2026-10-05 - Public Services Committee

00:10Good afternoon and welcome to the uh

00:12October 5th uh public services committee

00:15meeting. Uh if you are joining us here

00:17in person, if you would make sure that

00:19your phone is on manners mode, uh it

00:21would be appreciated. Um, if you'd like

00:23to address the committee, if you would

00:26uh come to the podium and turn on the

00:30microphone so that the green light is

00:31showing. Um, and make sure you state

00:33your name for the record. If you're

00:35joining us virtually today, if you would

00:37make sure that you are using the raised

00:39hand function on Zoom and then you will

00:42be recognized by Jennifer and um given

00:44the ability to speak with us. So with

00:47that um Jennifer, can you read the first

00:48item please? Number nine, ordinance

00:50third reading. Annexing to the city of

00:52Cheyenne, Wyoming, landed south of

00:54Interstate 80, southeast of Otto Road

00:57and west of Interstate 25. Staff report,

01:01please.

01:02>> Chair, members of committee, Conor

01:03White, Planning Development Department.

01:04The sanexation is on third reading. Um,

01:06I've got no new information. Um, and

01:08there hasn't been any additional public

01:10comment. With that, I am available for

01:12any questions.

01:14>> Thank you. Um, is there any public

01:16comment today?

01:20Okay.

01:22Hearing or seeing none. Um any I would

01:26entertain a motion.

01:27>> Madam Chairwoman,

01:30I move to approve on third and final

01:33reading.

01:34>> Second.

01:34>> Okay. We have a motion by Dr. Renie and

01:36a second by Councilman Esabel. Is there

01:39any discussion?

01:41Madam

01:41>> Chairwoman?

01:42>> Yes. Councilman Renie.

01:44>> I just um yeah had a couple questions. I

01:46do want to point

01:48Can I get closer to the mic?

01:49>> Yes. Thank you.

01:50>> All right.

01:53>> Okay. I um

01:56I had a one question. I understand the

01:58larger parcel, but there's a little one

02:00to the south that is that a separate

02:03annexation that we're adding to it or is

02:05that part of the district?

02:07>> Um Madam Chair, through you. So, it is a

02:10second little parcel uh that's part of

02:12the annexation. So that little kind of

02:16L or foot or whatever you want to call

02:17it is in the county currently. Uh it

02:20does need to be annexed. That's what's

02:22later on the agenda when we go over the

02:23plat you'll see that actually is where

02:25the road to the PRCA is going to go

02:28through that parcel.

02:29>> So we do need to annex that as well. It

02:31is part of the same annexation. Um it's

02:33just a separate little lot because it is

02:36split by a parcel that is already within

02:38the city.

02:39>> Okay. Thank you. Um

02:43yeah, in regard to the annexation,

02:44that's the only question I have. I just,

02:46you know, guess want the public to

02:47understand this is for the Hitch and

02:48Post District, the future headquarters

02:51of the and PRCA and their museum. So,

02:56thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

02:57>> You're welcome. Any other discussion?

03:01Hearing none. All in favor say I.

03:03>> I.

03:04>> I.

03:05>> Opposed? This item will move forward

03:07with a recommendation to approve on

03:08third and final reading the next meeting

03:10of the council. Next item, please.

03:12Number 10, ordinance third reading,

03:13amending the official zoning map of the

03:15city of Cheyenne, establishing the

03:17zoning classification of AG agricultural

03:19and LI light industrial for land annex

03:22to the city of Cheyenne located south of

03:24Interstate 80, southeast of Otto Road

03:27and west of Interstate 25. Staff report

03:30please.

03:30>> Chair, members committee, Connorway

03:32Planning and Development Department.

03:34Again with anyation there is the

03:35assigned zoning. Uh this is also on

03:37third reading. Staff has no further

03:40updates and has had no additional public

03:42comment on this item. I'm available for

03:44questions.

03:44>> Thank you. Is there any questions for

03:46staff from committee?

03:50Okay. Hearing none, we will go out for

03:51public comment. Is there any public

03:53comment on this holding um zone for this

03:59parcel? Uh, Jennifer,

04:03Mr. Miller, you can go ahead

04:08and can you start the timer, please?

04:11>> Can you hear me?

04:12>> Uh, we can hear you. And we're just

04:13starting our timer. Thank you, sir.

04:16>> Gotcha.

04:18Okay. Um,

04:21this is in regards to item number 10.

04:27This is

04:30The ordinance third reading sets the

04:33city zone for the newly annexed land, AG

04:36for the larger parcel and Ally for the

04:38smaller parcel.

04:40Um staff considered five zones, business

04:43park, light industrial, heavy

04:45industrial, community business,

04:46agricultural. Staff chose AG for the

04:49larger parcel because the current use is

04:51vacant or agricultural and because the

04:53existing overland PUD contains

04:56industrial, business and open space

04:58designations which staff called

05:00ambiguous.

05:02Uh planning commission recommended

05:04approval

05:06September 8th. Is that correct?

05:10>> That is correct. Mr. uh White is shaking

05:13his head. Yes.

05:14>> Ah okay. Um well then uh item 11 then

05:19immediately changes the land from AG to

05:21LII.

05:22>> We're only talking about number 10 right

05:24now please sir.

05:26>> Okay. Um item 10 tells the public this

05:30land is agricultural.

05:32Um

05:34one of and then it's immediately being

05:36changed. Uh I know that's the next item,

05:39but uh one of those two

05:42um votes is theater and I would like the

05:46committee to say which one. If AG is the

05:49right designation, then item 11 would

05:51fail. If BP is the uh if BP is the right

05:57designation, then item 10 should say so

05:59and the public should not be told

06:00agricultural agricultural for seven

06:02minutes.

06:04Um staff also called the existing

06:06overland PUD designations ambiguous. Uh

06:09the the public is entitled to know what

06:12that PUD allows before annexation

06:14extinguishes it and what it permits

06:16after. Um I ask that the AGLI acreage

06:19breakdown and the PUD's current

06:21entitlements be read into the record. If

06:22the committee cannot state what item 10

06:25protects, it should not vote for it.

06:27Thank you.

06:28>> Thank you. Any other public comment?

06:32Hearing or seeing none, I would

06:33entertain a motion.

06:35>> Madame Chairwoman, I moved to approve on

06:38third and final reading.

06:39>> Second.

06:40>> Okay, we have a motion by Councilman

06:42Esel and a second by Councilman Renie.

06:45Is there any further discussion?

06:47>> Madam Chairwoman.

06:48>> Yes, Councilman.

06:48>> I am curious what was the the PUD that's

06:51going to go away. What was that being

06:53used for?

06:55And I presume that was just development

06:57in Swan Ranch.

06:59Looks like Mr. Lloyd has an answer for

07:02us.

07:08Madame Chair, members of the committee,

07:10my name is Seth Lloyd. I'm with the City

07:10of Shine Planning and Development

07:11Department. The Oland Trails PUB is a

07:14very old PUD. Um, it was established way

07:16back in the day and considered making

07:17the Swan Ranch area a mix of commercial,

07:20industrial, and residential. um some of

07:22the areas in that area would are still

07:24actually zoned under that PUD which is

07:26available online at the city of Cheyenne

07:28um city city city of Cheyenne.org/pud

07:31/pud. Um that uh because that PUD is

07:37only really you currently utilized for

07:39the truck center uh the Flying J I think

07:41it is out there. That's the only parcel

07:43that's still under that zoning that's

07:45actually developed under that zoning.

07:46Everything else has been reszoned over

07:47time. Um so basically this is this PUD

07:50that has been in existence for a long

07:52long time hasn't really been utilized.

07:54Right now, the area that's suggested to

07:57be um annexed uh would be able to

08:00develop with industrial uses in the

08:01county under that PUD. Um however, the

08:04PUD also had various regions, some of

08:06which were open space, some of which

08:07were residential, some of which were

08:08commercial. And so, how those PUD's

08:10boundaries break up with the current

08:13land ownership and the current land

08:16usage out there um can be a little bit

08:19interesting and a little bit difficult

08:20to parse exactly where we draw those

08:22borders. Um certainly we could do that

08:24if that was the desire of the land owner

08:26and of the county to continue with that

08:28PUD. And the city did mutually adopt

08:31that PUD way back in the day. So we

08:32might even be able to extend that PUD

08:33here if that's what was the desire of

08:35the applicant. Um we could instead of uh

08:38assigning it a standard city zone, we

08:40could um assign it the standard city

08:42zone and go back to that PUD. We just

08:44want to be sure that we're making the

08:45right decisions here. Um and generally

08:47speaking, we don't assign zones as PUDs

08:50um because they're kind of custom zones.

08:52So, I'm available for any further

08:54questions on the historical nature of

08:56that zone.

08:58>> Thank you, Councilman Renee. Any other

08:59questions?

09:00>> I wish you wouldn't refer to it as old

09:02because I was here when that was done.

09:06>> No comment.

09:07>> I know. Um, and I do remember when that

09:10came in and the initial for Overland was

09:12it was going to be industrial near the

09:13interstate, then commercial, and then

09:15residential farther to the west. And at

09:18some point the agent for the developer

09:20came in and said the industrial is doing

09:22so well we would just want to go

09:23industrial. So um and so that's why

09:28you've seen most of Swan Ranch developed

09:30that way. Um just for other members of

09:33the public that may be watching this is

09:35just our normal process anymore. We zone

09:38something. When something comes in the

09:40city, as it's been explained, it must be

09:42assigned a zone. And the staff, our

09:44staff recommends that it be assigned the

09:47initial zone, the initial zone be

09:49closest to what it currently is in the

09:51county. And then if the developer wants

09:54to change from that, then they have to

09:55apply for that change. So that's all the

09:57process we're going through. There's no

09:59um no no attempt to try and be opaque

10:03about this at all. So thank you, Madam

10:05Chairwoman.

10:05>> You're welcome. Any other discussion?

10:08Hearing

10:10none. All in favor? Oh, did you have

10:12Okay. All in favor say I.

10:14>> I.

10:14>> I.

10:15>> Opposed. This item will move forward

10:17with a recommendation to approve on

10:18third and final reading at the next

10:20meeting of the council. Item. Next item,

10:23please. Number 11. Ordinance. Third

10:25reading. Amending the official zoning

10:26map of the city of Cheyenne. Changing

10:28the zoning classification for land

10:29located south of Interstate 80,

10:32southeast of Otto Road and west of

10:34Interstate 25 from AG Agricultural and

10:36Li Light Industrial to BP Business Park.

10:40Staff report, please.

10:42>> Chair, members of the committee, Conor

10:43Way Planning and Development Department.

10:45Uh, this zone change is also on third

10:46reading. Staff has no further um

10:49information to provide and there has

10:51been no additional public comment on

10:53this item. I'm available for questions.

10:56>> Thank you. Are there any questions for

10:57staff?

10:59Hey, any [clears throat] public comment

11:01in here in the chambers?

11:05Okay, I see that we have Mr. Miller.

11:09>> Can you hear me?

11:10>> Yes, we can.

11:12>> Madam Chair, members of the committee,

11:13Charles Miller for the record. On item

11:1511, the reszoning of 652 acres to

11:18business. On September 21st, Councilman

11:21Crave asked the applicant a direct

11:22question. He said, and I'm quoting,

11:24"When we've dealt with the BP zone,

11:27we've been thinking Swan Ranch, North

11:29Range, Business Park, now data centers."

11:32Then he asked whether there was any

11:34restrictions on data centers in this

11:36area. That question was never answered

11:37on the record. The applicant's agent

11:39handed it. The landowner talked about

11:42something else and this committee voted.

11:44Uh [clears throat] today you are being

11:47asked to apply that same zone to 652

11:50acres at the I25 I80 interchange.

11:54The question today

11:56um

11:58is that is the

12:00uh is there going to be any restrictions

12:02on data centers in this area?

12:10>> Thank you Mr. Miller. Um I believe that

12:12Mr. Samson who is the owner of this

12:14property and the developer uh did appear

12:17before this committee and before council

12:18and let us know that this um is there is

12:22will not be any data centers on this um

12:26uh annex land and so any additional

12:28information that uh you have on that uh

12:32Connor or Seth

12:35>> Madam Chair through you um I don't have

12:38any additional information it comes down

12:40to if it sounds like the property

12:42property owner was going to put

12:43restrictive covenants on the land. Uh

12:45the city doesn't regulate covenants, so

12:47that's all on the property owners to do

12:48so. But from all the talks and

12:50discussion that we have heard, data

12:52centers aren't planned for this area.

12:53It's going to be the PRCA and other uses

12:57that basically coincide with that use,

13:00whether it be hotels, restaurants,

13:02things of that nature.

13:03>> Yours is Mr. Rushton has a comment.

13:08>> Thank you, council members. This is

13:10Dante Rushton with Cheyenne Leads.

13:12Correct. There will not be data centers

13:14here. We have been privy to the draft

13:16covenants for this property and it is it

13:20very clear if there will not be data

13:21centers as an allowed use in this

13:23district.

13:23>> Thank you.

13:26Any other questions or comments?

13:31Okay. Uh seeing none, I would entertain

13:34a motion.

13:35>> Madam Chairman, I move to approve on

13:37third and final reading.

13:38>> Second. Okay, we have a motion by

13:40Councilman Renie and a second by

13:42Councilman Esel. Is there any

13:43discussion?

13:45>> Yeah, Madam Chairman, just to answer

13:46that question or add on, it's been

13:48answered twice already, but as you

13:50pointed out, the current landowner said

13:52there will be restrictive covenants that

13:53not only will prevent data centers, but

13:55HHR venues, any kind of, you know, truck

13:59stops, whatever. That essentially, it's

14:01going to be constrained narrowly enough

14:03that about the only people that can use

14:05it will be the PRCA.

14:08>> Thank you.

14:10Okay. Any other discussion from the

14:13committee?

14:15Hearing none or seeing none, I would uh

14:17all in favor say I.

14:19>> I.

14:20>> I.

14:20>> Opposed. This item will move forward

14:22with a recommendation to approve at on

14:24third and final reading at the next

14:25meeting of the council. Next item,

14:27please. Number 13, ordinance, third

14:29reading. The annexing to Wyoming land

14:32west of South Gley Highway, south of

14:34West College Drive and southwest of and

14:36adjacent to the intersection of Apple

14:39Street and York Avenue.

14:41>> Hey, staff report please.

14:42>> Chair, members of the committee, Conor

14:44White Planning and Development

14:44Department. Uh, this annexation is also

14:46on third reading. Um, staff has no

14:49further information or new information

14:52and there hasn't been any additional

14:54public comment on the annexation itself.

14:56>> With that, I'm available for any

14:57questions.

14:58>> Thank you. And just as a reminder, this

15:00is what we've been referring to as

15:01Orchard Hills. So, um, we'll go ahead

15:05and open it up for public comment here

15:07in the chambers.

15:14>> Hi, Heather Madre Ward one. Is this I

15:16just wonder is this annexation

15:19contingent or the sale of the property

15:21contingent upon annexation?

15:23>> That is a great question. Um, we might

15:26want to ask

15:28um that it looks like we have a

15:31representative of Traml Crow and their

15:34legal representation here that may be

15:36able to answer that question for you.

15:37Usually that's not something that the

15:39council or the committee is privy to.

15:45So

15:48>> the the question was whether annexation

15:50and of the property um

15:52>> is is is the sale of the property

15:55contingent upon this annexation.

15:57>> No it's not

15:57>> and can for the record would you

15:59identexing

16:05this property. My concern is that then I

16:08feel like the property rights argument

16:10will be um stronger. Um

16:16but I don't think that just because I

16:18don't I don't know. It just doesn't seem

16:20like property should be like a build to

16:21suit thing. If somebody bought property

16:23that's zoned for residential, it should

16:25probably be that. Um and I don't think

16:29it's the right of the property owner to

16:30zone and re they the property owner has

16:33a right currently. It's in the county to

16:34build whatever in the county with is it

16:38a LU zone currently in the county or

16:40what is it? Yeah.

16:43>> So they that's what their rights are is

16:45to use that land the county property to

16:47build with LU. They don't no property

16:49owner has the right to annex and then

16:52reszone into a business park.

16:54>> Thank you.

16:55>> Thank you. Any other comments? You're in

16:58the chambers. Yes, sir.

17:02>> Uh Jeff Nakushima Company. Um, I just

17:04wanted to restate for the record that we

17:06support the governing body's decision um

17:08that this property meets or exceeds all

17:10five of the statutory requirements at

17:12state level for annexation, contiguity,

17:14natural integrated development, service

17:16extension, health, safety, and welfare

17:18uh and utility integration. Thank you

17:20very much.

17:21>> Thank you.

17:23Any other public comment here in the

17:24chambers?

17:28>> Councilman Wolf.

17:30>> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Uh, Larry

17:32Wolf, Ward One. Councilman, uh, I have a

17:35little handout for you if I might, Madam

17:37Chairman.

17:38>> And does this refer to annexation?

17:40>> Yes.

17:40>> Okay. Thank you,

17:48>> Madam Chairman, members of the

17:49committee. Um, I've handed out to you

17:51what I call a data center score.

17:54um because I'm trying to analyze if you

17:57look at these um uh annexations and

18:00resonings that we've done uh over the

18:03last uh several months and I uh talked

18:06to Seth and I'm actually going to put

18:08the read uh parcel on here too. Um, and

18:13there are only a couple points on this

18:15that relate to u our relationships with

18:19the department and the um and the

18:22planning commission. Um, and the first

18:25major point is that the planning

18:29commission adds

18:31not much value to this process.

18:33And when it comes to data centers,

18:35that's not surprising because they don't

18:37know anywhere nearly as much as we on

18:41the council know about data centers.

18:43They haven't been to the 50 meetings

18:45that uh the three of you and and

18:48councilwoman Emmens and I have been to.

18:51Uh they haven't talked to all the people

18:53directly. They haven't gotten all the

18:55emails. So when they take up data

18:57centers, they simply have a much much

19:00lower level of understanding of them. uh

19:03than we do. Second of all, annexation is

19:07uh annexation and reasonzoning is

19:10inherently a political decision. Not a

19:12political decision in capital P

19:14politics, but in the pol the regular

19:17day-to-day politics that the council has

19:20to deal with. Um, and this is important

19:23in a couple respects because number one,

19:25when it comes not to the annexation

19:27because the planning commission is

19:29involved in that, but it clearly comes

19:31uh when we're asked to overrule the uh

19:35department. Um, and then the planning

19:38commission on the Orchard Hills

19:40decisions. Um, and it also comes into

19:43play tonight when we have two data

19:45center issues in front of the planning

19:47commission. one on a complicated set of

19:51uh ordinances that are proposed to be uh

19:54considered and two on a rule making that

19:58has direct implications for meta. So let

20:03let me tell you where I come out on

20:04this. Um I have 26

20:05>> we're still on annexation.

20:09>> I spent two and a half hours yesterday

20:11walking around the the Orchard Hills

20:13neighborhood talking to the neighbors

20:15there. Um and as we've evolved through

20:19this

20:20uh we've matured a lot in our thinking.

20:24So really the questions that we faced

20:26now I think come down to we're not

20:29talking about water anymore at least not

20:32water used at the plant we're not

20:34talking much about power because we've

20:36answered those questions. What we're

20:37talking about two things number one is

20:40sighting.

20:41Is this plant properly cited and

20:44particularly in relationship to an

20:46established residential neighborhood?

20:50Second of all, depending maybe depending

20:53not even how you answer that first

20:55question,

20:56is the developer offering to the city

21:01and the residents enough enough in the

21:05way of proposed mitigation and

21:09agreements so that people are who live

21:12there and are directly impacted upon it

21:14by it are willing to accept that.

21:17>> Thank you. Your time is up.

21:19>> Thank you, Madam Chairman.

21:23>> Yes, sir.

21:26>> Hi, Ross Skinsel. I uh live right on the

21:30boundary and nobody talked to me

21:34or any of my neighbors. I was home all

21:36day long.

21:38>> So, he

21:41um so nobody has talked to me, my

21:43neighbors that I know of or the other

21:45neighbor on the other side of the road.

21:47So I don't know how true that is. We're

21:49talks about we're talking about

21:51annexation and not the next

21:54>> zoning correct

21:55>> zoning. Um, if we are talking about the

21:58next zoning,

22:00uh,

22:03the data center plan from Traml Crow

22:05would provide a lot more benefits for

22:08our neighbors and I have talked to

22:09multiple neighbors who boundary the

22:12property

22:14uh, and they are for those benefits

22:16>> and and we will talk more about the

22:18benefits. Thank you.

22:19>> I just wanted to make sure you know that

22:22he didn't talk to me.

22:23>> Thank you. Any other public comment?

22:29Okay. And not seeing or hearing any here

22:32in the chambers. We'll go to online, I

22:34believe. Mr. Miller,

22:38>> can you hear me?

22:39>> Yes, we can.

22:40>> Madam Chair, members of the committee,

22:42Charles Miller for the record. Speaking

22:43to item number 13, the annexation of

22:46162.42

22:48acres west of South Gley Highway south

22:51of West College Drive at Apple Street

22:52and York Avenue. The owner's petition

22:54was filed with the city clerk on July

22:5613th, 2026.

22:58The This annexation has one purpose, to

23:01enable a reasonzoning that your own

23:03staff recommended denying. I want that

23:05on the record before anything else. Um

23:08on but [clears throat] last time I uh

23:11asked a question, you guys uh answered

23:14the question, but then I didn't get back

23:15to my prepared speech. So, I guess

23:19[clears throat] I'm just going to

23:21uh continue on, but but yeah, it would

23:23be great to have uh that on the record

23:25that your own staff recommended denying

23:28the the reasonzoning. Um on September

23:3021st, staff testified that contiguity on

23:32this parcel is 25.26%

23:35quote all along the south end of the

23:37property just over the statutory floor.

23:40And they told you where the utilities

23:42came from. The water and sewer were

23:43extended for the meta data center to the

23:45south. On September 14th, the

23:47applicant's representatives told the

23:49council this land already has three

23:51existing or planned electrical

23:52substations along with a multitude of

23:54high voltage transmission lines and that

23:56it sits immediately adjacent to the 900

23:58acre meta data center campus. So, we

24:01know what this land is next to. What we

24:04don't know is what this uh committee and

24:07or council both intends to do with it

24:10because that decision is in items 15 and

24:1221 which come after this vote. Um, three

24:16questions and I want the answers on the

24:17record if possible. One, what is the

24:19parcel by parcel contiguity calculation

24:21and would this petition qualify without

24:23the utility corridor and the meta meta

24:25frontage? Two, if the city annexes this

24:28land and the land use amendment fails as

24:30the planning commission recommended,

24:31what lawful use does the city have for

24:33162 acres it has just taken on? Three,

24:36who pays? Rateayers already paid to

24:37bring utilities to Meta. Is the city now

24:39extending service to a private

24:41speculative project at public exposure

24:44expense? Um, and one process note, staff

24:47acknowledged on the record that some

24:48property owners received their mailed

24:50notice after the required date. The

24:51statute covers the mailing date, not the

24:53receipt date, and I I accept that. But

24:56this committee should ask how many

24:57people learned about this annexation

24:58only after their window had narrowed.

25:00Annexation transfers liability,

25:01postponed items 13 to October 12th, and

25:04voted after the land use and zoning

25:06decisions, not before them. Uh thank

25:08you.

25:10>> Thank you. Um I do want to make sure

25:12that we are very very clear that the

25:14rate payers do not um pay for the

25:19electric to be run to meta. Um in

25:21Wyoming, we have a statute that requires

25:23that uh large projects and large energy

25:26users are required to pay for all of

25:28their own infrastructure behind the

25:29meter. And so um I want to make sure

25:32that that's understood. Um Councilman

25:34Ready, it looks like you have a comment

25:36as well.

25:37Um,

25:38>> okay.

25:38>> Wait till

25:40discussion.

25:41>> Um, any other public comment

25:46>> hearing? None. I would entertain a

25:47motion.

25:51>> Madam Chair, when I move to approve on

25:53third and final reading.

25:55>> Second.

25:56>> We have a motion by Councilman Esabel

25:58and a second by Councilman Renie. Um, is

26:01there any discussion?

26:02>> Chairman.

26:03>> Yes, Councilman Renie.

26:05>> I'm sure Mr. Lloyd or Mr. White or Mr.

26:07Bloom would confirm it, but I don't

26:09think we can legally assign a city's

26:10zone to a piece of property that's not

26:12within the city limits.

26:14>> So, madam chair through you,

26:16>> we do have this in the appropriate

26:18order.

26:19>> Madam Chair, through you Conway Planning

26:21and Development Department, that is

26:22correct. We cannot assign a zone or give

26:24a zone to a property that has not been

26:26annexed. So, annexation does have to

26:28come first on the agenda. The property

26:31has to be annexed before it can be given

26:32its own district.

26:34>> Thank you. As a result, Madam

26:36Chairwoman, or with that information, I

26:38think we should proceed with the

26:39annexation.

26:40>> Okay. Thank you.

26:44>> Sorry, I just said I think we should

26:46proceed with the annexation since we

26:47can't legally assign a zone before we

26:49annex a piece of property.

26:51>> Is there any other discussion?

26:53Councilman Esel.

26:54>> Yes, Madam Chair. Did the planning

26:56commission have a quorum for this item?

27:00Madam chair through you. Um for

27:03annexations, the planning commission

27:04does not review annexations. They just

27:06review the zoning portion. Uh they did

27:08have a quorum when it came to the zoning

27:10portions.

27:10>> That's right. Okay.

27:12>> Thank you. Any other discussion?

27:16Okay. Hearing none, all in favor say I.

27:18>> I.

27:19>> Opposed. This item will move forward

27:21with a recommendation to approve on

27:23third and final reading at the next

27:24meeting of the council. Next item,

27:26please. Number 14, ordinance third

27:28reading, amending the official zoning

27:30map of the city of Cheyenne,

27:31establishing the zoning classification

27:33AG agricultural for land annex to the

27:36city of Cheyenne, located west of South

27:38Gley Highway, south of West College

27:40Drive and southwest of and adjacent to

27:43the intersection of Apple Street and

27:45York Avenue. Staff report, please.

27:47>> Chair, members of the committee, Connor

27:48Way Planning and Development Department.

27:50This assigned zoning is on third

27:51reading. staff has no new information

27:54and there's been no additional public

27:56comments specific to this item. With

27:58that, I am available for any questions.

28:01>> Is there are there any questions for

28:02staff from committee?

28:05Hearing none or seeing none, I would go

28:07out for public comment. Uh we'll start

28:09here in the chambers. So, if there's

28:10anyone that would like to make public

28:12comment here.

28:15Okay. If not, we will go to U. Mr.

28:19Miller.

28:22Um, yes. Can you hear me?

28:23>> Yes, we can.

28:24>> Madam Chair, members of the committee,

28:26Charles Miller, for the record on item

28:27number 14. Item number 14 assigns this

28:30land agricultural.

28:32Excuse me. Item 15, the very next vote,

28:34changes the same land to light

28:35industrial. Both are third reading

28:37today. Um, one of those votes is not

28:39real, and the public deserves to know

28:41which one. Um, I want to be fair to

28:44staff here because staff was straight

28:46with this uh committee on September

28:4821st. Staff testified that the request

28:50to go to light industrial quote does not

28:52meet the intent of that mixeduse

28:54residential zone from the future land

28:56use standpoint. Staff testified that

28:58without the land use map amendment, the

29:00zone change wouldn't meet criteria 1, 2,

29:035, and 8. And staff told you staff does

29:05recommend denial at this point. Um the

29:08planning commission recommended denial

29:10too. So if this committee intends to

29:12follow its own professionals, item 15

29:14fails and item 14 is the honest answer.

29:16this land comes into the city as

29:18agricultural and it stays there until

29:20the plan is amended properly. Um, if

29:22instead this committee intends to

29:23approve item 15, then the agricultural

29:25designation in item 14 is a placeholder

29:27and it should be labeled as one, not out

29:29loud on the record. I am asking each

29:31member of this committee to state with

29:33when um your name is called, what does

29:36item 14 do and what does it protect? Um,

29:40how many of the 162 acres are being

29:42assigned AG and does this committee

29:44intend that that designation to survive

29:46the next vote? Um, that is not a

29:49procedural question. It is the entire

29:51question because if you don't know what

29:52item 14 does, you cannot vote for it in

29:55good conscience. And if you do know,

29:56then say it plainly enough that the

29:58public can hear it. Um, the I ask that

30:00the acreage breakdown be read into the

30:02record and that item 14 be postponed to

30:04October 12th so the plan and the and the

30:06zoning can be decided in the right

30:08sequence. Right now, you're being asked

30:09to decide the ending before the middle.

30:12Um, thank you.

30:15>> Any other public comment online?

30:19>> Okay. Hearing or seeing none, I would

30:22entertain a motion.

30:25>> Madam Chairman, I would move to approve

30:26on third reading.

30:28>> Second.

30:29>> We have a motion from Dr. Renie and a

30:31second from Councilman Esel. Um, is

30:34there any discussion,

30:37>> Madam Chairwoman? Yes, sir.

30:39>> Just for the permanent administrative

30:40record to ask staff,

30:43would you consider this ag zone when we

30:47Let's No, let me back up. When we assign

30:49a zone

30:52immediately to a recently annexed

30:56parcel, would you consider that a

30:58placeholder until the land owner decides

31:00what they want to do with it?

31:02>> Madam Chair, through you uh to answer

31:05Dr. perenni's question in some cases.

31:07>> Okay.

31:08>> Um in this specific case uh it is kind

31:12of acting as a placeholder uh for the

31:14property. It is currently vacant. It is

31:16mostly used for either agricultural or

31:17just left vacant. There are other cases

31:20where we have assigned zones based on

31:22the use. If it's a residential property

31:23being annexed, we assign it a

31:25residential zone. We don't just give

31:27everything a um it does come in based on

31:30current zoning of the property, current

31:32uses on the property, current

31:33surrounding zoning. Um for large acreage

31:37parcels, we generally do go with agg

31:39because depending on what how council

31:42votes, it could go with the property

31:45owners um requested or it will sit as a

31:49until they come back with a different

31:50zoning depending on how the requested

31:52zone happens. We got a

31:56>> No, that we had a similar result just

31:58recently, did we not?

32:00>> So,

32:01kind of um we just had at the last

32:04meeting there was the HR ranch

32:06development that is currently zoned AG

32:08in the city. They came in for BP zoning

32:11that did fail on second reading. So, it

32:13sits as AG until they decide to come

32:15back with either a new zone or figure

32:16out a new use for the property. So, that

32:19is what the assigned zoning does in most

32:21cases. I'm not going to say every case

32:23because like I said, there are some

32:24parcels that come in and they get the

32:26zone district that they will probably

32:29use. Um, another example is when we

32:32annexed during the county pocket

32:34annexation off of Converse on the east

32:37side of Converse over by I'm blinking on

32:41the uh

32:43developments over there, all the

32:44residential over there, but

32:45>> Anderson School.

32:46>> Yeah, over by Anderson School. We

32:47actually assigned those parcels coming

32:49in as MR, medium density residential,

32:52cuz the whole area is MR. So we did

32:54assign those instead of giving them AG.

32:56So they already have a residential zone

32:58district up there. So it varies um from

33:01annexation. Staff does review the

33:04multiple zone districts, looks at what

33:06uses are on the property, what use

33:08basically the uses surrounding it, um

33:11and then decides what the best analogous

33:13zone would be. and then we bring that

33:16forward if staff gets told ever that we

33:18picked the wrong analysis an analogous

33:20zone planning commission and city

33:22council can change that. Um we have that

33:26in place so that staff doesn't come in

33:27and instantly say yeah this every single

33:29thing we annex should be BP.

33:32Don't think we should be doing that with

33:34the assigned zoning uh necessarily. So

33:37especially if it's in say it's a

33:38residential zone district that surrounds

33:40it. say it was off of Converse over by

33:42Anderson and we had the BP zone at that

33:45point and said, "Yeah, these should be

33:46BP zoning." I would hope that council

33:49and planning commission would tell us

33:50no. Um but yes, and in most cases um

33:57it is they do come in the larger parcels

33:59as more of a holding zone with the AG

34:01until a specific use or the applicant

34:04zone change is then um brought forward

34:06as well.

34:08>> Thank you. Any other questions? No,

34:09Madam Chairman, thank you for allowing

34:10that explanation. I guess for my

34:12opinion, this AG zone, I will vote to

34:14approve it. My opinion, it does serve as

34:16a holding zone till we get the next

34:18request from the landowner.

34:20>> Thank you.

34:22>> Hey, uh Dr. Emmens.

34:24>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um I

34:27realize that this is a complicated

34:29process [clears throat and cough] that

34:31that we work under, but I would like to

34:34en encourage Mr. uh Miller to um come in

34:40and meet with the planning department uh

34:43regarding this process because I know

34:45we've gone through this multiple times

34:48now in public forums. Um so I would just

34:51encourage him to to visit with these

34:54folks and have them help him understand

34:57the process that we use. It may not be

34:59perfect, but it's the process we use. So

35:02um that may be helpful. Thank you. Thank

35:05you. Any other comments?

35:08Okay. Hearing or seeing none, all in

35:10favor say I.

35:11>> I.

35:12>> I.

35:12>> Opposed. This item will move forward

35:14with recommendation to approve on third

35:16and final reading at the next meeting of

35:18the council. Next item, please. Number

35:2015, ordinance, third reading, amending

35:22the official zoning map of the city of

35:23Cheyenne, changing the zoning

35:24classification for land located west of

35:26South Gley High, south of West College

35:29Drive and southwest of and adjacent to

35:32the intersection of Apple Street and

35:33York Avenue from AG Agricultural to LI

35:37Light Industrial.

35:40>> Okay. Um staff report, please.

35:42>> Chair, members of the committee, Conor

35:43Planning Development Department, the

35:45zone changes on third reading. Um, this

35:48item does go along with, as it's been

35:50mentioned, with a future land use map

35:52amendment that is later on the agenda.

35:54So, should council move to basically

35:57recommend approval of this, staff would

35:59recommend that the governing body or

36:01this commit committee also move to

36:04recommend approval of that future land

36:05use map amendment later on the agenda.

36:08Um, as was also mentioned, uh, staff and

36:11planning commission did recommend denial

36:13of this. Um staff has no further

36:17information. Uh I've had no actually I

36:20have had one

36:22additional public comment on this item

36:24and the future land use map amendment

36:25from a property owner in Orchard Valley

36:29and they do not support the project.

36:33With that I am available for any

36:34questions.

36:35>> Thank you. Are there any questions for

36:36staff?

36:38Okay. With that we will go out for

36:40public comment.

36:48Madame Chair, members of the committee,

36:49my name is Seth Lloyd. I'm a member of

36:51your planning department and also a

36:52member of the community. And I wanted to

36:54speak a little bit to um the rationale

36:57behind denial and the proposal in front

36:59of you. So, um some of the reasons for

37:03making this a data center include tax

37:06benefits and the difficulty of

37:07developing with residential in this

37:08area. And I just like to say that a lot

37:11of our large parcels around the

37:12community have the same issues. Um if

37:15you look at Whitney Ranch um north of

37:17Del Range and west of Whitney, there's a

37:20lot of land up there. It's going to be

37:22hard to develop. It's going to have to

37:23extend water lines. It's going to have

37:24to extend a sewer line. It's going to

37:25have to have lift stations. It's also a

37:28large large acreage. And having a data

37:31center there would be much better for

37:32our tax base than having single family

37:34homes there. Um pretty much that's true

37:36anywhere in the community as far as

37:37single family homes. they're usually a a

37:39drain on resources whereas a data center

37:41will be a net contributor to tax base

37:44and but I would also like to note that

37:47um

37:50the a change in a community outlook

37:53going from a suburban sprawl type

37:56outlook to a urban go up not outlook is

37:59not a necessarily a bad thing it's just

38:01something different that Cheyenne hasn't

38:03really done. So there are constrained

38:06communities that are physically

38:07constrained. They're very successful. I

38:09refer to both Boulder, Colorado and

38:11Provo, Utah. Very different on the

38:12political ends of the spectrum, but both

38:14very similar otherwise. They have a

38:16similar amount of population. They have

38:17a similar amount of constraints to

38:19growing single family homes. They have a

38:21sim similar amount of incoming commuter

38:23traffic in the tens of thousands of

38:25incoming commuters to both those

38:26communities. And so um a constrained

38:30community is not necessarily a bad

38:31thing. It's just different than what

38:33Cheyenne has done in the past. And

38:35making a decision for one of our more

38:38easily developed residential properties

38:40uh potentially to develop as residential

38:42properties in the entire Cheyenne region

38:44to make that a data center is a decision

38:46that shouldn't be taken lightly because

38:48it might be a real shift in the way

38:50Cheyenne develops. Once again, not

38:52necessarily a bad thing, just a

38:53different thing. And I want to make sure

38:55that the council is being uh taking this

38:58decision with that level of seriousness.

39:00Um, and if that's the decision that

39:03council wants to go, great. Well, let's

39:04let's do it. Um, but I want to make sure

39:07that it's not just a uh

39:10um reactionary quick decision that

39:12you're actually putting the thought and

39:13effort into it. And I appreciate your

39:15efforts on this and I'm available for

39:16any questions if you have any. Thank

39:18you.

39:19>> Any questions?

39:21Okay, sir.

39:25Mr. Gensler.

39:27>> Hi, Ross Gensel. uh my property bound or

39:30is the boundary of this proposal. Um

39:36contrary to the statements made earlier,

39:38everybody on that boundary that I've

39:40talked to, which is I believe it is four

39:44out of the five

39:47owners there want the data center. The

39:51reason we do um is because of the

39:55promise of a nice greenway connected to

39:58the regular greenway, a burm with trees

40:00and a separation for us

40:03rather than having high density housing

40:06um which would butt right up to my

40:08property. Now

40:11in addition there's lots of children in

40:13the neighborhood and the uh amount of

40:16vehicle traffic for a high high density

40:18or even me medium density housing would

40:21increased

40:24hundreds of percent. Which is a safety

40:26issue also a noise issue. So the plans

40:31that Traml Crow has put up to us

40:34residents

40:36is

40:38to me much more friendly to the

40:40neighborhood to keep it the way it

40:44currently is, which is I know we're in

40:47the suburbs, but it's country. It feels

40:50nice. We people have horses. We have

40:53livestock there. Um,

40:58and

41:02the

41:04proposal that they're giving is is

41:09of a lot more considerate than a

41:12highdensity housing, which would cost

41:15lots of money, cost us our safety on the

41:18roadways. And I'm a I'm a retired police

41:21officer, so I also look at the crime uh

41:24potential for a lot of people driving on

41:27these roads and a lot of houses. Now, I

41:31know it's the further down the roadways

41:34um as far as what a highdensity housing

41:38or medium density housing area would

41:41occur. Um but that's what these meetings

41:44are about.

41:46Uh that's what we're the residents that

41:49I talk to and that border want that

41:51peace and quiet, want that green burm,

41:55want a connection to the uh to the the

41:58greenway and uh not highdensity housings

42:01that's buted right up to our properties.

42:03Thank you.

42:04>> Thank you,

42:11>> madam chairman, members of the

42:12committee, Jeff Nakushima, Tremble Crow

42:14Company. Um, I'll just be brief because

42:16we we've hashed on on these a number of

42:18times already, but um, just regarding

42:19the four criteria in the staff report

42:20that we were deemed non-compliant with.

42:22Um, first beneficial or addresses use

42:24uses, the primary concern was the lack

42:26of available housing. Um, we've

42:28submitted to this committee and to the

42:30governing body um, a plan that shows

42:31available lands for over 25,000 homes,

42:34which would lead to a 60 plus year um,

42:36land supply for for residential

42:37development. And that doesn't include

42:39any residential h or highdensity

42:40housing, town homes, etc. is about 5

42:42acres per uh five homes per acre. Um

42:45Orchard Hills would comprise about 1.4%

42:49um of that total uh inventory. Um

42:51compatibility with the surrounding area

42:53criteria number two we were deemed

42:54non-compliant with. Um we would argue

42:56that since the future land use map has

42:58not been updated since 2014. Um that

43:00this area in south of Orchard Valley has

43:03changed dramatically. Um there are two

43:05existing substations with two additional

43:07planned from Black Hills Energy, the 900

43:09acre metadata center campus as well as

43:11uh a 16-inch highpressure gas line among

43:13other utilities that are there. And so

43:15we believe that that actually does make

43:16it compliant with the proposed use. Um

43:18walkability and connectivity. We believe

43:20that this project is actually a huge um

43:22the opportunity for this project is to

43:24help solve a tremendous amount of

43:25transportation issues and safety issues.

43:27continually heard that come up and we

43:28believe that with the construction of

43:29the roads that we would bring it would

43:31increased

43:32pedestrian safety. Last but not least um

43:35the the public welfare that housing um

43:38public welfare is not just about housing

43:39supply um it's also about economic

43:41health and vitality um and a strong tax

43:43base as noted earlier. So again we are

43:45very supportive of the change to light

43:46industrial and thank you very much for

43:47the time.

43:48>> Thank you councilman Esco. Thank you,

43:50Madam Chair. Through you, uh, sir, have

43:54you in your planning for what you're

43:57going to do for the infrastructure of

43:59everything that was mentioned as well as

44:00the roads started looking at how many

44:03millions of dollars in a public benefit

44:06that you would be doing for this

44:07community?

44:10>> Just the roadways alone from our AVIS,

44:12our engineer planner, um, that that for

44:15Wallick and Parsley would just be, I

44:17think, $15 million. that would be solely

44:19born by us and then we would also be

44:21paying into that uh the local

44:23improvement district to basically pay

44:25back um the funds for the water and the

44:27sewer. So it it would be all on the

44:29private developer.

44:31>> Thank you. Thank you.

44:32>> Thank you. Uh we also uh committee are

44:34in receipt and councilwoman Emmens um I

44:38don't know that you received this most

44:40recent copy of the commitment to the

44:42Cheyenne community that was provided by

44:44Traml Crow dated uh with today's date.

44:47So, we'll make sure that you receive

44:48that, Dr. Emmens, if you haven't

44:50received it. So,

44:53>> and then the last thing, we have our

44:54community meeting tonight um at 7 PM um

44:57at LC in the uh CIC building, room 130.

45:01Um and we'd welcome anybody to come and

45:03love to have additional conversations.

45:04>> CCI CCI. Thank you. Yes.

45:07>> Okay.

45:08Um yes, Miss Madrid,

45:13>> Heather Madrid, Ward One. Um I wasn't I

45:16don't have a wellprepared speech. I

45:18wasn't even planning on coming today,

45:19but um just I know that we've had a

45:21couple of people from Orchard Valley who

45:23are directly butting up against the

45:25property support this idea, but they are

45:28one of many people who are going to be

45:31affected that are nearby, myself

45:33included. Um, I would love to be able to

45:36just pick this project up with the

45:38developers and their legal

45:39representation and move it to one of the

45:41parcels where they have recommended um,

45:44housing go because where they're

45:46suggesting that housing be developed is

45:49out by Google Advantage where there's

45:52also going to be associated power plants

45:54and I just don't see that being the

45:56ideal place for

45:59children to move into. I think the

46:01Orchard Valley area is much more

46:04appropriate for that. Um, what's

46:07essentially happening is this

46:09residential development is is having to

46:12leapfrog over industrial development and

46:15moving farther away from things that we

46:18need like the hospital, grocery stores,

46:21shopping, schools, anything. Um, so it

46:25seems like backwards to me. The the

46:27development should be happening where

46:28they're saying the housing should be. um

46:31it's just creating barriers for people

46:33who are already economically challenged

46:36and lack transportation and it's just

46:39it's an injustice to the people who will

46:42who are going to be expected to live out

46:44there. Um

46:47the commission and staff said no because

46:49there's also another school planned for

46:50that area and I just am trying to

46:52imagine kids playing on a playground

46:55under in the shadow of a data center.

46:57Um, that's kind of gross.

47:00Um,

47:02mitigation I I think should be it

47:04belongs in the UDC. It doesn't belong in

47:06community benefit agreements. Uh,

47:08mitigation is the rock bottom bare

47:10minimum expect standard of expectation.

47:12And I know that their agreement has gone

47:14above and beyond that. Um, but I don't

47:16think that we should be forced to accept

47:19a compounding and already horrific

47:21problem in order to mitigate Meta who's

47:24terrible. And yeah, their burn would be

47:26great and it might mitigate some of what

47:28Meta is um doing, but that's not a good

47:33reason to plop a data center down right

47:35next to where we live. Um

47:39I and I would also just with like as

47:42much humanly respect as possible, I

47:44don't think it is appropriate for Dr.

47:46need to be voting on this particular

47:48issue because his son is representing

47:52um this development through AVI

47:54engineering. And so basically approving

47:56this project is either going to be

47:57putting money into or taking money or

48:00preventing money from going into the

48:02pocket of his own son. And I find that

48:03to be a huge conflict of interest. Thank

48:06you.

48:07>> Thank you.

48:11>> Madam Chairman, may I address that? Yes,

48:13>> please. I consulted with

48:18our attorneys, both this one and the

48:20previous one and I think the one prior

48:21to that. So I've consulted with three

48:24city attorneys over the years.

48:27um once my son started working for AVI

48:30and the their

48:33uh opinion their position was that if

48:37you recall when the city had a contract

48:39with AVI last month I did recuse myself

48:42because and I would be voting on a

48:45contract with my son's company however

48:48their opinion was that outside of a

48:51direct contract with the city um AVI has

48:55already contracted with with um Traml

48:58Crow in this case and my vote doesn't

49:00have an impact as to whether on his

49:03contract with Traml Crow or not. So um

49:06that was the opinion of the city's

49:08attorney. I can go back and revisit that

49:11with Mr. Brody for future

49:14for future votes.

49:15>> Thank you, Mr. Bloom. And

49:18>> chair, members of the committee, Charles

49:19Bloom, planning and development

49:20director. I just wanted to correct a

49:22couple things for the record regarding

49:24the land use plan. Um, it was stated

49:26that it was last amended in 2014. In

49:29fact, we do do a lot of comprehensive

49:31plan amendments over time like the one

49:33we have on the agenda later today. But

49:35for this specific area, um, or I should

49:39note that in uh, the fall of 2020, we

49:41piggybacked on the MOS's connect 2045

49:45plan and we did a holistic uh, review of

49:48a lot of our community when it came to

49:50land uses and we made some amendments in

49:52some other areas of town. This remained

49:54relatively the same, but this area was

49:56last studied in the fall of 2022. The

49:59planning commission reviewed it in

50:00October of 22 and then it was forwarded

50:03on to the governing body for review. And

50:05we looked at the land use plan and the

50:07transportation plan uh through this area

50:10in conjunction with the meta

50:11development. At that time the lens was

50:14uh very narrow what we're looking at. We

50:16were just looking at the meta site and

50:18that was a request for that light

50:20industrial land use plan change. Um and

50:23with that change, we did also look at

50:25the roadway network which resulted in

50:26the current plan we see today. So this

50:28area has had a glance over um within

50:32recent years and in 2022 in the fall. Um

50:34however, it was very individualized

50:36looking at that that one development

50:38site.

50:40>> Thank you. Any other public comment

50:42here?

50:44Councilman Wolf, if you had more that

50:46you wanted to say, did you want to do it

50:48under this item?

50:52Okay.

50:54Okay. Um, it looks like we have a couple

50:57of people online. So, Jennifer, who do

50:59we have first?

51:02Orlando Flores, you can go ahead.

51:11>> Can you hear me?

51:12>> We can, Mr. Flores. Thank you.

51:14>> Okay. Flores, I live at 2404 Draper

51:17Road. I butt up right to this proposed

51:20property. And I want to say I'm all for

51:22the the light industrial for the data

51:25center because I have two daughters. I

51:28want I don't want to see them grow up in

51:29a place where I can't let them go in the

51:31front yard or the backyard. Why? Because

51:32we have so much traffic going in and out

51:34from a neighborhood, which we don't know

51:36when it will be done. Yeah, it could get

51:38started next year, but when's the last

51:39house going to be sold? Who's going to

51:41live there? We don't know. So, I just

51:43want to let you guys know I'm I'm all

51:45for like the life has to change. We have

51:48to that that land there is never going

51:50to be the same as when I moved in in

51:522018. But since it has to change, I just

51:54want to see it change like my neighbors

51:56for the better of us because we I bought

51:58this property for the quietness, for how

52:00lonely it is over here cuz we're close

52:02to the city, but we're not in the city,

52:03which is really awesome.

52:06So, I just want to say I want to

52:08continue it that way as much as we can.

52:09And with the greenway expansion and them

52:12doing everything that they're telling us

52:14they're going to do, I just want to

52:15continue our peaceful and quiet

52:17neighborhood. Thank you.

52:19>> Thank you.

52:22>> Mr. Miller, you can go ahead.

52:24>> Can you hear me?

52:25>> Yes, we can.

52:27>> Um, item number 15 AG to Alli Light

52:30Industrial Apple and York. Uh, Madam

52:33Chair, members of the committee, oh,

52:34sorry, my name is Charles Miller for the

52:36record. Uh item 15, the resoning of 162

52:39acres at Apple and York to Light

52:41Industrial. Uh the city's own

52:43professionals recommended denial of this

52:45resoning. The planning commission voted

52:47to deny it. That is not my opinion. That

52:49is the September 21st record. Staff

52:51testified the request does not meet the

52:53intent of that mixeduse residential zone

52:55and that without changing the plan

52:57first, the zoning wouldn't meet criteria

52:581, two, five, and eight. Um so here is

53:03the sequence you are being asked to

53:05bless uh today. Change the plan so the

53:08zoning becomes legal. Then reszone the

53:11land so the plan change becomes

53:12necessary. That is circular. It is not a

53:15finding based decision. And I have not

53:17heard a single finding read into this

53:19record for why the planning commission

53:21was wrong. Only a vote to overrule them.

53:24I'm asking each member of this committee

53:26to state your findings on the record

53:27today. Not your conclusion. your

53:29findings. What facts changed between the

53:32planning commission's denial and this

53:34vote? If nothing changed, then this is

53:36not a land use decision. It is a

53:38preference. Second, the promise problem.

53:41In September, the developers buffer and

53:42covenant agreement, the commitment to

53:44the Cheyenne community, was described by

53:46a member of this committee as just a

53:48rough draft document that's still in

53:49process and it was not part of the

53:52zoning action. Another member said it

53:54had to be refined and finalized before

53:56third and final reading. Um

54:00well today you're discussing about the

54:02third and final reading. Well, where is

54:04it? If that agreement is not signed in

54:06the packet and enforceable against

54:07successors, then this vote is premature

54:10by definition. Uh sever it, postpone it.

54:13Uh third, the housing question. This

54:14land is designated mixeduse residential

54:16in the city's adopted plan. If this

54:18council or if this committee uh

54:20recommends removing the 162 acres of

54:24residential capacity next to its largest

54:26employer,

54:28uh it should say where that housing goes

54:31instead. Which parcel is being

54:33redesigned, redesated to replace it? If

54:35that answer is nowhere, then you are not

54:38amending the plan. You are erasing it.

54:41Um and put a number on it. Today's

54:44agenda removes residential and

54:45agricultural capacity at Apple and York

54:48at Mitch at Hitching Post and by the

54:50record. The same thing happened in 2022

54:52for the medic campus. Total it up and

54:54read the number into the record. That is

54:56the cumulative footprint of these

54:58decisions and the public has never been

55:00told what it is. Um postpone this item

55:03item 15 to October 12th and require

55:05three documents in writing. Sign

55:06agreement, the findings and the

55:08cumulative acreage tally. Thank you.

55:13Are there any other comments

55:15online, Jennifer? I don't see any. Okay.

55:19Um, hearing or seeing no other further

55:21comments, I would entertain a motion.

55:25>> Madam Chair, I move to approve on third

55:27and final reading.

55:29>> Second.

55:31>> Okay, we have a a motion from Councilman

55:33Esel and a second from Dr. Emmens. Um,

55:38is there any other discussion,

55:40>> Madam Chair? Yes, Councilman Esabel.

55:42>> Well, the planning commission didn't

55:44have access to this document, the most

55:46recent one for the commitment to the

55:47Shine community where we just heard

55:50testimony that just in the road

55:52infrastructure saves our taxpayers $15

55:56million and I'm sure there's going to be

55:58more of that as we move forward through

56:00not just this item, but other items that

56:03we're considering on the full council.

56:05Thank you.

56:07>> Welcome. Councilman Renie, did you have

56:09a comment? Um I did want to just respond

56:12that my understanding about the

56:14commitment to the Shine community is

56:16that this would require a resolution um

56:19uh from our city attorney's office uh to

56:21adopt this once it's in final form. And

56:24so um for that reason um it is not being

56:29done at the same time as uh these um

56:32resonings and this annexation. So, um,

56:36just to explain why this is, it will be

56:38coming after the fact.

56:40>> Um,

56:42I do want to make a comment. I want to

56:44councilman Wolf um mentioned one of in

56:47his discussion earlier in the day

56:50that you know the planning commission

56:53doesn't have the expertise that the

56:54council has that they have not attended

56:57the multiple numbers of of meetings with

57:02various

57:03data center developers

57:06and perhaps

57:08we should be looking at who's on the

57:10planning commission because I think

57:11that's probably incumbent upon on them

57:13to educate themselves if they're going

57:15to do it and they probably should be

57:17attending those meetings along with us.

57:18So, thank you.

57:20>> Thank you.

57:22Okay. Um any other discussion from

57:24committee hearing? None. All in favor

57:27say I.

57:28>> I.

57:28>> I.

57:29>> Opposed. This item will move forward

57:31with a recommendation to approve on

57:32third and final reading at the next

57:34meeting of the council. Next item,

57:36please.

57:38Number 19 resolution amending the future

57:41land use map of plan by changing the

57:44land designation from agricultural rule,

57:47open space and parks and mixed use

57:50employment to community business and

57:52removing the natural and cultural

57:53resources area designation for property

57:56generally located south of Interstate

57:5880, southeast of Otto Road and west of

58:02Interstate 25.

58:05Uh staff report please chair

58:07>> members of committee Conor planning and

58:08development department. The future land

58:10use map amendment before you. It's for

58:12the hitching post district. Um basically

58:14this future land use map amendment does

58:17help support the zoning map amendment

58:18that was discussed earlier on the

58:20agenda. I do understand that it does

58:23look like based on the agenda these do

58:26come out of order in a sense. Um

58:31council can always change that at final

58:32reading. you can always move to suspend

58:34the rules and move them into place where

58:36they need to be if you choose to do so.

58:38Otherwise, it will still have to be

58:40taken off of consent regardless uh for

58:43the next this item and the next item

58:45because they do have to come after the

58:46annexation. Um so, if you do have

58:49questions about if you are going to

58:50suspend the rules and move them to where

58:52you believe they need to be, just ask

58:53staff. Um otherwise, we can do what

58:57we've been doing where they stay as a

58:58resolution in their normal order. they

59:01still end up as long as you approve the

59:04zoning and then approve the future land

59:06use map amendment as well. Um, but

59:09again, this is for the Hitch and Coast

59:10District. I have no new further

59:13information than what I just went over

59:15and staff has had no additional public

59:18comment on this specific item.

59:20>> Thank you.

59:21>> Okay. Are any public comment?

59:25I hearing or seeing none here in

59:27chambers. Um, I believe we still have

59:30Mr. Miller.

59:33>> Can you hear me?

59:34>> Yes, we can.

59:35>> Uh, item number uh, Madam Chair, members

59:37of the committee, Charles Miller, uh,

59:38for the record, item 19. This one, this

59:41one resolution does four things at once.

59:43It changes three land use designations

59:45from agricultural,

59:47open space and parks, and mixeduse

59:49employment, all to community business.

59:52and it removes the natural and cultural

59:56resources area designation from these

59:59652 acres. Um, when this was heard on

1:00:03September 21st, there was no public

1:00:05comment and no discussion. It passed on

1:00:08a voice vote. So, I'm going to ask one

1:00:09simple question and I want the answer in

1:00:11the record today uh if possible. What is

1:00:14the natural inc cultural resources area?

1:00:18Name it. Is it a habitat? It is it is it

1:00:20the historical hitching post site

1:00:22itself? Is it a recorded cultural

1:00:24resource? It is it a wildlife corridor

1:00:26along Clear Creek? Because if this

1:00:28council cannot name what it is deleting,

1:00:31it cannot claim to have evaluated it. If

1:00:33you don't know what it is, you cannot

1:00:35vote to remove it. I want the survey. I

1:00:37want the map. I want the analysis that

1:00:39says removing this designation is

1:00:41appropriate or I want this item

1:00:43postponed. Second point, on September

1:00:4421st, staff themselves said, and I'm

1:00:47quoting, "With the item for the hitching

1:00:49post, we probably should have postponed

1:00:51that as well." Staff said that because

1:00:52the land was outside city limits and

1:00:55this council cannot amend the future

1:00:57land use map for land it does not

1:00:58govern. Um, that is a procedural defect

1:01:01and it was corrected by postpone

1:01:03postponement. Good. It has now been

1:01:05postponed once from September 28th to

1:01:08today. A plan amendment that has had to

1:01:10be procedurally adjusted twice should be

1:01:12carefully done carefully, not quickly.

1:01:14Third, the money. Public comment on July

1:01:1713th stated that the Hitching Post

1:01:18District site is requesting $5 million

1:01:20of six penny tax for infrastructure and

1:01:23site preparation. If the public is being

1:01:24asked to pay $5 million for this

1:01:26district, then the land use designation

1:01:28that triggers it deserves more than a

1:01:30voice vote with no discussion. Postpone

1:01:32item 19 to October 12th, produce the

1:01:34natural and cultural resources analysis

1:01:37and take it after the annexation, not

1:01:39before it. Thank you.

1:01:42>> Any other public comment

1:01:45hearing or seeing none, I would

1:01:46entertain a motion.

1:01:49>> Madam Chair, I move to adopt.

1:01:53>> Second.

1:01:54>> Okay, we have a motion from Councilman

1:01:57Esabel, a second from Dr. Emmens. Um any

1:02:00discussion?

1:02:02All in favor say I.

1:02:04>> I.

1:02:04>> I.

1:02:05>> Opposed. This item will move forward

1:02:06with a recommendation to approve on

1:02:09third and final reading at or I'm sorry

1:02:11to adopt at the next meeting of the

1:02:12council. Um next item please. Number 21,

1:02:16resolution amending the future land use

1:02:19map of plan Cheyenne, changing the land

1:02:20use designation from mixeduse

1:02:22residential to mixeduse employment for

1:02:25property generally located west of South

1:02:28Gley Highway south of West College Drive

1:02:31and southwest of and adjacent to the

1:02:33intersection of Apple Street and York

1:02:35Avenue.

1:02:36Staff report, please.

1:02:39>> Chair, members of committee, Connor

1:02:40White Planning and Development

1:02:41Department. Uh, this is the future land

1:02:43use map amendment for Orchard Hills. Um,

1:02:45so this does, uh, by approving this, it

1:02:48would support the zoning map amendment

1:02:49that was earlier on the agenda. Um, as I

1:02:53mentioned with the last one, yes, these

1:02:55kind of look like they're out of order

1:02:56because they are resolutions. Uh,

1:02:58they're not ordinances. So the way our

1:03:00agenda falls, you have ordinances before

1:03:02resolutions. So that's why this is on

1:03:04the agenda coming after um staff has no

1:03:08further um updates or information. Uh as

1:03:12I mentioned earlier, there was just that

1:03:13one public comment where the uh resident

1:03:16in Orchard Valley did not support the

1:03:18project as a whole uh going to LI or the

1:03:20future land use map amendment. I did

1:03:23support the annexation. Um with that,

1:03:26I'm available for any questions.

1:03:29>> Any questions for staff?

1:03:33Seeing none, I uh would go out for

1:03:35public comment. Mr. Lloyd.

1:03:39Madam chair, members of the committee,

1:03:40my name is Seth Lloyd. I work in your

1:03:41planning department and I'm also a

1:03:42resident of the community in W one. Um I

1:03:46forgot to mention on my initial

1:03:48discussion on this item is that I I have

1:03:51a concern about our applicants um

1:03:54determination of how many residential

1:03:56land opportunities we have in the

1:03:57community because that relies on this

1:04:00governing body saying no to other people

1:04:01who may come in with data center

1:04:02applications for large

1:04:05acreage parcels. So, um, I invite the

1:04:09council to think about that when they're

1:04:10making this decision and other decisions

1:04:11in the future. When when or if at all

1:04:15will we say no to a data center on a

1:04:17large acreage parcel? Um, and when will

1:04:20we require um land to be residential?

1:04:24Um, once again, it's it's a matter of

1:04:26perspective and it's not to be taken

1:04:28lightly, but it's not necessarily bad

1:04:30one way or the other. It's just making

1:04:32sure that you're um considering all of

1:04:34the factors when making these decisions.

1:04:36Thank you.

1:04:37>> Thank you. Any other public comment?

1:04:42Looks like we still have Mr.

1:04:46Miller.

1:04:47>> Uh, can you hear me?

1:04:48>> Yes, we can.

1:04:50>> Madam Chair, members of the committee,

1:04:51uh, Charles Miller for the record on

1:04:53item 21. Um, uh, Madam Chair, through

1:04:56you, I just wanted to thank the previous

1:04:58speaker for being so candid and, um,

1:05:01that's not something that you hear very

1:05:02often from your, uh, your staff. So,

1:05:06that was that was good. Um, the planning

1:05:09commission, the body this city appoints

1:05:11to apply its own plan, voted to deny

1:05:13this amendment. Staff recommended

1:05:15denial. And this resolution exists for

1:05:17exactly one purpose, to make item 15

1:05:20legal. Um, the plan is being amended

1:05:23because the zoning needs it. That is

1:05:25backwards and it is the same circular

1:05:26logic I described in item 15. I won't

1:05:29repeat it. I'll just say the findings

1:05:30should be in this record and they are

1:05:32not. This is not a technical correction.

1:05:34mixeduse residential is where housing is

1:05:36supposed to go. This is 162 acres of

1:05:39designated residential capacity next to

1:05:41the city's largest employer. The staff

1:05:43report on September 21st said that the

1:05:45plan change was for the data center in

1:05:472022 and that the hope was at the time

1:05:51uh was that bringing utilities in would

1:05:53quote spur further either residential

1:05:55development or other development in this

1:05:57area. Um so let me put it plainly. The

1:06:01utilities were extended for meta. The

1:06:03promise was that they would support

1:06:04housing next door. Now the land is being

1:06:06re redesated to remove the housing and

1:06:09keep the industrial pattern going. That

1:06:10is not what this um what the what the

1:06:13council was told told in 2022. That is a

1:06:16broken commitment and it should be said

1:06:18out loud in this room. Uh if you delete

1:06:21162 acres of residential capacity, you

1:06:23owe the public an answer. Where does

1:06:25that housing go instead? Which parcel

1:06:27replaces it? What number? If the answer

1:06:29is nowhere, then you have reduced this

1:06:31city's residential land supply and never

1:06:33acknowledged it. Finally, the record

1:06:35still does not contain the signed

1:06:36agreement that this committee said had

1:06:38to be finalized before third reading.

1:06:40The applicant's commitment document was

1:06:42described for on the record as a rough

1:06:44draft still in process. Uh today is the

1:06:47uh the vote for recommendation of that

1:06:49and there is that that is not a

1:06:51schedule. That is a hope. Um postpone

1:06:55item 21 to October 12th. Produce three

1:06:57things in writing. the planning

1:06:58commission overruling findings, the

1:06:59housing capacity analysis showing where

1:07:01the displaced residential capacity goes

1:07:03and the executed applicant agreement

1:07:05then vote with the paperwork in hand,

1:07:07not after. Thank you.

1:07:10>> Thank you. I just want to make sure that

1:07:12everyone understands that I don't

1:07:14believe that I've ever heard that um

1:07:18this is next to our city's largest

1:07:21employer. I don't know that we've ever

1:07:23been told or assumed that Meta would be

1:07:26our largest employer in our community.

1:07:28Um, and I also don't believe um that

1:07:31we've ever assumed that Meta was

1:07:34planning this uh acreage to their north

1:07:36for housing that they were wanting to or

1:07:39hoping that was going to be developed

1:07:40for housing for their employees. So, I

1:07:42think those are two false assumptions

1:07:43that are being put out there that I want

1:07:45to make sure um are corrected on the

1:07:47record. Um, any other public discussion?

1:07:51a public comment.

1:07:54Hearing none, I would entertain a

1:07:55motion.

1:07:58>> Madam Chair, I move to adopt.

1:08:01>> We have a motion from Councilman Esabel

1:08:04and a second from uh Dr. Renie um to

1:08:07approve or to adopt this item. Um is

1:08:11there any discussion?

1:08:13Hearing none, all in favor say I.

1:08:16>> I.

1:08:16>> I.

1:08:18>> And all opposed. This item will move

1:08:20forward with a recommendation to adopt

1:08:21at the next meeting of the council. Next

1:08:24item, please. Number 24, resolution

1:08:26authorizing the mayor and the city clerk

1:08:28to sign a final plat for Hitching Post

1:08:30District, City of Cheyenne, Larmy

1:08:31County, Wyoming, located south of

1:08:33Interstate 80, southeast of Otto Road,

1:08:35and west of Interstate 25.

1:08:39And uh we'll go out for a staff report

1:08:41on the Hitching Post District

1:08:43resolution.

1:08:49Hopefully it eventually comes up.

1:08:51>> Let's We should also note for the record

1:08:52that Councilman or Councilman Emmens did

1:08:55have to leave. So, thank you.

1:09:00There we go.

1:09:04Okay.

1:09:06Chair, members of the committee, Conor

1:09:07White, Planning and Development

1:09:08Department. The item before you is for a

1:09:12final plat for the Hitching Post

1:09:13District. So this is for the PRCA uh

1:09:17location. You'll probably notice that on

1:09:19the agenda there is a preliminary plat

1:09:21at the very end of the agenda. Um the

1:09:24reason that both of these are on here is

1:09:26the final plat does not basically final

1:09:29plat the entire area that they're

1:09:31preliminary platting. Um at this time

1:09:34they're mostly just platting to get the

1:09:35road out there and then a couple of lots

1:09:38and one of those lots being the hitching

1:09:39post. Um so that's why you have the

1:09:42preliminary and final.

1:09:45So with the final plat um this does

1:09:48provide the location for the PRCA

1:09:53um museum and as well as the road that

1:09:57would connect uh from the south up to uh

1:10:03where the museum will be.

1:10:07The final plat does um

1:10:11match what's on the preliminary plat. Um

1:10:16there are additional easements on here

1:10:19uh for separate accesses

1:10:22uh and then providing basically the

1:10:25overall lot where you'll eventually see

1:10:27another final plaque come through.

1:10:30Planning Commission did review both the

1:10:32preliminary plat and the final plat and

1:10:34they did recommend approval and with

1:10:36that I am available for any questions.

1:10:38>> Do we have any questions from committee

1:10:40for staff?

1:10:43>> Okay, we will go ahead Dr. Renie.

1:10:48>> I'll wait.

1:10:50>> Okay. Uh we'll go out for public comment

1:10:52on this item. Is there anyone who would

1:10:54like to make public comment on this

1:10:55item?

1:10:59Looks like we only have Mr. Miller. So,

1:11:01Mr. Miller.

1:11:14>> Can you hear me?

1:11:15>> Yes, we can.

1:11:16>> Um, Madame Chair, members of the

1:11:18committee, Charles Miller, for the

1:11:20record on item number 24, the final plat

1:11:23for the Hitching Post District. um

1:11:25sponsored by uh you madam chair uh Dr.

1:11:28Aldrich Aldrich. Uh the city's own memo

1:11:31for this file is dated September 16th

1:11:32and it is titled quote hitching post

1:11:35district expedited plat. The same memo

1:11:38states that this is a plat of five lots

1:11:40and one road covering 652 acres and it

1:11:42is schedules and it schedules final

1:11:45consideration for October 12th. Um my

1:11:48first question is for the city attorney

1:11:50John Brody and I want it answered on the

1:11:52record if possible. uh if item 11 and

1:11:55item or item 19 fails

1:11:58uh or today or

1:12:02uh rather on October 12th, what happens

1:12:04to this plat? Can the mayor execute and

1:12:07record a final plat for land that is

1:12:08still zone county? What is the city's

1:12:11exposure if this plat is signed and the

1:12:13zoning underneath it never passes? Who

1:12:15pays the cost of cost of unwinding it,

1:12:18the applicant or the taxpayers? This is

1:12:20not a hypothetical. This committee is

1:12:22voting on the zoning and the plan in the

1:12:25same meeting as the plat that depends on

1:12:26them. If the sequence fails, the plat is

1:12:29the thing that gets recorded and the

1:12:31city is the thing that's exposed.

1:12:33Second, the memo says, quote, "Staff has

1:12:35received no inquiries or or comments

1:12:37from the public on this project. The

1:12:40project page on the website has received

1:12:41208 views and no comments, and the staff

1:12:44treats that as an absence of objection.

1:12:46208 page views is not consent. It is the

1:12:49absence of notice. What did the city do

1:12:52to notify the people who live on Otto

1:12:54Road on Southwest Drive and in the

1:12:56Overland Trails business area business

1:12:58park? I want the notice list entered in

1:13:01the record, names, addresses, dates

1:13:03mailed. If the city's outreach was a web

1:13:05page, say so and do not call it public

1:13:07um support.

1:13:09Uh third, the owners on this plat

1:13:11include Dino Nobel, which is an

1:13:13explosives manufacturer. What easements,

1:13:15liabilities, and access rights does that

1:13:17create across this plat? and has the

1:13:19public been told that deserves a plain

1:13:21answer before the mayor signs. The plat

1:13:23is supposed to be the last step in this

1:13:25process, not the first. Postpone item 24

1:13:27to October 12th and take it after the

1:13:29zoning and the land use designations are

1:13:31final. Thank you.

1:13:35>> Thank you. Uh any other public comment?

1:13:41>> Okay. Uh hearing none, I would entertain

1:13:44a motion.

1:13:47Move to adopt.

1:13:49>> Second.

1:13:50>> We have a motion by Councilman Renie and

1:13:52a second by Councilman Esabel uh to

1:13:55adopt this resolution. Um is there any

1:13:57discussion?

1:13:59>> Madam Chairwoman.

1:14:00>> Yes, Councilman Renie.

1:14:01>> So, um I guess I maybe should have

1:14:04brought it up under number 19, but I

1:14:05want to discuss while we're plotting

1:14:07this area, and I was hoping there'd be a

1:14:09representative here, so I'll probably

1:14:12bring this up Monday.

1:14:14um back when we were had open space

1:14:17parks and everything. I as I said I

1:14:19remember when that was first brought

1:14:20through through and it was discussed at

1:14:23the time that um we would use that area

1:14:26as a greenway connector to the Belvoir

1:14:28Ranch and then and then we sold off a

1:14:31portion of that which then made that

1:14:34connection impossible.

1:14:35Um, and and I think I remember we were

1:14:38told, "No, we've figured out a way to

1:14:40come off off the Crow Creek Greenway,

1:14:43run up past the Little America, and then

1:14:46get down to the Belvoir that way." Um,

1:14:48that seemed not too plausible to me. So,

1:14:51I think I voted no at that time.

1:14:54But um so now that this is going to is

1:14:59being platted and I think that

1:15:02um the developers would maybe be

1:15:04amendable to an amenity like that. I

1:15:07would hope that I'm going to bring it up

1:15:09Monday, but I would hope our staff would

1:15:11kind of say, is there any way we can

1:15:13honor Greenway through there to hook up

1:15:14to the Belvoir potentially?

1:15:17So, um and I don't need a comment. I

1:15:20just want to make my comments so it was

1:15:21at least on somebody's radar. for the

1:15:24administrative record.

1:15:25>> for the permanent administrative record.

1:15:27Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

1:15:29>> Madam Chair.

1:15:29>> Yes, sir.

1:15:31>> I also want to point out that this

1:15:32action allows our economic development

1:15:35team, the mayor's office, uh, and

1:15:39everybody else in this community that is

1:15:42looking for different types of

1:15:43businesses that are going to come to

1:15:44Cheyenne. You have Montana Silvermith,

1:15:48the Wrangler, Levi Strauss,

1:15:51uh, all the different companies that

1:15:56make boots, King Ropes, I could probably

1:15:58go on and on. Uh, you know, our vision

1:16:02for that area is something that's going

1:16:04to be

1:16:06promoting our western heritage here. I

1:16:09know in one of our meetings somebody

1:16:10said, "We don't do anything for the

1:16:13cowboy." Well, I think we've actually

1:16:17put our money where our mouth is and

1:16:19we're going to have some of the best

1:16:21western

1:16:23uh shows and shops and

1:16:27restaurants in this district and I'm

1:16:29really excited about the future for it.

1:16:32Thank you.

1:16:33>> Thank you. Okay. Uh any other discussion

1:16:36by the committee? All in favor say I.

1:16:40>> Opposed. This item will move forward

1:16:42with a recommendation to adopt at the

1:16:44next meeting of the council. Next item,

1:16:46please. Number 27, resolution appointing

1:16:49to appointing the city of Cheyenne's

1:16:51representatives to the Wyoming

1:16:53Association of Risk Management Joint

1:16:54Powers Board and the Wyoming Association

1:16:57of Risk Management Property Insurance

1:16:59Joint Powers Board.

1:17:02>> Okay. Staff report, please.

1:17:06Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Amber Ash,

1:17:08chief of staff for the city. Um before

1:17:11you is a resolution that would appoint

1:17:14um Director Fountain as the primary and

1:17:16Marilyn Sutherland as the alternate um

1:17:20for warmth. Um this is a requirement of

1:17:23their bylaws. Um previously uh Deputy

1:17:27Sutherland has been doing it for roughly

1:17:3010 11 years. Um and uh Director Fountain

1:17:33has served as the alternate for the past

1:17:36eight years. um with the expiration of

1:17:38the term, it's a good time for us to

1:17:40rotate those positions and um director

1:17:43Fountain will take primary. Um and um

1:17:46Director Fountain is here as well if you

1:17:48have any specific questions, but um we

1:17:51would ask for your support of this.

1:17:53>> Thank you. Are there any questions from

1:17:56committee for the staff?

1:17:59Okay, we'll go ahead and go out for

1:18:01public comment.

1:18:05Mr. Miller, it looks like you have an

1:18:06opinion on this.

1:18:08>> Can you hear me?

1:18:09>> We can.

1:18:11>> Um, [clears throat] Madam Chair, members

1:18:12of the committee, Charles Miller, for

1:18:14the record. Uh, this is the shortest

1:18:16item on the agenda, so I'll be brief,

1:18:18but I want one thing fixed before you

1:18:20vote. Uh, this resolution, uh, at least

1:18:22all the documents, uh, in regards to

1:18:25this resolution. I I know the previous

1:18:28speaker just indicated um some some uh

1:18:33individuals, but uh but the resolution

1:18:36does not appoint a person. It appoints a

1:18:37job title. Read it. It designates the

1:18:40individual serving as the director of

1:18:41the city's compliance department as the

1:18:43representative and the individual

1:18:45serving as the deputy director of the

1:18:47compliance department as the alternate

1:18:49for a term ending June 30th, 2029. The

1:18:52resolution's own recital say that the

1:18:54say the warm bylaws uh require each

1:18:57member to appoint in writing one person

1:18:59to the board and one alternative by uh

1:19:02bylaws say person. This resolution says

1:19:04office. Those are not the same thing. If

1:19:06the director changes jobs next month,

1:19:08who is on that board and who did the

1:19:10city actually appoint? I asked that the

1:19:12nominees name and qualifications be

1:19:14entered into the record before the vote.

1:19:16Uh that is 30 seconds and it makes this

1:19:18resolution what it claims to be. Second,

1:19:20and I raised this without accusation,

1:19:22this appoints the city's own compliance

1:19:24and risk official to the board of the

1:19:26insurance pool that covers the city.

1:19:28That may be entirely proper. Uh risk

1:19:30managers sit on the risk pools all the

1:19:32time, but the moment to identify a real

1:19:34or perceived conflict is before the

1:19:36vote, not after a claim. I ask for a

1:19:38short statement on the record of the

1:19:40city's exposure in the pool and any

1:19:42conflict disclosed and managed. Oh,

1:19:45thank you.

1:19:47>> Thank you.

1:19:49Any other public comment?

1:19:54>> Okay. Uh, hearing none, I would

1:19:56entertain a motion.

1:20:01>> Madam Chair, I move to adopt. Second.

1:20:03>> We have a motion from Councilman Esabel

1:20:06and a second from Dr. Renie. Is there

1:20:08any discussion by committee?

1:20:12Madam Chairwoman, I think it's perfectly

1:20:14clear to me reading it that we are

1:20:16appointing the individual that serves as

1:20:18our compliance director.

1:20:20>> And yes, if that if that position

1:20:22changes, then our com then the new the

1:20:24new compliance director would serve in

1:20:26that capacity. And I think it um

1:20:31having

1:20:33talked to the executive director for

1:20:35WARM, I think it makes sense to have our

1:20:37compliance director on that board. Um, I

1:20:41think it might help with reducing some

1:20:43of the incidents that Cheyenne has

1:20:45experienced over the years. So, thank

1:20:47you.

1:20:49>> Any other comments from committee?

1:20:52I believe that um both of those

1:20:54individuals understand our expectation

1:20:56that if there is a conflict of interest,

1:20:58uh, they would remove themselves from

1:20:59that voting situation. So, um, I think

1:21:04our staff is professional enough to

1:21:06understand that.

1:21:07Any other comments?

1:21:10All in favor say I.

1:21:12>> I.

1:21:12>> Okay. All opposed. This uh resolution

1:21:15moves forward with a recommendation to

1:21:17adopt at the next meeting of the

1:21:19council. And last item, please. Number

1:21:2128A. Prelim preliminary plat for

1:21:24Hitching Post District, City of

1:21:26Cheyenne, Larry County, Wyoming, located

1:21:28south of Interstate 80, southeast of

1:21:31Auto Road and west of Interstate 25.

1:21:34>> Okay. Staff report.

1:21:38Chair and members of the committee,

1:21:39Connor White, Planning and Development

1:21:40Department.

1:21:43So again before you uh this is the

1:21:45preliminary plat for the Hitching Post

1:21:48District. Um

1:21:51this is showing the general layout of

1:21:54what is proposed for the area. This

1:21:57basically when final plats come in uh

1:21:59they will have to be uh substantially

1:22:02compliant with the preliminary plat. So,

1:22:05this is showing the loop road as well as

1:22:08a secondary access uh that will

1:22:10eventually be platted in the future. Um,

1:22:14and then it's creating the preliminary

1:22:17portion for that final plat that was on

1:22:18the agenda earlier.

1:22:23Planning Commission did review this and

1:22:24did recommend approval.

1:22:27With that, I am available for any

1:22:28questions.

1:22:31>> Thank you. Um any questions for staff?

1:22:36Were there any comments?

1:22:39>> Madam Chair, through you. Uh staff has

1:22:41not had any uh public comment on this

1:22:44item. Um and I guess to answer the

1:22:47question about notification. Plats don't

1:22:50require mail notice. Uh they just have

1:22:53posted notice.

1:22:55Any of the mailed notice that went out

1:22:56would have been for the zoning map

1:22:58amendment. And this plat was on the same

1:23:00agenda and was discussed at the same

1:23:02meeting as the zoning at planning

1:23:04commission. So anybody who was

1:23:07interested could have found it that way

1:23:08as well.

1:23:11>> Thank you. And I see that we had 124

1:23:14views with no comments on this item.

1:23:17>> Madam chair through you. Yes, there's

1:23:19couple hundred views on the item. Uh no

1:23:21public comment was made on our uh

1:23:24connect Cheyenne website. Um, anybody

1:23:27who wants to make public comment can.

1:23:29Uh, other items have had public comment

1:23:32on them. This one has not had any public

1:23:35comment.

1:23:35>> Thank you. Okay. Any questions from

1:23:38committee?

1:23:39Okay, we'll go out for public comment.

1:23:41Um, any public comment here in the

1:23:43chambers

1:23:45hearing or seeing none, I believe we

1:23:47have Mr. Miller again. Mr. Miller,

1:23:53>> can you hear me?

1:23:54>> Yes, we can. Madam chair, members of the

1:23:56committee, Charles Miller for the

1:23:57record. Item 28, the preliminary plat

1:24:00for Hitching Post. The city's memo for

1:24:01this file is dated September 24th, and

1:24:04it tells you two things that don't

1:24:05match. The preliminary plat proposes

1:24:07nine lots on multiple blocks. The final

1:24:09plat, item 24 on the same agenda,

1:24:12proposes five lots and one road. Both

1:24:14are in front of you today. Uh, which one

1:24:16is the plan of record? If this committee

1:24:19is being asked to acknowledge one map

1:24:21while it authorizes another, that needs

1:24:23to be said out loud on the record with

1:24:24an explanation of what changed between

1:24:26the two and who decided it because the

1:24:28difference between nine lots and five

1:24:30lots is not clerical. It is the

1:24:32difference between a plan and a

1:24:33reduction.

1:24:35Excuse me. [clears throat] Second, the

1:24:36memo states that the plat creates new

1:24:38rights of way, including a loop of right

1:24:40of way connecting back to Clear Creek

1:24:42Parkway. and that on the final plaque

1:24:44quote only part of the proposed right of

1:24:47way will be developed. So uh I would

1:24:50like the phasing and the financing

1:24:53in the record uh what gets built first

1:24:56who pays for the roads who pays to

1:24:58maintain them the city the district or

1:25:00the land owners and what portion of

1:25:02these 652 acres remains open space once

1:25:05the platting is done. Uh third, on

1:25:07September 21st, the landowner told this

1:25:09committee that this ground has been a

1:25:11winter pasture for sheep for a hundred

1:25:13years, that he swore he would never

1:25:15develop it and that he intends to keep

1:25:17grazing it. Quote, "We still are going

1:25:19to be grazing it this winter with

1:25:21sheep." Um, excuse [clears throat] me.

1:25:24If that's true, put it in the plat, not

1:25:26in a covenant held by a private party,

1:25:28not in a promise made to a committee. In

1:25:30the plat where the city can enforce it.

1:25:32Otherwise, the plat is simply the

1:25:33mechanism that converts a promise into

1:25:35pavement.

1:25:36And on the notice point I raised on item

1:25:3824, the memo says, "This project page

1:25:40got 124 views and no comments." And

1:25:42staff treats that as no objection. Show

1:25:45the notice list, postpone item 28 to

1:25:47October 12th and take it after items 11

1:25:49and 19 after the zoning and the plan are

1:25:51final, not before them. Thank you.

1:25:55>> Thank you.

1:25:58Any other public comment

1:26:00hearing or seeing none, I would

1:26:02entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move

1:26:05to approve the preliminary plat.

1:26:08>> We have a motion by Councilman Renie, a

1:26:10second by Councilman Esel. Is there any

1:26:13discussion?

1:26:14>> Madam Chairman, just so I understand on

1:26:16the sequencing because because I noticed

1:26:18that when I was reviewing this, the the

1:26:21final plat coming before the preliminary

1:26:23plat. So the final plat essentially is a

1:26:24really basic and item 24 was a really

1:26:27basic plat that had plotted five lots,

1:26:30platted five lots, sorry.

1:26:33um which

1:26:34I mean was just pretty much the

1:26:36fundamental

1:26:38plan that they wanted to do. Now 28 is

1:26:40coming back and they're getting a little

1:26:42more well defined and that's the reason

1:26:44for the difference in the lots. Is that

1:26:46>> so

1:26:47>> that's my understanding on that correct

1:26:48>> madam chair through you. So with

1:26:51platting you have a preliminary plat

1:26:53that comes before a final plat. The

1:26:54final plat is what actually gets

1:26:56recorded. That is what is on basically

1:26:59what gets developed. What is the lot?

1:27:01What is on the ground preliminary is

1:27:04basically looking at

1:27:06long kind of long-term how's this going

1:27:08to grow. Most of the time council's not

1:27:10really seeing the preliminary plat

1:27:11because we do the expedited planning

1:27:13commission approves the preliminary.

1:27:15You're just acknowledging the

1:27:17preliminary. Uh the final plat is what

1:27:19you actually will vote on and approve.

1:27:22So the preliminary is more of

1:27:26this is how they would like it to

1:27:28develop, how the lots should are planned

1:27:31to look, the roads are going to look. Um

1:27:35the final plat is actually platting a

1:27:37portion of that preliminary to make that

1:27:40official.

1:27:41>> Madam Chairman, why do we have them in

1:27:43reverse order? Why didn't we have

1:27:45>> Madam Chair through you? So it goes back

1:27:47to just how the agenda is laid out. Um,

1:27:50>> so resolutions come before plats.

1:27:53>> Preliminary plat,

1:27:54>> correct?

1:27:55>> Because a preliminary plat you're not

1:27:57you're acknowledging it. You're not

1:27:59necessarily adopting and it's not being

1:28:02recorded. Whereas with the resolution

1:28:04for the um final plat that actually gets

1:28:08adopted and then a final plat comes in

1:28:10and gets signed and recorded. I get it.

1:28:12My issue still is it seems like they're

1:28:15out of order and we should have

1:28:16postponed the final plat before we had

1:28:19approved the preliminary plat. So

1:28:21>> we could change this on Monday night's

1:28:23agenda correct with a motion to do the

1:28:26preliminary plat before we do

1:28:28>> I mean obviously it doesn't make a

1:28:29difference because staff is okay doing

1:28:30it this way but it makes sense to me.

1:28:33>> I think it's confusing for the public as

1:28:34well.

1:28:35members of committee. Um Charles Bloom,

1:28:37planning development director. It would

1:28:38be best that we did move this in advance

1:28:40of the final plat at the regular

1:28:42meeting. So do have the proper order

1:28:44because this is the preliminary plat

1:28:46which sets the stage for the final plat.

1:28:48Um so it would be logical. So I would

1:28:49ask that um one of you all uh put that

1:28:52motion together at the meeting of the

1:28:54governing body next Monday.

1:28:55>> The request is we suspend the rules

1:28:57Monday night in order to change that.

1:28:59>> Yes, that's what I'm hearing.

1:29:01>> Okay. Okay. Any other discussion from

1:29:03committee?

1:29:05>> No. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

1:29:06>> Hearing none. All in favor say I.

1:29:08>> I.

1:29:09>> I.

1:29:09>> Opposed. This item will move forward

1:29:11with a recommendation to adopt at the

1:29:13next meeting of the council. Uh with

1:29:15that, we've completed our agenda for

1:29:16today. Thank you and having a great day.