Cody planning board tables rezoning request for Olive Garden Subdivision strip after public concern

The City of Cody Planning, Zoning, and Adjustment Board opened a public hearing March 11 on an application to rezone a 3.65-acre parcel in Olive Garden Subdivision No. 2 from rural residential (RR) to R2 zoning. Mark Christensen, the contract planner on the review, told the board the applicant has submitted a preliminary plat and is asking to rezone Lot 1 on the subdivision map to match adjacent R2 zoning and relax a tight building envelope.

Why it matters: The requested change would reduce the front-yard setback standard on the affected lots (from 35 feet in RR to 20 feet in R2, with R1 at 25 feet cited as a midpoint), allow some conditional uses not permitted in RR, and permit duplexes in R2 that are not allowed in RR or R1. Neighbors raised concerns that an R2 designation at this location could allow higher-density housing or short-term rental uses inconsistent with the surrounding single-family character.

Christensen summarized the staff analysis and criteria under state statute, noting that a rezoning must be reasonably consistent with the comprehensive plan and municipal considerations, including character of the district and historic preservation. He told the board that the parcel’s future land use designation in the comprehensive plan is low-density residential and that the proposed densities would meet the plan’s ranges if developed as presented. "My name is Mark Christensen. I am with ADIPC," he said during his presentation.

During the hearing, commissioners and the public pressed staff and the applicant for details about setbacks, the Cody Canal right-of-way, and who received notice. Commissioners asked whether moving houses onto lots, conditional uses such as childcare centers and bed-and-breakfasts, and short-term rentals would be permitted in R2 but not in RR or R1; Christensen confirmed some of those uses are conditionally permitted in R2 and would require separate approvals.

Several neighbors and other residents spoke in opposition. Patty Brooks, who identified herself as not a nearby resident, said she preferred R1 because "R1 might be better because it puts it as a single family residence" and worried R2 could allow duplexes or short-term rentals. Roy Klein, who lives on Olive Glen Drive, said he was concerned the board should not change the master plan’s intent for the area to address a narrow setback issue on an awkward parcel. Another resident noted that some objection letters were submitted after the board packet was prepared, and board members acknowledged mapping and notification glitches that had been corrected during the meeting.

Applicant Glenn Nielsen said the intent for the lots is single-family homes. Nielsen told the board the parcel is an "awkward little piece of property" and that his primary motivation for the rezoning request was to enable a reasonable building envelope on narrow lots; he said he had asked engineers whether a reasonably sized home could fit the proposed lots. "The intent is absolutely single family residents," Nielsen said, adding he would be willing to consider R1 or a setback variance if procedurally required.

Board discussion focused on process and options. City Attorney Scott Popicki clarified the board must consider only the rezoning application as submitted (R2); the board cannot recommend an alternative zoning such as R1 without a separate application and corresponding notice. Popicki also explained the master plan is a guiding document and cannot by itself be the sole legal basis to deny an application where code does not adopt the plan provisions.

After extended public comment and board discussion, members voted to table the matter and take it up at the board’s next regular meeting on March 20, 2025, to give the applicant and staff time to address the neighbors’ concerns and outstanding mapping/notification issues. The motion to table carried.

What’s next: The preliminary plat application remains under staff review. If the applicant withdraws and re-files with modifications or submits a separate application to R1, the board and city council would review those changes through the required notice and hearing process. If the applicant proceeds, the board will resume consideration on March 20 with any supplemental materials and corrections filed before that date.

Details drawn at the hearing: staff noted the Cody Canal right-of-way as shown on the map (41 feet) and said the canal district had agreed to reduce an assumed 60-foot working area by 19 feet in informal coordination with the applicant; staff cautioned canal easement rights can affect what structures, fences or landscaping are permissible adjacent to the canal. Staff also corrected an earlier labeling error in the packet that had shown an R1 standard column in the zoning comparison table; that was updated during the meeting.

Ending note: The board did not make a recommendation to city council; instead it tabled the matter to allow time for resolution of notification and mapping issues and for the applicant to consider alternatives or variances.