Laramie planning panel backs comprehensive‑plan change and rezoning to allow multifamily on 4 Gs parcel

The Laramie City Planning Commission voted 6–0, with one member absent, on Sept. 22 to forward to City Council a comprehensive plan amendment that redesignates roughly 32–33 acres owned by 4 Gs Enterprises from urban commercial to urban residential, and to recommend rezoning the same property from I‑2 (industrial) to R‑3 (multifamily).

Staff said the change responds to updated housing studies and a brownfield review and would allow a broader range of housing types. "The application reflects how our zoning and housing needs have evolved," Emma, planning staff, told the commission, adding that staff recommended including a small southern triangular parcel "to prevent a fragmented zoning boundary and ensure long‑term stability of the zoning map."

The project site carries legacy railroad industrial uses; a Phase I/II brownfield assessment was completed and staff said the Phase II "showed no recognized environmental conditions that required further analysis," though future remediation would be the developer's responsibility if needed. Eric, the city engineer, described the engineering design report that any developer must submit and said it is "one of the most important documents" for water, sewer, storm drainage, grading and roadway systems. Aaron Murray, a WSP consultant, told commissioners that any new development in the mapped floodway or 1% annual chance floodplain would need floodplain permits and measures such as detention sized to limit post‑development runoff to historic 100‑year rates and finished floors elevated at least one foot above base flood elevation. He said the floodway is strictly limited and that development there must demonstrate "zero rise."

The applicant representative, speaking on behalf of the Laramie Chamber Business Alliance, said the Chamber "stepped in as the applicant on this because we're in dire need of housing," arguing the R‑3 district allows the greatest flexibility for multiple housing types and can make the site more attractive to developers. Terry Geiss, one of the property owners, told the commission the parcel has drawn several industrial offers (distribution, self‑storage, salvage) and that the owners "would be interested in selling"; he said residential was preferred by the owners and that development on the site was likely within a year.

Public comment was mixed. Longtime West Side residents urged caution, citing flooding on neighborhood streets and raising concerns that filling and adding impermeable surfaces could increase their risk. "I purchased my house relying on the zoning," said Eric Henderson, a West Side homeowner, urging denial or strict limits. Nate Martin, another Cedar Street resident, said he bought his house in 2018 with the expectation the master plan would be followed and asked the commission to reject the request. Conversely, Doug Foss, CEO of Ivinson Hospital, and Jonathan Paris of Saffron Passenger Innovations said the city needs housing for employees; Foss said, "If it helps promote the increase of housing, I'm in favor of it."

Commissioners debated statutory approval criteria and process details, including whether one or more findings were required for approval. Staff clarified municipal code language. Several commissioners said they supported at least one of the criteria—chiefly that changed conditions and housing studies since the 2007 plan justify the amendment—while noting infrastructure and floodplain concerns the city will need to address at later permitting stages.

The commission approved the comprehensive plan amendment by roll call (Pacino, Kaiser White, Moody, O'Toole, Schneider and Matamore voted yes; Evans was absent) and later approved the recommendation to rezone the parcel from I‑2 to R‑3 by the same margin. Both actions were forwarded to City Council for final certification and possible ordinance action.

What approvals do—and what they do not—change: the commission emphasized that the votes amend the plan and recommend a zoning change; they do not approve a site plan, subdivision or any specific development. Any future construction will require site plan review, floodplain permits, stormwater detention sized to keep post‑development runoff at or below historic rates, and compliance with building, fire and stormwater standards. The city staff said it would review engineering design reports, traffic studies and utility capacity during later permit reviews, and that utility or road improvements would be the developer's responsibility if needed.

The commission record notes that staff found the proposal consistent with adopted housing studies and the City's long‑range goals for housing supply, while residents and some commissioners called for stronger commitments on stormwater and neighborhood protections before permitting proceeds. The rezoning and comp‑plan amendment now go to City Council for certification and an ordinance hearing.

Votes at a glance: • Comprehensive plan amendment (map 3.2) — change from Urban Commercial to Urban Residential for ~33 acres (4 Gs Enterprises): Passed 6–0–1; forwarded to City Council for certification. • Rezoning recommendation — I‑2 industrial to R‑3 multifamily for the same properties (~33 acres): Passed 6–0–1; recommended to City Council to amend the official zoning map.

Next steps: If City Council certifies the comp‑plan amendment and adopts the rezoning, any developer will still need to submit site plans, plats (if subdividing), engineering design reports, floodplain permits and any required traffic or utility mitigation. The commission and staff stressed that those subsequent reviews are the stage for technical scrutiny and neighborhood protections.

(Reporting based on Planning Commission public meeting transcript, Sept. 22, 2025.)