not sure why it's an issue. Um and in Mobile Oil Corporation versus City of Clearwater, the judge there

granted a variance where all the pro all the property and structures were in place and it was the city that made the change to the zoning requirements which caused it to be non-conforming. This wasn't an issue for decades. It's only become an issue because my client tried to improve the park and try to give people better places to live. So, we would ask for a a broad variance, and it's not something we're looking to abuse, but it makes sense to give people better homes. So, we are asking for a variance both for the 40ft setback from the rightway and for the 20ft setback from the boundary of the park. And now, that would be the 40ft setback would be for lots 1 through 14 and 70 through 87. Um the 20 foot setback is more narrowly uh requested for lots 70 through 80. Um and that is just the ones all the way um on the west side. Okay. Uh and uh chair council if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them.

Any questions for the applicant Donald? Uh, I probably shouldn't ask this question, but uh, and therefore I will go ahead. Uh, so Laram River LLC is affiliated in your letter, you said it's affiliated with TCC's management, but I think you said that TCC Management owns Neighbors of Army River. Is that is that correct? because I tried to look up the company and I I had trouble finding information on the company. Um, this a private equity firm.

I don't know if it's a private equity firm. Um, I I just know that they're a private company that owns mobile home parks. I know they're connected with I think it's called Christian Church like communities and so they're tried to provide um affordable housing for folks uh around the country. So, this isn't their only project that they have.

Yeah. If I could just push back a little bit on the affordable housing stuff, you're probably aware we have other companies, not this company, have come into town and uh these mobile homes have been a target for private equity. And because of the nature of the relationship between the tenants and the company, there's a a lot of power in equity between the company and the tenants. And what we've seen in these other companies, not this company, because I couldn't find any information on it, is uh they've cranked up rates a lot because the private equity companies and their priority is profitability. So, uh, yes, it does house people and we do need affordable housing here, but there is, at least in my mind, a question mark over whether these companies that are owned by some of the private equity companies are truly providing affordable housing because they've got a captive market and they can evict people if they don't make a payment. If if I may, I I hate to cut you off, Commissioner, but I think we need to stick to the findings of fact rather than who the owner of the property is. I don't think that is germanine to the findings of fact. And I would just put that forward at this.

I'll just make it a point of order. Uh so let me let me ask uh a question that is germanine. Are mobile homes RVs on made to the that were made in the 1970s and60s and so on. Are they still being made?

No. So, there was a and I'm going I'm going to get the year wrong, but there was a uh law that was passed somewhere I think in around 85 or '95 that changed the way mo um mobile homes were made. And so, they actually call the old uh homes mobile homes and the new homes are called manufactured homes, right? And I don't I can't remember the exact year, sir, so I apologize, but um there's a the new homes are made substantially better than the old homes. I was just in one recently with a client and um by the time she was done giving me a tour, I thought, "Boy, this is tighter than my house." That's a stick belt, right? And it looked a heck of a lot better than mine did, too. Um so I was really impressed with the quality. So they're definite quality, sir. Um, I just don't can't tell you. You know, I know they have requirements like a building code when they build them that changed at some point in the past. So, they are well built. Now, the old ones are, I got to tell you, when I go into these homes, they're rough, right? And a lot of people have lived in them. And so, we'd like to get them some new homes in these places to live in. So, the only way that this could continue to operate as an RV park is if you bring in these larger manufactured homes. That's the only way it can continue to operate as a uh a mobile home park. Is that correct?

As a as a mobile home park, sir. Yeah. They don't they don't make the the 20 24-footers that once were, you know, made in the 50s and and and and otherwise. The homes that are made today are a little longer and uh um I think you heard on different lots this uh city state that was 12 and 14 and 20 foot were the change in distance that they saw. So that being an average of about I don't know 15 ft. So they are longer. Okay. But we're still going to be 80 feet plus from the road. Okay. You've answered my question. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am.

Honorable chair, if I may. I mean, just a brief search shows that they are that there are mobile home manufacturers that include options that are 24 ft long still. So, I mean, it's hard for me to imagine that they're not still making this in this day and age where anything you can think of is being manufactured. So, I think there is still an option for the applicant to bring like forlike mobile homes in. So, and if I could respond um 24 foot is 200 square ft. Um, most of you live in a house where your u primary bedroom or your kitchen or your living room is 200 square feet, right? Um, we're trying to give people quality living and that's why we're not putting them in campers.

Go ahead. I just um similar to the same vein that Philip was on did also just looked into maybe tiny homes and I was just curious if tiny homes were allowed in that mobile park and I I know that you said that that's really small but there's a lot of folks that prefer to live in small spaces and if they would fit a tiny home they could fit in that same space. Why isn't that considered or is it considered? I'm just curious. So, the mobile home park uh ma'am is only going to allow mobile homes pursuant to the code. Uh I can tell you personally, I represent various developers and every time we've tried to do a tiny home development, it's been shot down before we get to you because it doesn't meet the requirements and um it's so expensive to do a development right now that making a tiny home doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Um, and I have worked with a number of developers and I've taken tours of the tiny home factories. There's several of them in Colorado. Some of them we even talked about bringing up a factory up here to to make them. It is difficult to do. It's $225 a square foot to build a tiny home. Um, and it's about $140 to buy a stick built home and, you know, approximately 200 or less to do uh a stick built home according to different builders. And so by the time you get the land in and you do all the infrastructure, we haven't been able to make the numbers work. And so I don't think that you're allowed to have it here based on the code because it's for a mobile home park. And so mobile homes are specifically defined. And so I would love to have a tiny home park someplace, but I think we'd have to do a whole new the whole thing would have to be um replatted. What would be my guess? just have to change it from a B1 to a RM2 or an R3.

Yeah, it's to do that. You couldn't you couldn't do it in a B1. There's the problem is one of the problems is with this property is

the B1 was dropped on it like a bomb. So, it wasn't supposed to be a B1 zoning, but it is a B1 zoning, but the applicant has not asked for a zoning change as part of this operation. So, you're kind of limited if it's it's going to be a mobile home or it's not going to or it's going to be a Circle K. And there's not a lot of choice there unless you change the zoning. So, you cannot have a smaller mobile home that fits the dimensions as indicated on the survey. Even though they are being manufactured, you cannot have those. Is that correct?

Uh, ma'am, I'd have to double check with my client, but it's my understanding that those are difficult to find and, you know, not probably like the same problem we've had with the tiny homes is they're cost prohibitive, right? Um, as far as it takes more to build a tiny home it does to do a regular home, right? Not that you can't do it, it's just that it's cost prohibitive to do it.

Well, I I don't think it would make sense to the the people that want to live there, right? if they're not going to spend $300,000 on a tiny home inside of a mobile home park when they could go to and buy a regular stick belt home with a, you know, regular size yard and everything for $300,000. Anybody else? Uh Joe, you had a chair if you'd like me to answer that that question or directly. So, um, within RV parks, we're allowed two things. We're allowed HUD buildings and RV approved buildings. Um, now you can have a certain amount of RVs within a spot. Um, but what we're seeing or have seen is that there are some RV tiny homes so that they can still be moved and everything like that. Part of the problem that we see with some of the tiny homes is that they do have to meet some standard whether or not it's um IRC, IBC, um HUD or RV. Um and so, you know, I think if we're thinking about like kind of the homesteading movement, tiny house thing, it makes it a little bit hard because it would have to come up to IRC standards, international residential code standards. Um, and once you start moving it around, it's very hard to track. And so it puts our building department in a very tough position. It's the same thing that we see with like some of the modifications being done to the manufactured homes themselves. um once you start messing around with the interior um you you do the it's no longer to that HUD standard that it was previously approved to to be at. And so

it's a somewhat complicated answer. The answer is not unequivocally no because if it is an RV standard um tiny house then yes. Sure. Yeah. So I I just have a couple of questions about the the criteria that we have to look at and and what you've offered us um as I guess essentially conclusions of law because if we're going to find we're going to make a decision that's different than what the staff report recommends then we need to have those alternative findings that and so I have to related to the special circumstances I I understand and I appreciate your argument about and this is the same one that that you made um Tom about still having that significant space. Um I think what's what I wanted to ask you was you said that um if I'm if I heard am I remembering correctly. So, your client didn't ask for B1 because the client your client bought it after B1 was imposed on on this part on this property. Um, but your client knew it was B1, right?

Yes, ma'am. But, um, I think that there is case law that states that we don't look to uh, let me find it exactly so I can tell you. Can't find that case right now. But um there's case law out there what basically states that we look to the use of the land and where the use of the land is significantly different than the zoning um we're going to lead towards the use of the land. Um, in this particular case, the land has been used in the same way for 50 years. There's been no enforcement by uh the city until recently to do anything. And in those cases, the um courts have found that you can let me find that case allow the variance based on the historical use. Well, I think what is troubling me is that um B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B One has been in place for a

while and and we have we have the grandfathering provision to not impose in equity on the person who owned the property and B1 was dropped down on top of them, but but it becomes B1 and then your client comes in and buys it knowing that it's B1. And so knowing or at least and they invested to their credit and understanding the law that applies knowing that there's a that there there's a benefit from the grandfathering for something as it exists. But if a change is desired, then that's when the the current requirements um that they were aware of when they bought it or at least should have been aware of um apply. And so that that's the trouble I'm having. And I think and I I was also bothered by the fact that at least I think it was three units were put in um without having come to get the variance and it was only discovered because of the um enforcement. So, so that's why I'm having trouble buying and adopting the reasoning that you have that special circumstances exist because there are a couple circumstances that for me tip the other way. So,

in terms of the equities,

so ma'am, when they bought the property, they were informed that it was grandfathered in as a mobile home park, right? And they're continuing to use it as a mobile home park. The idea that each unit in the mobile home park is not expressly stated in the ordinance. Well, I I disagree with you on that because I think that the variance that you came in and asked for applies to specific lots and the grandfathering was for the structures as they existed on the lot. So, the grandfathering is not for the use, it's for the structures that exist. And so you're asking for a setback from what would be triggered when there's a change proposed to the specific structures.

So ma'am, as you stated, they brought in the trailers, the new trailers. They spent several thousand dollar improving the lot where the trailer goes, making sure the connections were up to date. And when it comes time to have those connections connected, we call the city. the city comes out and that's when it was pointed out, hey, we don't think it meets the setback requirement. Up until that moment, ma'am, my client believed that the grandfathering was for the park because there's nothing in the ordinance that says a trailer park unit is grandfathered. We believed under the our reading of the law that it was for the park. And I think that's reasonable to believe when you buy something, if it's grandfathered in, that it's for the property you purchased.

Right. Right. I So I now I understand the argument um that you're making, but every other time we've had to apply variances. That's that's not the way a variance from specific requirements. If you're going to evaluate whether you should grant this is trouble I'm having. I'm being honest with you. you're going to evaluate whether a variance is legal, can be legally issued um specifically for a setback requirement, then you've got to look at the individual structures or in this case the individual mobile homes. It's not a variance for the whole property. That's why I'm having trouble adopting I do understand your argument now the the sense that the whole use was grandfathered in. the structures were grandfathered in

and we're asking just for the southern border is what we're asking for. I know there was three units specifically identified. Um but we're trying to not waste the board and everyone's time by coming in for each and every unit. Um it seems like that's going to be a delay for a lot of h a lot of families to get into housing. Um Okay. Okay. That's really the the reason. Um Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

You have your hand up. Uh yeah uh chair um Sharon thanks for for that that clarification. Um Philillip and maybe you can answer this question. What is the value? Why is there a 20 20 foot setback? I mean the the the issue here is just that we got non-con we got problems with the setbacks. The the right of way is seems excessive and it it doesn't it doesn't bother me to give a variance on that right-of-way setback. But is there a real safety reason for 20 feet off of the property of the line? Property line is something very discreet that we know of. And if 20 feet is what should be that a structure needs to be offset 20 ft, then that's what mobile home parks in Laram are setbacks are. I know we we would we would have to give this park a completely different um you know free pass that they're not susceptible to that 20 feet setback. So is there some flexibility in that in in that 20 foot setback Philip or Joe I'm sorry

Derek or you um so the 20 foot setback is from just the property line not the right ride right ofway line any property lines that are on rightways. Um, the reason why there's 20% or 20 ft and 40 ft is directly related to the use, the intensity of use and buffer space that we want to have from there. Um, I don't know specifically of any It doesn't seem like we have any problems on this property

and and and uh, Commissioner Moody, I I'll just also say that, you know, on newer manufactured home lots, that space is used for things like landscaping, a required fence, those sorts of things that this property does not have. Um, and so, yes, we do require it. Um, yes, the roadway is significantly farther because it is Y DOT's right ofway, an area where whether or not it's built out right now could be built on at any not any point. There's a process that goes in through that, but could be built on at any point. We build to what potentially could be there as well. We don't want to remove any rights from people who are building. Um but yeah, so to answer your question, whereas like the setbacks between buildings are a fire safety issue, this one is a buffer um specifically to my knowledge.

Well, I I can drive 8 minutes from here and find three mobile home parks that are barely 20 ft, if at all. Breezels on Ninth Street, the old one on Fourth Street. I could think of uh one down south. I mean, we're looking at numerous mobile home parks or one on the west side that we denied the new uh the variance on last year cuz it was way too big a trailer for the lot. But there are an awful lot of mobile home parks in this town and have a lot less than 20 feet from the property line. And so we're looking at we're we're not we're not changing the universe by reducing the 20 foot setback on the property line cuz it's a common it was a common practice and was more than common when this park was built. So that's and chair that's not a question but can I respond to that?

Sure. Um, so you are right. The standards have changed since a lot of these were formed. Like I said, you know, the the layout of a lot of these parks are not even within the how normal parks are built today at all. Most of them are not supposed to um in this community or others supposed to access a public street by each unit. Um, if the concern specifically is that we want to make it easier for for mobile homes to be placed on pre-existing use communities, that's not this process. That's a text amendment. And how do we go about that? Um, I think that our department is realizing that this is becoming increasingly an issue for these parks and will be requesting that um, city council this in either a work session or or otherwise, but eventually if it does if this does lead to text amendments, it will come before this body again for review. Um, so yes, you are right. This is a problem. It's going to become an increasing problem as these units become older and older and they wish to change them. And yes, the the park itself or the units themselves do meet a certain need of housing within the community, but all of those issues are not part of the variance process. I just had one other standard criteria that I wanted to give the applicant a chance to address and it was the second one about reasonable use deprivation of reasonable use. Um, so I'm

I guess what I'm wondering is is so I think what I heard you say is that it's going to be difficult to put the same number of trailers. I first of all I should say I really I do appreciate um the effort that's being made to upgrade the quality of the mobile homes that is being provided. I don't I don't disagree with that at all. Um but what I'm trying to understand is in evaluating reasonable use we are looking at reasonable use of the property. So, it's not it's not necessarily can you still put on the same number of lots that meet the setbacks, but do is there still enough lots to make it a reasonable use? And and in this case, a reasonable use is a as a mobile home park. So, so how would you respond to that? Because I think the argument why there is there is not a denial of reasonable use. There is reasonable uses because you still you still could put in some lots. It's just that the setbacks restrict the number of lots that would accommodate these larger trailers.

Yes, ma'am. Um so part of there's two answers to that. One is attrition. When you have people that move out in a trailer park, I do everything I can to ask them to take their trailer with them um or or give us a title or something. U they don't. Okay.

They leave it and then it's a wreck and then we deal with that. And so when we do get it out now, we have an empty space, right? But we might have an empty space at three and then one at seven and then it might be another 5 years till whatever bolt pulls in the middle. And so it's just kind of a loss of of of of use really. And if we have less units then in order for my client to cover their operating costs, then it goes up for people. So we maximize as many units as we can in there and it keeps the cost lower. I think we're lower than the other parks and um we try. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Yeah. Yeah. Chair, well, one last thing. So, the the the three trailers that are that are on there um that aren't compliant for setback Are they at the optimum location or there there is no way to fit those on there and and meet the setbacks? Are they just mislocated? Is there some way to move them around? You know what? To what degree? There absolutely is no way for the those three to fit on that lot and and fulfill let's say the the 20 foot property uh setback.

And sir, I believe that that is true. They are set as close to the road as they can be. they need to be 10 ft back from the road and then you know they stretch back the distance of of the trailer. Um they've all been sitting there um for months and so we've been trying to locate other spots in this park or other parks that we can relocate them to. But on more than one there's a family waiting to move in and has been waiting so for 6 months or so. We've tried to accommodate them otherwise but um they're just sitting there. they're as close to the road as they can be u the interior road because there's a limit there as well. Um and then whatever the setback is on the back as you heard the city state you know approximately 15 ft between those three um that's where they're at.

Thank you. Yes sir. chair or council any further questions to I ask one question and you can rule this out of order if you want. Uh is the plan to introduce throughout this mobile home park to replace all of the units that are currently there, some of which I've seen and look pretty dilapidated with these larger manufactured homes. Is that the long-term goal,

sir? Uh, we would like to replace all the ones that are in poor shape. Some of them are 10 or 15 years old and are decent shape. And then there's also people who own their trailer. And so we have no control over what they do with their trailer. Um, so those that have lived there for a while and own their trailer, we're not rushing them out. And so as long as they're there, it will be there. and um you know if their kids move in or something like that then obviously that may extend the time but for all the lots that we have the ability to take out the old dilapitated trailers we're trying to get new trailers in there clean up the lots and gives people a place to live that'll be proud of you

thank you sir thank you chair council judge Yes. Jake public health. Uh, is Eric, do you want to got anything to say? Is there anybody online? Representatives of the mobile home. Well, they're the public, they can speak if they like. Yep. Feel free if you're online and wish to speak. They'd have to raise their hand to let me know they want to make comment. They probably have to unmute and then raise their hand.

Yeah, it's my understanding that they just wanted to hear the discussion. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir.

All right. Hearing none, no public comment. Any discussion on the commission? I just want to flag that I think that if I I'm worried that if we do choose if we want to approve the variance. I'm I'm not sure there's an accurate record to justify that. And my biggest concern is I and and maybe the staff uh can address this, but we got the cover letter from the applicant. So there may have been more detail that's in the record. Um but it's not before us in terms of the ex I never saw in writing. I heard the applicant describe the exact variance that's being requested, but I I didn't see it specified in either the applicant's cover letter or um the staff report in terms of um the exact varants were granted except for the language. We're looking for it to apply to the whole southern border. Um so um even if we were even if we were to believe that all the criteria are met, we we have to be able to justify and list that and and I'm I'm uncomfortable with the lack of specificity about the nature of the variance and the scope of the variance that we would be grant granting. I I do I I plan to vote to deny, but I do want to flag that.

Anybody else?

Yeah. Uh, chair, I I agree with Sharon um completely that it is is not defined and halfbaked as to what the variance would actually be um consist of. Uh so um I I think this is a a difficult situation and maybe it can be dealt with and as a text amendment to get mobile home uh standards um uh defined, but I I just I think this is pretty halfbaked as presented. And I I will I will vote to deny as well. My concern is while we're not supposed to consider financial conditions, uh what happens if the owner figures he can't make any money on this property at all, files chapter 11 on this project, and walks away and we turn into fire traps, you know, which if with the current condition and with this is record, nobody else is going to buy it. It's a pig and a poke. And I Well, to be honest, I was born in 1950 and lived on a 180th Street in Arthur Avenue in the Bronx until I was 18. The Bronx burned because people could no longer make money off of their properties and they filed bankruptcy and walked away. and New York City lost a court. Well, the Bronx lost a quarter of a million residences. This is a road that I have seen before. And so, if you get a property owner to the point where he can no longer make money on his property, he's going to walk away. I walked away from an 8-unit project in Albuquerque because the only

other option would be to go section 8 and I refused to do that. So I walked away from it and let the uh previous owner take it back. It's a fact of life that happens. You know, I have driven the property and besides the southern boundary, you go to the northern boundary and there are three abandoned trailers up there and a couple of empty lots. I mean, then the 20 foot setback from the property line would affect those in the back. So, to me, it's pretty specific why he wants to do what he wants. I think it could have been prepared better, but I'm going to have to speak in favor of approving the variance because I just think there's too many things that can go wrong with this property if we don't improve it. and we've got a developer, an owner willing to spend the money to do it. It's not going to be cheap. This process here is probably cost them a pretty penny. So, with that, I'll leave it alone. Anybody else? Jenna,

what is my understanding there's a final paragraph on page three um of the staff and it references sites 7477 has not and then it asks for it is not at least the staff report has focused on those sites and variance for those sites which is different than what the letter says. So I guess some reconciliation there well just so that I understand what staff intended now I do understand what you know what intended by the trailer park but I don't understand by staff you want to take that one

sure I can answer questions during discussion oh okay what uh what's the protocol all here. Tom or Chris, do you have a comment?

Yeah. Yeah. One one I guess one last question. One one option is we could do a postponement um and maybe get some more information on whether there are in fact smaller trailers that might fit that that are actually manufactured and maybe you know have a cost comparison of the ones they've got on um on the lots now versus I guess I'm not buying the idea completely that they don't make manufactured homes that will fit on these lots. I I guess I'd like to be convinced that that is is true. um whether whether that would be some information that would be useful to us. And then a an actual variance that's better defined as to whether we're dealing with just three lots or or the southern the southern boundary and and what um are are we just going to not have any setbacks at all on the southern boundary? You know, and you can you can stick the end of the trailer right there on the property line. what what are the the the the boundaries of the variance that we're going to agree to and those those aren't aren't defined. So, you know, maybe a postponement is a is an option to consider.

So, you're asking if if excuse me too, you're asking if uh the variance is approved that there be conditions added to it. Is that kind of what you're saying? You want a definition? Yeah. I mean we see we've given a variance for for for meaning there are no setbacks is that is that what the variance is going to to provide the the applicant.

So if there was uh uh conditions placed on approval which is perfectly legal. We that's one of the things outlined in the staff report. We can approve the variance with conditions. Pick a number. What would be I'm I I'm not comfortable picking a number without some idea of how important that setback is. What it if it if it serves a a a specific purpose that you know the number has some meaning.

Well, mobile homes currently have to meet certain standards either HUD or the residential code as far as sizes. I don't know what the nationwide acceptable setback from property is. As as I said, I've seen some really close ones uh here in Laram. So, uh you have a comment on that chair.

I don't have a problem. If you want to postpone the vote, we can amend our application and provide the information that the chair and council has requested and make sure that's all in there so that you feel comfortable with the vote and I could get that ready and to you before the next meeting. Donald, the way I read this is the variance would be granted for the lots 74779. But what I hear you saying is you want a variance for all of those lots on the south side. Is that correct?

That's what we asked for, sir. But if I could get 74, 77, and 79 today, then I can apply again for a variance and provide the additional information that uh the commission and the chairs requested. Wouldn't it be more efficient if it was kind of for the whole southern thing rather than camel's nose and the tent? You've given us these three, so we want the rest on the southern side. It would be more efficient to do them all. That's why I initially said if you want to postpone the vote, I'm happy to amend it and provide the information that the chair and the the commission asked for

because there's also an important like you assured us that uh manufactured homes are not being made that are what 70 foot long and yet I think Philip said they are being made. So and that's one of the issues that Chris had was do they exist or do they not exist? Yeah. And I I'm not an expert. I go off what I've been told, sir. So, okay. Thank you,

chair. I think it's important also to note that all of the criteria listed in for variance need to be met. So I think if it is the desire of the commission to go in the direction of approving this variance then we need to go through each finding and make language that's going to show that that those conditions are being met. Well all of the will of the commission here you want to postpone it or we want to fight through it tonight. You want to get more information? Chris, you had your hand up.

Yeah, that was it was just a a suggestion um if uh you know a po postponement would would would work for me. Um but I I do have you know a feeling that you know the the setback requirements are what they are and you know it's unless I can be can be convinced that that you know the 20oot setback isn't that important from property line in this particular situation and is something that is is uh areawide in mobile home park such that yeah, maybe there'll be a tax amendment to to take care of this this uh difficult situation in the town. So that this this mobile home park isn't isn't getting something that everybody else isn't getting too that mobile mobile home parks in town.

True. So, that's not much of an answer, but um um I guess I would go I you know, if I

Sorry, sorry to interrupt uh Commissioner Moody. Um I just do want to reiterate that generally variances are on a structure by structure basis, looking at things individually, giving it a cart blanch to do essentially whatever it wants is highly inadvisable for this body to do. Um, and especially when it's unequ unequitably enforced between mobile home parks. I think that that would be setting us up for some very arbitrary and capricious um decisions that would certainly get our buns sued off. I all I can say is uh I just look at beyond what happens in the variance proved or denied. We've got to look at uh we've got findings of fact and conclusions of law. And I think there's an argument to be made on each individual binding of fact that's both pro and con. and we could be here till midnight and really not prove anything one way or the other with the information we have at hand.

Yeah. I I'd like to propose that and I'm prepared to move that um we deny it based on the record we have. If that motion fails, then I think um we should move forward with um a motion to postpone um but to do it um based on gathering uh very specific information. I um because we don't want to reopen it and go over everything again. But if that motion fails, then I think there are a couple of specific things that I've heard based on the conversation that we should request in order to then be able to consider approving it in a way that it might be supportable. But but I personally would like to that I I would like to move that we vote on denying it. And it does leave open the option of then because if that gets rejected, it's not an affirmative decision and we can then make a motion to postpone the matter and gather the information necessary to consider it approval.

If we do not approve the denial, then that means we're approving it. No, I don't think so. I don't think so. No, chair. you we would have to go through the conditions and address how each one is being met in the affirmative and then you could approve it based on that. So that I mean that's another reason to perhaps postpone in that manner as we've done in the past so that we can create language as as I think it's important how I frame the motion but I think we can vote whether or not whether or not

um to deny it and so let me just get the right language. Yep. Um

okay let me just look at this for a second. Okay. So, so I I move to deny the requested variance from Laramie Municipal Code 154 15.14.140.86 A6, which would permit the applicant to encroach on setback requirements for manufactured home communities located at 1664 Cedar Street based on findings of fact and conclusions of law. And and so I'm moving to deny and we're going to just vote on denial. And if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. Maybe it doesn't get seconded.

But that's my motion. It's a motion. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Second. All right. Any discussion on the motion or should we go to a vote? All right. Clerk, call the roll, please. Pacino I. Bull. Eiseler White. Moody. I. Oul. I Schneider. No. And Madammore, no.

That is five yeses and two no. Motion denied.

Okay. Well, that's pretty much it. Is there any restriction on whether or not he can resubmit on a unitby-unit basis? chair uh the same variance cannot be brought forward but in a if he's asking if the applicant wants to ask for you know a different amount you know a different uh um amount of setback requirement then he they could certainly do that but it can't be the same exact variance cannot be brought forth again

right uh would uh what is the possibility of planning department working on a text amendment. Chair, the city council in their uh most recent goals that they adopted have explicitly put a work session for mobile home parks on on their list of things that they'd like us to look into. How are mobile home parks regulated in Laramie versus other jurisdictions? So, that will be coming later this year. Um, so the discussion from that could lead to a text amendment. Um, but to answer your question,

uh, seeing no other business, the chair would entertain a motion. Move to adjourn the board of adjustment. Have a second. Second. All those in favor, pack up your stuff and leave. Does this mean we can have dinner now? What? I'm going to go get a hamburger. My dinner was postponed. I knew this was going