Cody council approves third-reading rezoning, clears first reading on separate rezone
March 17, 2026 | Cody, Park County, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The City of Cody council on March 17 approved a rezoning ordinance on third reading and advanced a separate rezoning on first reading.
Council approved Ordinance 2026-65 on third reading, which staff described as rezoning lots 15 and 16 of Block 14 from R3 (medium-high density residential) to D2 (general business). Jenny Kramer, the staff reference on the item, said there were no substantive changes since second reading. "We have not had any changes or any new comments," Kramer told council before the motion. The motion to approve was made by Council Member MacIsaac and seconded by Council Member Setonary; council approved by voice vote.
On the next item, Kramer presented Ordinance 2026-66, a first-reading rezone request for Lot 1 of Home Views Addition No. 6 from R3 to R4 to allow higher-density housing options, potentially including multifamily buildings with more than four units. Kramer said the property is constrained by a steep hillside leaving roughly 2.2 net developable acres and reported that 34 adjacent properties were notified and five written objections were received, which Kramer noted is below the 20% threshold that would require additional council action.
Council members questioned notification radius and what the R4 district permits compared with R3. Kramer confirmed that the 140-foot notification radius was used and that while R4 permits higher density and greater building height and coverage, there were no specific development plans yet and the property is currently listed for sale. Council discussion clarified that R3 allows up to a fourplex while R4 allows multifamily configurations beyond that; setbacks and lot-width/frontage rules were discussed as constraints.
Council approved Ordinance 2026-66 on first reading following a motion by Council Member Centenary and a second by Council Member Lang; the item will return for further reading as required by ordinance procedure.
Both votes were taken by voice; the transcript records "Aye" and "Motion carries" but does not provide a numeric roll-call tally.
Council approved Ordinance 2026-65 on third reading, which staff described as rezoning lots 15 and 16 of Block 14 from R3 (medium-high density residential) to D2 (general business). Jenny Kramer, the staff reference on the item, said there were no substantive changes since second reading. "We have not had any changes or any new comments," Kramer told council before the motion. The motion to approve was made by Council Member MacIsaac and seconded by Council Member Setonary; council approved by voice vote.
On the next item, Kramer presented Ordinance 2026-66, a first-reading rezone request for Lot 1 of Home Views Addition No. 6 from R3 to R4 to allow higher-density housing options, potentially including multifamily buildings with more than four units. Kramer said the property is constrained by a steep hillside leaving roughly 2.2 net developable acres and reported that 34 adjacent properties were notified and five written objections were received, which Kramer noted is below the 20% threshold that would require additional council action.
Council members questioned notification radius and what the R4 district permits compared with R3. Kramer confirmed that the 140-foot notification radius was used and that while R4 permits higher density and greater building height and coverage, there were no specific development plans yet and the property is currently listed for sale. Council discussion clarified that R3 allows up to a fourplex while R4 allows multifamily configurations beyond that; setbacks and lot-width/frontage rules were discussed as constraints.
Council approved Ordinance 2026-66 on first reading following a motion by Council Member Centenary and a second by Council Member Lang; the item will return for further reading as required by ordinance procedure.
Both votes were taken by voice; the transcript records "Aye" and "Motion carries" but does not provide a numeric roll-call tally.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
