Board of Adjustment debate on Cedar Street setback variance centers on historical use and housing options; commissioners record 5–2 roll call against the motion

The Board of Adjustment (sitting from the Planning Commission) heard a variance request for setback relief at the Laramie River mobile home community (1664 Cedar St.). Planning staff recommended denying relief because the application did not meet the statutory findings required for a variance; the applicant asked for relief to allow new manufactured homes on several lots and argued historical use and the lot geometry justify an exception.

Staff presentation and recommendation: Planning staff (Joe) told the board the application initially centered on three lots (74, 77 and 79) where newly placed units were observed to be out of setback compliance. Staff explained the code requires findings of special circumstances that pertain to the land or building and concluded the record did not support those findings for a broad variance; staff recommended denial of the requested relief.

Applicant argument: Attorney Jeff Van Fleet, representing Neighbors of Laramie/TCC Management, requested broader relief for the southern boundary and argued the park's long historical use, irregular parcel shape and large right‑of‑way/landscape area created practical hardships. Van Fleet told commissioners the goal is to replace older, dilapidated units with new manufactured homes to preserve affordable housing. "The most reasonable use for the property is a mobile home park based on the historical use and the internal infrastructure," he said, and added that some of the newer homes do not fit current setback requirements because manufacturers now produce longer units.

Commissioner concerns and questions: Commissioners pressed the applicant about whether smaller manufactured units or tiny homes would be available, the precise scope of the requested relief (three lots versus an all‑southern‑boundary blanket variance), and whether the area is within the floodplain. Staff said three existing units were not placed to current standards and clarified that grandfathering applies when the new unit matches prior dimensions; if a new, different‑sized unit is installed it triggers current setbacks.

Vote: After deliberation one commissioner moved to deny the requested variance, and the motion was seconded. The clerk called the roll and the transcript records a tally of five 'aye' and two 'no' votes. (The transcript records the roll‑call tally as five yes and two no.)

Implications: Commissioners debated whether the issue would be better resolved through a text amendment addressing manufactured‑home park standards rather than a broad, site‑specific variance; staff noted City Council has placed mobile‑home‑park regulatory review on its work list. The record shows that if the applicant chooses to proceed, narrower, better‑defined variances or a text‑amendment route may be the next steps.

Information gaps: commissioners repeatedly asked for clearer documentation about the exact scope of the relief sought and whether alternative, smaller manufactured homes that would meet setbacks are readily available — points the applicant offered to flesh out if the commission postponed action. The applicant also said he could submit an amended application with more precise findings for the commission’s consideration.