Commission recommends assigned zoning for Cox Ranch; future‑land‑use amendment and rezoning advance but planning vote later flagged for statutory majority

The Planning Commission took a series of actions tied to a large owner‑initiated annexation west of Round Top Road and adjacent to Happy Jack Road (the “Cox Ranch” filings). Staff recommended assigned zoning for the city‑owned parcel (public) and agricultural for the larger ranch parcel; the commission recommended approval of that assigned zoning to the governing body.

Applicant representatives asked the commission to approve a future‑land‑use map amendment to designate roughly 1,190–1,200 acres as mixed‑use employment and to rezone the property to a new BP (Business Park) district. Agent Bridal Evans said the request would “accommodate the zone change, which is the second item to business park,” and noted the applicant has discussed serviceability with the Board of Public Utilities. Applicant Brad Emmons described the area as suitable for business park uses and said there is “the possibility of a data center,” but he stressed that a data center was not finalized.

Staff analyst Connor White summarized review findings and emphasized the items are interdependent: the zone change to BP would generally follow only if the future‑land‑use amendment is adopted. Staff outlined the tradeoffs — extending the urban service boundary and the potential to recruit larger employment uses versus concerns about cumulative conversions of future residential land and the need for a fuller urban‑service and infrastructure analysis.

The commission held public comment: nearby residents asked for separate public hearings for city‑owned parcels and for clearer information about services and timing. Applicant representatives said BOPU had indicated it could provide service, and applicants argued industrial or business‑park uses match existing adjacent land and transport access.

On April 6 the commission voted in favor of the assigned‑zoning recommendation and then voted to forward both the future‑land‑use amendment and the BP rezoning to the governing body. After the meeting staff and legal review noted a statutory requirement that adoption of a land‑use plan amendment requires “the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the commission” (Wyoming statute 15‑1‑505) and that the 3–2 roll call among those present did not meet that threshold of the full commission membership; staff advised that the future‑land‑use amendment therefore did not carry as an adopted plan amendment. The rezoning recommendation was forwarded as a recommendation but will be considered by council in the context of annexation; staff will explain the procedural status and the vote counts when transmittal materials are prepared.

Commissioners asked staff to document the BOPU and service assumptions, and to ensure council receives the full record of public comments and the commission’s deliberations. A council hearing is expected in early May after the annexation and land‑use sequencing are finalized.