2026-10-19 - Public Services Committee

01:07Welcome to the Public Services Committee

01:09meeting on on October 19th.

01:12Um, if you are here in chambers with us

01:14and you have your cell phone with if you

01:15would put it on manners mode, we would

01:17appreciate it. Um, if you would like to

01:19make comment, um, please approach the

01:21podium. Make sure the microphone is

01:23turned on and uh, provide your name for

01:26the record.

01:28If you're calling in and would like to

01:29make comments, um,

01:32virtually, uh, you will be able to use

01:34the raised hand um, icon and Jennifer

01:38will then recognize you and give you the

01:39ability to be able to speak to us.

01:42Uh, we will be using a 3-minute timer

01:43today as we have a long agenda.

01:45Um, so with that, if you could read the

01:47first item, please, Jennifer.

01:49>> Number 13, ordinance second reading

01:51annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyo,

01:54south of US 30 and north of Commerce

01:56Circle.

01:58>> Hey, staff report, please.

02:08>> Here are members of the committee,

02:09Connor White, Planning and Development

02:10Department.

02:12>> We can't hardly hear you, Connor.

02:14>> Sorry.

02:15Bring this forward.

02:16Here are members of the committee,

02:17Connor White, Planning and Development

02:18Department.

02:19The annexation before you is for

02:24Christensen Road. So, just over 8 acres.

02:27Um it is just annexing basically

02:29Christensen Road and then a small

02:31triangle property that the city owns.

02:34Um

02:36with this annexation

02:40it did have its public hearing

02:43last week.

02:45Um there wasn't any public comment. The

02:47only public comment that I have

02:48received, there was just a property

02:50owner that called wondering

02:51just what was going on exactly. The

02:54minute I mentioned that it was just

02:55Christensen Road,

02:57they did not seem to have, um

02:59any problem with that.

03:05With this, this is mainly for,

03:08um

03:09just maintenance. Uh determining, uh

03:12just making clear that the city

03:14maintains it. We did build Christensen.

03:16We already maintain it.

03:18Um so, just bringing that into city

03:20limits. The triangle parcel is a

03:21city-owned parcel

03:23that will be turned into right-of-way

03:25upon annexation.

03:27With that, I am available for any

03:28questions if there are any.

03:30>> Hey, are there any questions from

03:31committee?

03:32For staff.

03:34Hearing and not seeing none,

03:36um any public comment?

03:42I'm not seeing anything online,

03:43Jennifer.

03:45Hey, with that, I would entertain a

03:46motion.

03:47>> I'll move.

03:50>> Second.

03:51>> We have a motion from Councilman

03:52Leybourn, second from Councilman Rennie.

03:55Is there any discussion?

03:58All in favor say I.

04:00>> I.

04:00>> Opposed? This item will move forward

04:02with our recommendation to approve on

04:05second reading. Next item, please.

04:07Number 14, ordinance second reading

04:08amending the official zoning map of the

04:10City of Cheyenne establishing the zoning

04:12classification of BP business park for

04:14land annexed to the City of Cheyenne

04:16located south of Tate Road, north of

04:19Commerce Circle, and west of and to

04:21Christensen Road.

04:23Staff report, please.

04:26>> Chair and members of the committee,

04:27Connor Wray, Planning and Development

04:28Department.

04:31So, usually with right-of-way,

04:33uh we don't actually zone right-of-way,

04:35but because this annexation does have

04:37that little triangle that's up there on

04:39the screen that is a lot, we do have to

04:41give it a zone

04:43until we plat it into right-of-way.

04:46Uh

04:46so, right now, that triangle parcel it's

04:49zoned LU in the county.

04:50Uh it is surrounded by the BP zone. Uh

04:53Council did approve the BP zone for all

04:55the land in that business park to the

04:57south.

04:59And when it comes to right-of-way, we

05:00just basically extend the adjacent zone

05:02district into the right-of-way. So, even

05:04without this assigned zoning, it's

05:06probably going to have the overlay of BP

05:08over it once it becomes right-of-way

05:09regardless. But,

05:11because it is a lot, we do have to give

05:13it a zone district for the time being.

05:15Uh the mylars are actually already in

05:16our office and ready to be

05:19recorded for the plat once this is

05:20annexed. So, it will become right-of-way

05:23within a week of annexation. So, this

05:25zone district,

05:26it's just kind of a procedural thing we

05:28have to do.

05:30But again, because this is surrounded by

05:32the BP the BP zone, um and BP will be

05:35extended to it regardless when it

05:37becomes right-of-way, staff does

05:39recommend that it become uh be assigned

05:41the BP zone upon annexation. Planning

05:43Commission did hear this and did

05:45recommend approval of this assigned

05:47zoning, and I'm available for any

05:49questions.

05:50>> Are there any questions from committee

05:51for staff? Councilwoman Runyon.

05:53>> Madam Chairwoman.

05:55I guess I understand why it's going to

05:56be a BP zone cuz that's the adjacent

05:58area, but if it's going to stay public

06:00right away

06:01and be platted as such, why not just

06:02give it a P zone?

06:07>> Chair members of the committee, um

06:09Connor White.

06:11So

06:13again, we don't

06:14zone right of way generally. I mean, we

06:17I guess we could have given it the P

06:19zone with the assigned zoning. We were

06:21just basically giving it what it was

06:23what was adjacent uh because that's

06:25what's going to overlap it. So even if

06:27we gave it the P zone now, it's going to

06:30BP's going to overlap it the minute it

06:32becomes right of way cuz we just extend

06:34the zone district that's adjacent into

06:36right of way.

06:37So

06:39almost any zone district I guess could

06:41go on this parcel and be fine.

06:43We were just going based on

06:45what's going to overlay it once it

06:47becomes right of way and what's adjacent

06:48to it.

06:49Um but it's a very tiny parcel and

06:52again, it's going to be right of way.

06:55>> Councilwoman Runyon, any other

06:56questions?

06:56>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

06:58>> Uh Councilwoman Emmons.

07:00>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um what's

07:02my what's the mylar?

07:05>> Sorry. Um Chair, through you, Connor

07:07White, Planning and Development

07:08Department. It's basically the map that

07:09we just have to sign that gets recorded

07:11with the recording office. So they're

07:13called mylars. They're a special type of

07:15paper.

07:16So.

07:19>> Any other questions for staff?

07:22Hearing none, we'll go out for public

07:23comment. Is there any public comment?

07:29Hearing or seeing none, um I would

07:31entertain a motion.

07:35>> Second.

07:36>> We have a motion from Councilwoman

07:37Runyon and a second from Councilwoman

07:39Emmons

07:41to approve on second reading. is there

07:42any discussion?

07:44Hearing none, all in favor say I.

07:46>> I.

07:46>> Opposed? This item will move forward

07:48with a recommendation to approve on

07:50second reading. Next item, please.

07:51Number 15, ordinance second reading

07:53annexing to the city of Cheyenne,

07:55Wyoming, land south of East Fox Farm

07:57Road, north of East Allison Road, and

08:00east of and adjacent to South College

08:02Drive.

08:03Okay, staff report, please.

08:06>> Chair and members of the committee,

08:07Connor Roy, Planning Development

08:08Department.

08:11Okay, there's going to be a few things

08:12to go over with this annexation.

08:16So, this might actually look familiar.

08:18Uh this is over off of College Drive. It

08:20is by the Reed property.

08:22Um

08:23this is in a county pocket.

08:26This is actually part of County Pocket

08:2810.

08:29Um

08:30which is still postponed until November

08:329th would be the final reading. It'll be

08:34at committee

08:36November 2nd.

08:38Um

08:40basically this annexation was a

08:42landowner petition that they have

08:43submitted

08:45uh

08:47about a month ago

08:48to bring forward because

08:50they would like their property annexed

08:51and they don't know what council's going

08:53to do with County Pocket 10 at this

08:54point in time because it got postponed.

08:57So, to be certain that it does get

08:58annexed, they have submitted their own

09:00petition to annex their land.

09:02Um just in case something happens with

09:05County Pocket 10, whether it be either

09:07postponed again or

09:09denied or something.

09:11They basically submitted this to make

09:12sure that they're still on the agenda.

09:15Now, if County Pocket 10 is approved on

09:18November 9th, this will also be on third

09:20reading. Basically, at that point, this

09:22doesn't need to be approved. Um but it

09:25is on the agenda as basically a safety.

09:28Um and when we get to probably November

09:312nd, we can explain all that again.

09:33Um

09:36with this annexation,

09:39uh because it is submitted under

09:42um as a

09:44owner-initiated, uh after further

09:46discussion with the city attorney,

09:48uh at first we weren't going to do

09:50another public hearing on it,

09:52uh because it's already had a public

09:53hearing, but out of just precaution,

09:56uh we are doing a public hearing, but

09:58you'll probably see, at least in the

10:00staff report, that public hearing is

10:01going to be November 9th.

10:03Now, yes, I know we have never done a

10:05public hearing on third reading. There's

10:07nothing in state statute that prevents

10:08it. You just have to have a public

10:10hearing before an before an annexation

10:12is approved.

10:13Um

10:15the difference with doing a public

10:16hearing later in the process is that in

10:18state statute, when an annexed property

10:20is approved,

10:22it does not become effective until 20

10:25business days after the public hearing,

10:27which is generally why we try to do them

10:29at the beginning of the process,

10:31um because then you meet the 20 days by

10:33the time you get to third reading.

10:35So, also,

10:38um

10:39if you'll notice in the ordinance, uh

10:42the last section of the ordinance, it

10:44does specify a date. So, the ordinance

10:47actually, if

10:48something happens with County Pocket 10,

10:50and then this ordinance needs to be

10:51approved, that ordinance for this

10:53specific property would not become

10:55effective until December 7th,

10:57um because we had to go 20

10:59business days after the public hearing,

11:01uh which we are going to hold on

11:03November 9th.

11:04Uh a certified mailing was sent out on

11:06September 30th to all property owners

11:09within 300 ft, as well as the property

11:11owner here, and uh the utility

11:13companies.

11:15And I got earliest uh the earliest

11:17confirmed receipt

11:20was on October 2nd, and 20 business days

11:24prior would have been October 12th. So,

11:28we are well within the statutory

11:29requirements for the mailing.

11:32Um

11:35But again, this is a county pocket, so

11:38it is adjacent to city limits. Um

11:41Does have uh there is water and sewer

11:44nearby. It would probably have to be

11:45extended.

11:46Um

11:51Yep. Uh uh

11:54Public hearing will be November 9th and

11:55I am available for any questions.

11:57>> Hey, um [clears throat]

11:59That's from Mr. Emmons.

12:01>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um so, the

12:04Hobels are the owners and they're the

12:06ones that have asked for the annexation.

12:08Is that correct?

12:09>> Madam Chair, through you, uh that is

12:11correct.

12:12>> Okay. Just want to be real clear. We're

12:14not annexing this. We're not initiating

12:17this. They are.

12:19>> Madam Chair, through you, that is

12:20correct. The property owners have

12:22basically submitted a separate um

12:25owner-requested annexation.

12:28>> I

12:29I have a question.

12:31If I if you would entertain me for a

12:33minute. Uh

12:36Connor, is this sale is the sale of this

12:38property contingent upon this

12:40annexation?

12:42>> M- Madam Chair, through you, that I am

12:45unsure of.

12:46>> Okay. Thank you.

12:48Hey, any other questions from committee?

12:51Okay, we'll go out for public comment.

12:52It looks like Mr. Emmons is excited to

12:54talk.

13:00>> Madam Chair, uh Committee Brad Emmons,

13:02AVI agent for the applicants and owners

13:04of the property. Um

13:06Just to answer the question, I'm sure

13:09there is some language in there about

13:10the zoning um for uh

13:13sale of the property. Um it is uh

13:16to be combined with the Reed property,

13:18so to getting it all in the same zone

13:20and and put together is what they're

13:22looking to do. So.

13:25>> Thank you.

13:25>> Happy to answer any other questions.

13:28>> Any other questions for Mr. Evans?

13:30Thank you, sir.

13:32Any other public comment?

13:36It does not appear that we have any

13:37online.

13:39So, I would entertain a motion.

13:44>> Um Madam Chairwoman, I move to approve

13:46on second reading.

13:47>> Second.

13:48>> We have a motion from Councilwoman

13:50Immons, a second from Councilman

13:52Leybourne. Is there any discussion?

13:55Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

13:57>> Aye.

13:58>> Opposed? This item will move forward

13:59with a recommendation to approve on

14:01second reading. Next item, please.

14:03Number 16, ordinance second reading

14:05amending the official zoning map of the

14:07city of Cheyenne as

14:08zoning classification of AG,

14:10agricultural, for land annexed to the

14:12city of Cheyenne located south of East

14:15Fox Farm Road, north of East Allison

14:17Road, and east of and adjacent to South

14:19College Drive.

14:21Okay, staff report.

14:22>> Chair, members of the committee, Connor

14:24White, Planning and Development

14:24Department.

14:26So, with any annexation, we have to have

14:28the assigned zoning.

14:30Um we're basically using the same

14:31assigned zoning we brought forward with

14:33County Pocket 10. So, staff is

14:34recommending that this be

14:36assigned the AG zone. It is currently a

14:39residential structure with agricultural

14:41uses on it.

14:43Um now the area has changed quite a bit

14:46in that time, uh but staff felt that

14:49it's already gone through the assigned

14:50zoning process with Planning Commission

14:52back in February, and it was recommended

14:55for approval to the AG zone.

14:57So, staff is still recommending the AG

14:59zone for the parcel

15:01uh with the annexation.

15:04With that, I'm available for any

15:05questions.

15:06>> Are there any questions from committee?

15:09Seeing none, we'll go out for public

15:11comment. Are there any public comments?

15:16Seeing or hearing none,

15:18I would uh entertain a motion.

15:22>> Madam Chairwoman, I move to approve on

15:25second reading.

15:27>> Second.

15:28>> Okay, we have a motion to approve on

15:30second reading from Councilwoman Immons

15:33and a second from Councilman Rennie. Any

15:36discussion?

15:39Hearing or seeing none, all in favor say

15:40I.

15:42Opposed?

15:43This item will move forward with a

15:44recommendation to approve on second

15:45reading. Next item, please.

15:47>> Number 17, ordinance second reading

15:49amending the special zoning map of the

15:50city of Cheyenne changing the zoning

15:52classification for land located south of

15:55East Fox Farm Road, north of East

15:57Allison Road, and east of and adjacent

15:59to South College Drive from AG

16:01agricultural to BP business park.

16:04>> Okay, staff report.

16:06>> Chair members of committee, Conway

16:07Planning and Development Department.

16:09The zone change before you is an

16:10applicant requested zone change.

16:13Uh it's from the assigned zoning of AG

16:15to BP business park.

16:17Uh the plan as stated by the applicant

16:19is to basically combine this parcel with

16:21the Reed property.

16:23Um

16:26Since basically the uh county pocket 10

16:30annexation was brought forward, this

16:31area has changed quite a bit.

16:34Uh the Reed property has been rezoned to

16:36BP business park.

16:38Um

16:39So now basically this parcel is

16:41surrounded by industrial zoning.

16:44Uh

16:44in the county, the parcels to the north

16:47and also across college are all zoned LI

16:50light industrial. Um

16:53Should the two parcels to the north be

16:54annexed with county pocket 10, they will

16:56be assigned the light industrial zone in

16:58the city. So then So then this parcel

17:01will ultimately be uh surrounded by

17:04either LI or BP for city zoning on three

17:08out of the four sides. And then county

17:10LI on that fourth side. So completely

17:12surrounded by industrial zoning.

17:15Um

17:18Again, this is to basically the plan by

17:20the applicant is to incorporate this

17:22into the Reed Ranch. So, having the same

17:24zone district would be beneficial.

17:26Uh that way there is no split zoning uh

17:29or if they wanted to combine it, there

17:31wouldn't be any split zoning.

17:34This was heard by the Planning

17:36Commission. They did recommend approval

17:38of this uh zone change, and I'm

17:40available for any questions.

17:42>> Are there any

17:43questions from committee for staff?

17:46Okay, seeing or hearing none, we'll go

17:48out for public comment.

17:52Seeing or hearing none, I would

17:53entertain a motion.

17:58>> Madam Chairman, I'd move to approve on

17:59second reading.

18:01>> Second.

18:02>> We have a motion from Councilman Rennie

18:03and a second from Councilwoman Emmons.

18:06Um is there any discussion?

18:09Hearing or seeing none, all in favor say

18:10aye.

18:11>> Aye.

18:11>> Opposed? This item will move forward

18:13with a recommendation to approve on

18:15second reading. Next item, please.

18:17Number 18, ordinance second reading,

18:18amending sections 1.4.3, 1.4.4,

18:222.2.3,

18:245.1.4,

18:26and 5.7.2

18:28of the Cheyenne Unified Development Code

18:31to add and clarify specified use

18:33allowances, clarify processes for

18:36agricultural uses, and provide and

18:38providing definitions.

18:42Okay, staff report, please.

18:44>> Madam Chairman, members of

18:45Public Services Committee, my name is

18:47Seth Lloyd. I'm with the City of

18:48Cheyenne Planning and Development

18:49Department.

18:50The proposal in front of you is to amend

18:52various sections of the Unified

18:53Development Code regarding agriculture

18:55and agriculture uses.

18:57Um this has been inspired by a couple of

18:59specific uh requests and applications,

19:02but um through analysis, this is broadly

19:04applicable to um the city as a whole,

19:07and there's a lot of stuff in here that

19:10um would apply to properties within the

19:11city already and potentially annex

19:14properties.

19:15Um, the amendment in front of you

19:18modifies um, some definitions, um,

19:21relevant to, uh, animal and livestock,

19:24what constitutes concentrated feeding

19:26operations, and, um, what constitutes,

19:29um,

19:30harvesting of animals, um, versus just,

19:32uh, incidental harvesting versus, uh,

19:35commercial slaughterhouse type

19:36harvesting of animals.

19:38Um,

19:39the agriculture uses are amended as

19:41well. Um, some of the amendments are,

19:45uh, largely clerical in nature. Some of

19:47them are a little more, uh, substantive.

19:49The biggest change is probably lit to

19:51limited agriculture.

19:53Um, back when the UDC was made, the

19:55state didn't really have, um, a

19:59low low intensity producer option. And

20:02so, in order to produce agriculture and

20:04be a commercial business at the state

20:05level, you had to have a pretty

20:07extensive operation and then meet

20:08extensive requirements.

20:10Um, and so, we had the limited

20:11agriculture to fulfill the smaller scale

20:13version of that. However, with this

20:15change at the state that happened, um,

20:17starting in 2015, but consistently

20:19amended since that time, um, the limited

20:21agriculture is not really an appropriate

20:23use category anymore. So, we've amended

20:25that and changed it to gardens and

20:26homemade foods, which is a lot more

20:28permissible. Um, the limitations as to

20:31what constitutes, uh, limited

20:33agriculture versus general agriculture

20:34is set at 10,000 items or 10,000 in

20:38gross revenue. Um, that's at a

20:39recommendation from the state

20:41agricultural office, um, Department of

20:43Agriculture.

20:45Um, there's a few other, um, minor

20:47amendments and changes throughout. Um,

20:50we also added concentrated animal

20:53feeding operations and slaughterhouses

20:54as a defined use because it's

20:56specifically prohibited under general

20:58agriculture, but it's nowhere permitted.

21:01Um, and so, um, eventually, if someone

21:04ever came in with an application for

21:06that, we'd have to go through an

21:07amendment anyway.

21:08And so, we may as well add that while

21:10we're here.

21:11I do not hope Well, I shouldn't say I

21:13hope. I do not expect this to come into

21:15play, but if it ever does, we will have

21:17a process for it.

21:18Um

21:19we then go to the use table because that

21:22deals with the uses that were just

21:23created. We make the new gardens and

21:26homemade foods broadly permissible.

21:28Um and then we make some other

21:30agricultural uses a little bit more

21:31permissible, especially considering we

21:33have large large large acreage

21:37industrial sites coming into the city. A

21:39lot of these sites are

21:41um

21:42can operate for livestock

21:45rangeland grazing, that sort of thing in

21:47the interim before they develop as

21:48industry. We didn't want to make that

21:49necessarily prohibited for them to do

21:52those type of agricultural operations.

21:55Um then we go to

21:58the site plan section where we clarify

22:00what requires a site plan. Specifically,

22:03agriculture generally does not require

22:04site plan unless we're expecting

22:05customers to be on site. Um we had an

22:08incident where someone was trying to

22:10establish a farm. We got a site plan

22:12submittal and staff was a little bit

22:15Both staff and the applicant were a

22:16little bit like, "This could change. Do

22:18we need a site plan every time they

22:19change rotate crops? They go from wheat

22:22to beans. Do we need a site plan for

22:23that?"

22:24And so, for general agricultural

22:26purposes in agricultural zones,

22:29we felt that a site plan was probably a

22:30little bit over the top for those

22:32operations. Now, if they have a on-site

22:34sale component or they have customers

22:36coming or they're agrotourism, then we

22:38do need a site plan for that operation

22:39because of the nature of having

22:41customers on the site and that expected

22:43traffic.

22:45Um we also

22:47proposed

22:49amending some specific allowances for

22:52home occupations.

22:54Generally speaking, if someone wants to

22:55sell a few extra eggs, I don't think we

22:57need a home occupation allowance for

22:59that. Or if someone has some garden

23:00foods, some cucumbers they want to sell

23:01to someone instead of just giving away.

23:04Um, I don't We don't feel like that's

23:05necessarily necessary to have a home

23:08occupation. If they start going into

23:09like an actual business and they're

23:11doing this all the time, then then maybe

23:13we do need it that that home occupation

23:15allowance uh to be registered that home

23:17occupation to be registered just so that

23:18they're clear as to what the

23:19requirements are and we're clear that

23:20they're going to meet them.

23:22Um,

23:23that's largely it for this

23:26ordinance. Um, I'm available for

23:28questions on any aspect of that

23:29ordinance. I would note though that we

23:31do have Oh, there's one more thing I

23:33want to note, too. We do have three

23:34other ordinances on the agenda that are

23:35related to this um that are will follow

23:37this item, but we'll discuss those

23:39ordinances when it comes to it.

23:41The Planning Commission did hear the

23:42item and recommended approval with one

23:44change and this is the other thing I

23:45want to discuss. They I wanted to add

23:47something to the

23:49uh site plan section where

23:53um existing agricultural operations are

23:55grandfathered in upon annexation.

23:57Um,

23:59that's Staff doesn't feel that's really

24:00appropriate in that section. It's

24:02probably more appropriate to be in

24:031.3.11

24:04uh where we talk about non-conformances.

24:07Um, staff has always treated um

24:09properties being annexed as

24:10non-conforming. They were legal in the

24:12county. If they're continue operating

24:14the same way, we'll treat them as legal

24:15in the city. But 1.3.11 does not

24:17actually specifically say upon

24:19annexation

24:20um

24:21site sites are grandfathered in. It only

24:23says um

24:24before the adoption of the code sites

24:26are grandfathered in. So, it would be um

24:28potentially appropriate to add some

24:29language in 1.3.11 saying specifically

24:32that properties that were legal in the

24:33county are continue to be legal in the

24:36city. However, we don't feel like that's

24:38appropriate in the site plan section.

24:40So, we can prepare that as a substitute

24:42for the next committee meeting if that's

24:43uh something the committee wants to see.

24:46Um,

24:47with that, I am available for any

24:48questions.

24:49>> Okay, we'll take questions from

24:51committee uh for staff. Councilman

24:53Renny.

24:54>> Madam Chairman, going back to what

24:58Mr. Lloyd just referenced in 1.3.11

25:03of the UDC of

25:04that we need something in there to

25:06probably clean things up. I would

25:08think that would be a good amendment to

25:09have ready next time.

25:13>> Thank you.

25:15>> Any other comments or questions from

25:17committee?

25:19Okay.

25:20Um I do have a question um for you. If

25:25uh

25:26when I look at page and it's at the very

25:30very very end, it gives the um

25:33situations where the director can make

25:36allowances or exceptions.

25:38If if that piece is removed, would then

25:41any exception be referred to the Board

25:43of Adjustments?

25:50>> Um Madam Chair, is this in the

25:54I'll I'll I'll back up for just a

25:56moment.

25:57Um for the purpose of the Planning

25:59Commission, we heard the parking item

26:01with the um agricultural item. So, is

26:04this in reference to the parking

26:06landscaping or is this in reference to

26:08agricultural uses?

26:09>> So, this is in

26:11uh it says site plan summary 2.2.3

26:15on page five

26:17at the very end of the

26:20entire document we were given.

26:32>> I I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I'm trying to

26:34find the right spot in the document.

26:39>> It says uh no site plan is required for

26:42and it gives a list and then

26:45uh

26:47it talks about

26:50the ex-

26:52let's see.

26:55I'm sorry. Go to page nine then on

26:57number five exceptions under the

26:59director may approve exceptions to these

27:01design and location standards for lots

27:02under 10 spaces where and it gives three

27:05conditions A or B may approve exceptions

27:07to the design and location standards for

27:09unpaid parking areas through the

27:10administrative adjustment process.

27:13>> Yes, Madam Chair. That is with the

27:14parking lot amendment that will be next

27:16on the agenda. Um the staff report for

27:18the planning commission wasn't

27:20included in its entirety which did

27:22include some references to the parking

27:23amendments. So I apologize for any

27:25confusion on that. Um

27:27the we'll we'll talk to that question

27:29with the next item on the agenda.

27:31>> just all under one item.

27:33So

27:33>> Right, the planning commission staff

27:34report was under one item and we did

27:35include the entire planning commission

27:37staff report. We probably could have put

27:38a

27:39um

27:40uh some sort of watermark on there to

27:42explain what was going on with that. So

27:43I apologize for the confusion.

27:45>> Thank you. Any other questions for

27:47committee?

27:48Or from committee for

27:50F.

27:51Okay, hearing we'll go out for public

27:52comment.

27:59Hearing or seeing no public comment, I

28:02would entertain a motion.

28:05>> Madam Chairwoman, I move to approve on

28:07second reading.

28:11>> Second.

28:12>> We have a motion to approve by

28:13Councilwoman Immons, a second by

28:15Councilman Rinne. Is there any

28:17discussion?

28:19Hearing or seeing none, all in favor say

28:21aye.

28:22>> Aye.

28:23>> Opposed? This item will move forward

28:25with a recommendation to approve on

28:26second reading.

28:28Next item, please. Number 19, ordinance

28:30second reading amending section 6.2.8 of

28:33the Cheyenne Unified Development Code to

28:35allow for on paid parking in certain

28:37site specific situations.

28:41Staff report, please.

28:43>> Chair, members of the committee, Charles

28:45Bloom, planning and development

28:45director.

28:47Um first of all,

28:48Dr. Aldrich, uh your question is

28:50pertinent to this ordinance. As Seth had

28:51mentioned, we have divided that

28:54ordinance that was presented to the

28:55planning commission into two. This This

28:57one focuses on the parking um, elements.

29:01The essential intent of this ordinance

29:03is to allow for gravel parking lots to

29:06be installed in specific instances. Um,

29:09those instances are primarily ones where

29:12they will be um, not used very frequent

29:15very frequently. Uh, what we have um,

29:18indicated as a threshold is parking

29:21areas that are not used more than 55

29:23times annually. So, what this allows for

29:26is uh, this is this allows for those

29:29parking lots that would be

29:31uh, used every weekend and then on some

29:34holidays. So, this would um, essentially

29:37allow for

29:38the

29:40parking lots um, for some places of

29:43worship, some agricultural uses, um,

29:46some park uses, of those types of uses

29:48to go through an alternative where they

29:51can do a gravel surfacing instead of

29:53paved parking. Um, right now in our our

29:57parks, uh,

29:58in agricultural uses and even in our all

30:01of our residential uses, it notes that

30:03any parking areas must be paved. Um, so

30:07what this would do is allow for avenues

30:09to not have to um, do that.

30:14Um, in addition, you Dr. Aldrich had a a

30:17question regarding exceptions. Um, I

30:20believe this was the exceptions section

30:22where it says the director may approve

30:25exceptions to design and location

30:27standards for lots under 10 spaces. Is

30:29that correct?

30:30>> Yes.

30:31>> Um, yes.

30:32Um, with this, uh, we've had this

30:34administrative exception that has been

30:36allowed for these smaller um, parking

30:39lots. Um, and that is represented in

30:42subsection A numbers 1 through 3, where

30:45there is a lot of flexibility given to

30:48um help accommodate infill development,

30:51um also to recognize that um a property

30:57is existing has existing um parking and

31:01a requirement to pave parking would be a

31:04financial burden preventing

31:05redevelopment of a site, um and also uh

31:09that leaving parking as gravel

31:14um is not a major deviation

31:17um from the standards. It doesn't

31:19conflict with the

31:20with the intent of our parking

31:23regulations. Those are exceptions that

31:26presently exist right now.

31:28Um what we have um

31:31done is

31:33allow for a little bit more

31:34administrative flexibility for larger

31:38parking lots. These are parking lots

31:40that would exceed 10 spaces. These would

31:42be ones that could be um overflow uh

31:46parking areas for churches. They could

31:47be for parks and recreation areas, where

31:50we can look to give administrative

31:53flexibility to internal and perimeter

31:56landscaping requirements. For example,

31:59um if someone is designing a gravel

32:03surfaced parking area, even with the

32:06surfacing exemption that we're working

32:08in in all of these different types of um

32:11scenarios and cases,

32:13they still would be expected to address

32:16the internal landscaping, the trees, the

32:19the islands, and also the perimeter

32:21landscaping. What this would allow is

32:24for an independent review of those um

32:28specific site conditions to see if it is

32:31reasonable and needs to be um

32:33implemented or if they can be

32:35essentially um waived through our

32:37administrative,

32:39um, adjustment process.

32:42Um, regarding, uh, this,

32:45with regarding these amendments, uh,

32:47this is very broad. Um, it does apply to

32:51a variety of different situations as

32:53noted above.

32:54Um, this is an item that has been on

32:57our, uh, UDC work plan, uh, and has been

33:01an item that we've wanted to address,

33:03um, over the last couple of years. So,

33:06that is the main reason why we pulled

33:07this out of the agricultural ordinance,

33:09so this would be a standalone ordinance.

33:12Um, regarding this,

33:15um, regarding this proposed ordinance,

33:17I'm open for any questions that you may

33:19have.

33:24>> Any questions, Dr. Emmons?

33:25>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um, I have

33:28a question about ADA. So, ADA would

33:32still comply, uh, apply, wouldn't it?

33:36>> Chair, through you to Dr. Emmons, yes,

33:38this does not exempt any of the

33:39provisions of ADA parking requirements.

33:42>> Um, thank you. And then follow-up, then

33:45how does a wheelchair get through

33:47gravel?

33:52>> Chair, through you to Dr. Emmons, um,

33:54typically what you see in these type of

33:57scenarios is the ADA space would be

34:00required to be paved or concrete,

34:03similar to what we have at East Park.

34:05Um, and then there would be a required

34:07ADA pathway that would be compliant

34:09between that space and the area that's

34:12publicly accessible, um, for that

34:14business um, or that use.

34:16For a business, it would be to the front

34:19door. Um, if it's in the, uh, case

34:23of, um, a park facility, um, it would be

34:26to the trailhead.

34:28>> So, one more follow-up, sure. So, does

34:31the, and I'm sorry, I read this but it's

34:33been a while ago now. Um does the um

34:38ordinance specify that they still have

34:41to comply with ADA so that no one is

34:43surprised that no, you still have to do

34:46some pavement?

34:49>> Chair three to Dr. Emmons, yes, the

34:51beginning of subsection C, uh which is

34:54the last piece of amendments um

34:56of this uh subsection, it says

34:59notwithstanding the surfacing

35:00requirement above, gravel or compacted

35:03aggregate surfacing may be used in lieu

35:04of paved surfacing in the following

35:06circumstances, subject to approval by

35:08the director. And then it goes on to say

35:10alternative surface areas shall be

35:12required to pave ADA spaces and access

35:15onto a public right-of-way in accordance

35:18with Article 4. So, we specifically

35:20spell out that ADA compliance is is

35:23required.

35:24>> Thank you.

35:26Dr. Winnie.

35:27>> Thank you, Madam Chairman. So, to Dr.

35:30Bloom,

35:31so any business then, if they say, "I

35:34really am not

35:36our business is not anticipating that

35:38we're going to have walk-in customers or

35:39drive-up customers."

35:42would be allowed um would be considered

35:45to have

35:46gravel or rock parking?

35:49Is that

35:50>> Chair, members of the committee, Dr.

35:52Winnie,

35:53um the ADA spaces don't only

35:57apply to customers that visit the the

36:00shop. It also applies to employees. So,

36:03that ADA space would still be required

36:05in that specific instance.

36:07>> But um Madam Chairman, through outside

36:09of the

36:10ADA requirement for the ADA space,

36:13if I'm building a if I'm establishing a

36:16new business and

36:18and building it and saying, "Look, we're

36:20I'm just sending my guys out. We're not

36:22We're not going to have any people

36:23walking in or driving up to come talk to

36:26us.

36:27Um then will I be allowed to do a rock

36:31or gravel parking lot?

36:34>> Chair three to Dr. Renny, um I

36:39I understand your question is if you

36:40have a business where there's no members

36:42of the public and they only send

36:47folks out, say for deliveries for a

36:49plumbing shop, those type of items,

36:52could they number one qualify to have a

36:55gravel lot and number two would they

36:57have to have that ADA space?

36:59>> Well, I'm not I'm just worried I'm

37:01considering more the gravel lot and not

37:03the ADA. I understand the ADA

37:05space is a federal requirement, so I'm

37:07not really asking about that. I'm just

37:09asking about the lot in particular.

37:11>> Chair three to Dr. Renny,

37:14that would not qualify because what we

37:16would anticipate with that site is that

37:19usage is what's common and customary

37:22with that use. So it's not um a use

37:25where that parking is being provided

37:27just for temporary spikes that occurs on

37:30an occasional basis.

37:33That parking area would still be

37:34required based on the amount of

37:35employees for them to

37:38park their vehicles. It would have to be

37:39service with surface with asphalt and

37:42because that is what is expected and

37:44customary with that land use.

37:46>> Two two more questions, Madam

37:48Chairwoman.

37:49Um

37:51I guess thinking of this specific,

37:52there's a there's a new business just a

37:54block north of Unridge, just a block

37:56north of Del Range.

37:58And when I drove by it last night, I

38:00thought it had a rock or gravel parking

38:02lot or was I just driving too fast that

38:04I couldn't see it clearly?

38:07>> Chair three to Dr. Renny,

38:10no, you saw correctly. That project was

38:13actually approved in the unincorporated

38:16county prior to the county pocket

38:17annexation. Site plan, building permit,

38:20all of that were approved. That will

38:22have uh the gravel surface parking area.

38:25I do not know how the ADA looks on that

38:28site.

38:29>> Okay. Well, that explains it because I

38:31remember when we were annexed in County

38:32pockets, we said that any existing

38:36County building permits would be

38:37honored. So, and then my last question,

38:39since that now isn't within the city,

38:42since Engineer Cobb is here,

38:45if we ever do a stormwater utility, how

38:47will you how will a gravel rock parking

38:51treated? Will it be

38:53considered similarly to an asphalt lot

38:56or is it more

38:58Well, what does it allow for more

39:00absorption of water?

39:09>> Madam [clears throat] Chair, um through

39:11you to Dr. Renny. Dr. Renny,

39:13>> Sorry to surprise you tonight.

39:14>> That's okay. So, when you there's two

39:16aspects to look at, okay? If I'm looking

39:18at a drainage report, I would look at it

39:20at about 80% impervious. So, that I

39:22wouldn't change it. But, as far as the

39:25fee is concerned, we we do not count

39:27that as an impervious surface. Does that

39:29make sense, sir?

39:30>> Okay. That answers my question. Thank

39:32you, Madam Chairwoman.

39:33>> Any other questions from committee?

39:37Okay.

39:40So, we'll go out for public comment.

39:43Is there any public comment here in the

39:44chambers?

39:46Before we go on to online.

39:48Hey, I see that we have Mr. Miller has

39:50joined us. Mr. Miller.

39:55>> Um hello. Good afternoon. Can you hear

39:57me?

39:57>> Yes, we can.

40:01>> Um Charles Miller,

40:04um item 19.

40:08Uh let's see here.

40:11Uh

40:12Before the substance on the record,

40:14Director Bloom confirmed this ordinance

40:16was one combined ordinance when it went

40:18to the planning commission,

40:20then split into two afterward. That's

40:21exactly why I Dr. Aldridge couldn't find

40:24the exceptions language in tonight's

40:25packet a few minutes ago.

40:27I'd note this is the same kind of

40:29document mismatch why Fresh Farms raised

40:31in writing against item 18

40:33that that the slides shown at the August

40:36work session didn't match the posted

40:38materials.

40:39That's two separate dated instances of

40:41the same problem,

40:43one from the public and one from the

40:44dais. Second, Director told this

40:46committee this ordinance has been on our

40:48UDC work plan for the last couple of

40:50years and was pulled out of the

40:52agricultural ordinance for this cycle.

40:55By staff's own account, this isn't

40:57actually one of the four agricultural

40:59ordinances. It's a standalone parking

41:01policy bundled with items 18, 20, and 21

41:05in today's agenda and in the public

41:07input comment count. That matters

41:10because this is only

41:12This is also the only one of the four

41:16the planning commission split on three

41:17to two.

41:18And Director Bloom just described it

41:20live as

41:21broader than

41:23uh than the staff report suggests

41:25covering lots over 10 spaces in

41:27landscaping relief,

41:28not just small in infill lots under 10.

41:31I'd asked directly did the three to two

41:33vote happen with the benefit of this

41:35broader framing or on a narrow narrower

41:37ordinance than what's being presented

41:39today?

41:40Third, I just heard Dr. Renny ask the

41:42right question could a business with no

41:44walk-in or drive-up customers, his

41:46example

41:48was a plumbing shop that only sends

41:50crews out qualify for gravel parking

41:53simply by declaring it doesn't serve

41:54walk-in members of the public. Staff

41:56began to answer that it would not

41:58qualify, but the full reasoning wasn't

42:00finished on the record um

42:02uh

42:04so um

42:06I'd

42:07I'd ask that the complete answer be

42:09stated clearly before a vote because

42:10this is the same vagueness problem Live

42:12Fresh Farms raised in writing on item 18

42:15asking how are small-scale and

42:17intermittent defined and at whose

42:19discretion. If council members

42:20themselves are testing this ordinance

42:22for loopholes minutes before voting on

42:23it, that's a sign the standard needs a

42:25clearer line, not just a director's

42:26case-by-case discretion. On ADA ADAL

42:29note, Dr. Emmons already got a clear

42:31answer. ADA spaces stay paid with a

42:33compliant path to the door or trailhead

42:35spelled out in subsection C. That part

42:37is resolved. Given a mislabeled document

42:39and ordinance staff says

42:41isn't really part of the ag package it's

42:43riding with, the only three to two vote

42:45among the four and a live loophole

42:47question still being worked out on the

42:48dais, I'd ask this committee to take up

42:50item 19 on its own, not in the same

42:52motion as 18, 20, and 21. Thanks.

42:55>> Thank you.

42:58I do see that we have a member of the

43:00mayor's council for people with

43:01disabilities in our audience today,

43:04who is

43:05sporting a wheelchair and would you like

43:07to make any public comment?

43:11If

43:13Got it.

43:14>> Yeah.

43:18>> We'll come to you.

43:24>> I think Mr. Bloom had a has

43:28spelled it out well, the ADA

43:29requirements for new businesses

43:32and a spot's required.

43:34I believe the full spot would be

43:37I think 17 and a half, no, 9 and a half

43:40feet by 8 feet

43:41with the 8-foot section to the

43:44side of it marked off

43:46for ramps.

43:49>> And Greg, can you identify yourself for

43:50the record, please?

43:51>> I'm sorry, I'm Greg Smith, part of the

43:52mayor's council disabilities.

43:54>> Thank you. Thank you for being here

43:55today.

43:58Any other public comment?

44:02Okay, hearing or seeing none, I would

44:03entertain a motion.

44:08>> Okay.

44:09Um Chairwoman, I would move to approve

44:12on second reading. I would like to point

44:13out that this is listed as item 19 as

44:15separate item from

44:17the others that are probably more

44:19ag-related.

44:21>> Thank you.

44:23Do we have a second?

44:24>> Second.

44:25>> Okay, we have a motion from Councilman

44:27Rennie, a second from Councilwoman

44:29Emmons. Any discussion?

44:33Hearing none, I all in favor Say "Aye".

44:35>> Aye.

44:36>> Opposed? This item will move forward

44:38with a recommendation to approve on

44:39second reading.

44:41Next item, please. Number 20, ordinance

44:44second reading amending section 6.08.020

44:47of the municipal code of the city of

44:49Cheyenne

44:50to revise exceptions to restrictions on

44:53keeping livestock within the city.

44:56Okay, staff report, please.

45:00>> Chair, members of the committee, Charles

45:02Bloom, planning and development

45:03director.

45:04Um this is an amendment to Cheyenne

45:07municipal code regarding where animals

45:11and livestock are allowed within the

45:13city limits.

45:14Um presently right now,

45:17agriculture or livestock is limited to

45:20agricultural zone districts. Um it

45:22doesn't does not specifically spell out

45:24which zone districts they are allowed to

45:27be

45:28in. This

45:30proposed ordinance does clearly specify

45:33in what instances those

45:37livestock operations can occur. It does

45:39note that

45:41that livestock are able to be within the

45:43ag

45:44agricultural district, the agricultural

45:46residential,

45:47um and the rural residential district.

45:50And in addition, it also spells out um

45:53additional

45:55uh regulations regarding

45:57um when they can be allowed um in

46:00conjunction with other developments uh

46:04that allow

46:06agricultural and livestock uses in the

46:08unified development code.

46:11Um for example, if

46:13in a specific zone district, stables are

46:16allowed,

46:17they would be allowed to have livestock.

46:21Um same thing with veterinary clinics

46:23and those types of items as well.

46:26So, that clarification has been added.

46:29Um in addition, there are some pieces

46:32regarding annexation and how

46:34pre-existing grazing does fall in line

46:38with property once it's been annexed.

46:41So, if grazing was occurring on

46:44agricultural lands

46:45and was lawful within the year prior to

46:49annexation, then it would be able to

46:51continue on that property. This is very

46:54important because a lot of the lands

46:56that we do annex today

46:58do have grazing operations. And one of

47:01the big questions at the time of

47:02annexation is, well, can we continue

47:05that grazing until it is developed?

47:07Um so, that has been clarified that we

47:09are essentially following state statute,

47:12which allows for those grazing

47:13operations to continue. Um and we're

47:15just spelling out clearly in our code.

47:20Um

47:21in addition, we still do have the

47:24exemption for goats um when they're

47:28utilized for weed and pest control

47:30purposes by the city of Cheyenne.

47:34Um this is a very straightforward

47:37uh straightforward ordinance. I'm open

47:39for any questions that you may have

47:41regarding it.

47:42>> Are there any questions for staff?

47:46Hearing or seeing none, we'll go out for

47:48public comment. Is there any public

47:49comment here in the chambers?

47:52Seeing or hearing none, I believe Mr.

47:54Miller

47:55you have your hand raised.

48:05>> Hear me?

48:10Hello, can you hear me?

48:11>> Yes, we can.

48:13>> Uh Charles Miller, um item 20.

48:17For the record, staff's own memo on this

48:19item states that of the 10 comments

48:22received on the four ordinance

48:23agricultural package, none addressed

48:25this specific section.

48:27The memo itself says the comment log

48:29includes, quote, "A list of requests to

48:31amend other sections of 6.08, though

48:35none of the requested changes are to

48:376.08.020."

48:40Um staff doesn't name what

48:42that list is. I'd ask that it be named.

48:45Because the only chapter 6.08 request I

48:48can find in today's packet

48:50is the October 5th letter from WyFresh

48:52Farms' attorney, which asks the city to

48:55define livestock under the Right to Farm

48:57Act and extend protection prote- uh

49:00protection to guardian dogs, terrier

49:02dogs for rodent control, and barn cats.

49:04That is a direct request to amend

49:07chapter 6.08, animal care and control,

49:10the same chapter this ordinance amends,

49:12yet it was logged under a different

49:13item's comment filed today, not this

49:16one.

49:17This committee just spent

49:18um

49:19several minutes um on item 19 sorting

49:23out which document a parking amendment

49:25actually belonged to.

49:27I'd ask that the same care be applied

49:29here. If a livestock definition request

49:31got filed under the wrong item, the

49:32record should say so, not just that none

49:35of the requested changes are to

49:366.08.020.

49:39On the substance, this ordinance is

49:41supposed to let livestock continue on

49:43property that receives conditional use

49:45or site plan approval and protect

49:47livestock operations already underway at

49:49the time of annexation. I'd ask the

49:51committee to connect that directly to

49:53items 15 through 17.

49:57Um

49:58the Hayville property annexation, which

50:02the staff report itself describes as

50:04currently a residence and agricultural

50:06use. If this ordinance's annexation

50:08protection is meant to cover exactly

50:10that kind of situation,

50:12um it should go on the record. Does it

50:13actually apply to the parcel this

50:15committee is annexing um

50:18today or we're going on annexing today

50:20or only to future annexations going

50:23forward. Thank you.

50:26>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Is there any

50:27other public comment?

50:31Okay, hearing none, I would entertain a

50:32motion.

50:36>> Madam Chairwoman, I move to approve on

50:37second reading.

50:39>> Second.

50:40>> We have a motion from Dr. Raymonds and a

50:42second from Councilman Laybourn. Is

50:44there any discussion from committee?

50:47Hearing none, all in favor say I.

50:50Opposed?

50:51This item will move forward with a

50:52recommendation to approve on second

50:54reading. Next item, please. Number 21,

50:56ordinance second reading amending

50:58section

50:59section 9.12.080

51:02of the municipal code of the city of

51:04Cheyenne, Wyoming to allow electric

51:06fencing for certain agricultural and

51:08livestock uses.

51:11Staff report, please.

51:13>> Chair, members of the committee, Charles

51:14Bloom, planning development director.

51:16Um this is the additional one subsection

51:18in section 9.12.080,

51:23electric fences prohibited. Essentially,

51:26what this does is this opens up the

51:29utilization of electric fencing for the

51:32containment or management of livestock

51:34areas where agricultural or grazing uses

51:37are lawfully permitted. Um this has one

51:40um caveat that on electric fence, you

51:44shall have reasonable uh posting of

51:47warning signs noting as electrical

51:50electrified fence provided that distance

51:53does not exceed 100 ft in distance along

51:57um

51:57fence lines. This posting would be

51:59required adjacent to any um public areas

52:03um at all gates or access um points as

52:06well.

52:07Um there's a requirement that if

52:09electric fencing is installed um in that

52:12same section um that it is maintained in

52:14a safe and consistent um manner that is

52:17consistent with agricultural processes.

52:20Um I'm open for any questions on this

52:22item.

52:23>> Are there any questions to ask

52:24Councilwoman Edmonds?

52:25>> Thank you, ma'am Chairwoman. Um with the

52:28posting of the warning, since we've

52:32we've heard from the public many times

52:35about there being kids in that area.

52:38Um I've two questions about that. One,

52:40is there like a universal sign

52:43for electric fences?

52:48>> Chair to three to Dr. Edmonds. Um

52:50there's not a universal sign for

52:52electric fences. However, there are very

52:55uh common elements that you can find at

52:58different stores that would say

53:00electrified fence.

53:02>> Um thank you, ma'am Chair. The The

53:04second question I have is should we

53:08perhaps consider that that should be

53:10posted in more than one language?

53:18>> Chair members of the committee, um if

53:20that is an item that you all would like

53:22to proceed with, it'd be more than

53:24appropriate to make an amendment to the

53:26ordinance

53:27if necessary or could just be a policy

53:30um that we could direct people to do. We

53:34could ask them to do it, but we wouldn't

53:35be able to enforce it.

53:40So, Chairwoman

53:41>> we should put it in braille, personally.

53:45No.

53:47Just kidding.

53:48So.

53:49Just kidding.

53:55Okay. Any other questions, Councilwoman?

53:57>> No, that's thank you.

53:59>> Okay.

54:01Any um public comment here in the

54:03chambers?

54:07Hey, it looks like we have Mr. Miller.

54:15>> Can you hear me?

54:16>> Yes, we can.

54:18>> [clears throat]

54:19>> Um Charles Miller, item number 21.

54:22Uh staff reports zero comments received

54:25specifically on this uh section.

54:28But the same packet contains a letter

54:30from Woodhouse, Roden, Aims, and Brennan

54:33dated October 5th on behalf of WyFresh

54:35Farms and the Nicelys, which asks

54:37um in writing for a quote in the

54:39ordinance that permits the use of

54:42installation of electric fencing.

54:44That is precisely what item 21 does.

54:48Um I'd ask staff to confirm on the

54:50record why a direct on-point request for

54:53exactly this ordinance

54:55wasn't logged as a comment under item

54:5721.

54:59Um

55:00>> [clears throat]

55:00>> the Nicely annexation itself reaches

55:03third and final reading on November 9th,

55:04the same meeting items 15 and 17 reach

55:08final reading on today's

55:10farm parcels.

55:12Um

55:14if this ordinance is going to govern

55:16fencing on the Nicelys' own annexed land

55:18in 3 weeks,

55:20this committee should know that

55:21connection exists before it votes, not

55:23after.

55:25Now, the part I'd ask you to slow down

55:27on because this is a public safety and

55:29liability question, not a paperwork one.

55:31Subsection A caps voltage at 12 volts

55:33for goat control and requires that

55:35fencing near a pedestrian path only be

55:37electrified at night. Subsection B, the

55:40general livestock containment exception

55:42that any qualifying landowner can use

55:44with no individualized city review, has

55:46no voltage cap, no energizer or charger

55:50safety listing requirement, and no day

55:52or night restriction at all.

55:55The only standard is uh that it be

55:57{quote} "maintained in a safe condition

55:59consistent with standard agricultural

56:01practices", a phrase this ordinance

56:04never defines.

56:05Um I'd also ask staff to clarify on the

56:08record what 12 V in subsection A

56:10actually caps.

56:12Standard agricultural fence chargers run

56:14on a 12 V battery or outlet, but they

56:17they output pulsed voltage in the

56:19thousandths of volts to the wire itself.

56:23If this ordinance is capping the power

56:25source and not the shock a person or a

56:27child actually receives touching that

56:29wire, then subsection A isn't the safety

56:32limit it reads like, and subsection B

56:34has no limit of any kind. Finally,

56:36subsection B only requires the fence

56:38stay outside the right-of-way, sidewalk,

56:40trail, or easement itself, and it sets

56:43no setback from them.

56:45A fence can sit directly on the property

56:47line immediately next to a public

56:48sidewalk with no buffer at all. And

56:51where subsection A has the city

56:52approving specific locations before

56:54fencing goes in, I'd ask this whether

56:56the city approval creates any liability

56:58exposure for the city itself if someone

57:00is injured at a site the city signed off

57:02on.

57:03Um I'd ask that uh that you get the

57:06voltage definition, the missing setback

57:08in sub- subsection B, and who bears the

57:10liability under subsection A. Thank you.

57:13>> Thank you, Mr. Miller.

57:15Any other public comment?

57:17Hearing and not seeing none, I would

57:18entertain a motion.

57:23>> Madam Chairwoman, I'd move to approve on

57:24third.

57:25Or second reading, second reading,

57:27pardon me.

57:30>> Second. We have a motion from uh

57:33Councilman Rooney, a second from

57:34Councilman Councilwoman Emmons.

57:37Any discussion?

57:38>> Madam Chairwoman.

57:39>> Yes, sir.

57:40>> I

57:42I say hate to admit it, I think Mr.

57:43Miller, at least to me, brought up

57:45legitimate question.

57:48>> Um I think it was a legitimate question

57:50that was brought up.

57:52And that in section B, should we have a

57:56voltage limit

57:58um

57:58on the fencing?

58:00And

58:04>> Thank you.

58:06Councilman Rooney.

58:07>> That's my question.

58:08>> Oh.

58:09That's a question.

58:10>> Yes.

58:10>> Okay.

58:13>> Um Chair, members of the committee,

58:14Charles Womack, planning and development

58:15director. To Dr. Rooney, um we can go

58:17ahead and investigate what a a voltage

58:20limit should be and include that at the

58:22next committee meeting.

58:25>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

58:27>> Thank you, Councilwoman Emmons.

58:28>> Um thank you, Madam Chairwoman. You

58:30know, I just wanted to make sure that uh

58:33Mr. Miller is aware that we did have the

58:35document from

58:37the Nicely's attorney

58:40included with our materials, so he

58:42doesn't have to worry about that issue.

58:45>> Thank you.

58:46Any other questions or comments?

58:49Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

58:52Opposed?

58:53This item will move forward with the

58:54recommendation to approve on second

58:56reading. Next item, please.

58:59>> Number 32, resolution granting special

59:01use approval for a gaming center

59:03pursuant to unified development code

59:052.2.7

59:07and granting local approval of a

59:10site-specific application for

59:11simulcasting permit to be issued by the

59:14Wyoming Gaming Commission pursuant to

59:16Wyoming Statute 11-25-210

59:20for property located at 3307

59:23Nationway.

59:24>> We need staff report, please.

59:27>> Chair and members of the Connor White,

59:28Planning and Development Department.

59:31So, the application before you is a

59:33special use for a gaming center.

59:35Um

59:36this is a request in the CB community

59:39business zone district. The previous use

59:41of the property

59:43um is a bar and liquor store.

59:48This property did submit um an

59:50application for conditional use approval

59:51to the Board of Adjustment um

59:53which was all prior to the text

59:55amendment that went through to basically

59:57create a special use process for the

59:59gaming centers.

1:00:01Uh the Board of Adjustment did approve

1:00:03that application on June 18th of 2026.

1:00:07Um

1:00:09the conditional use review criteria and

1:00:11special use criteria are similar, but

1:00:13they're not identical.

1:00:14And then due to those changes in the

1:00:16UDC, uh gaming parlors with existing

1:00:20approvals such as the current

1:00:22conditional use approval will need to go

1:00:24back uh back through

1:00:26and get the special use

1:00:28uh by December 31st of 2020 uh 2027.

1:00:32Um that's basically what this

1:00:34application is. So, they're basically

1:00:36just coming in way ahead of time to

1:00:38renew that application and actually get

1:00:40the special use uh rather than

1:00:41continuing with the conditional use and

1:00:43then

1:00:44having to come back sometime next year.

1:00:48Uh this property is surrounded by the

1:00:51community business zone district to the

1:00:53north and to the east as well to the

1:00:55west. There is residential that is to

1:00:58the south. Um

1:01:04Through reviewing this, uh the applicant

1:01:06is looking to make some major changes to

1:01:09the property. Uh they are adding a

1:01:11landscape buffer to the back, basically

1:01:14the south

1:01:15property line between this property and

1:01:17the residential. So, they are adding

1:01:19that landscape buffer. They're

1:01:21uh changing the parking layout, adding

1:01:24in some open space areas as well as

1:01:26a tree lawn with street trees.

1:01:29Um

1:01:36With this project, some things to note,

1:01:40um

1:01:41in the final review criteria,

1:01:45uh it does ask about kind of the

1:01:47vicinity of where certain public or

1:01:50certain uh businesses or

1:01:53schools, churches,

1:01:56um daycares

1:01:58or child cares are located. Uh something

1:02:00to note, there is a child care that is

1:02:02directly across Nationwide.

1:02:04It is in a basically a building that is

1:02:07multi-tenant. Uh the other tenant in

1:02:09that building is more industrial in

1:02:11nature. So, you already have a child

1:02:13care that's kind of in a multi-tenant

1:02:15building next to other commercial uh

1:02:18uses. Again, this property has been a

1:02:21bar and liquor store um in the past.

1:02:24That is something though that we did

1:02:25want to note, there is a one child care

1:02:27that is just across Nationwide.

1:02:30Um when it comes to school districts, or

1:02:31not the not school districts, but

1:02:33schools,

1:02:34um the closest school is

1:02:38Lebhart Elementary, which is 1,500 ft

1:02:41away. Um the school is set to be closed

1:02:44in 2029

1:02:45per the MCEOR study. Uh the other

1:02:48closest school that would continue to

1:02:50operate,

1:02:51um

1:02:54is Sunrise Elementary, and that one is

1:02:59over a mile away.

1:03:02Um

1:03:08The nearest church uh is about 900 ft

1:03:11away, and then the nearest

1:03:13public park would be United Nation

1:03:15Nations Park, which is approximately

1:03:173,000 ft.

1:03:18And then there is a greenway segment

1:03:20that is about 1,000 ft away.

1:03:24So even with those distances, staff does

1:03:26believe it still meets the review

1:03:27criteria,

1:03:29um,

1:03:29the final review criteria, uh, number

1:03:3110, as well as the rest of the review

1:03:34criteria,

1:03:35uh, for the special use permit.

1:03:39And with that, staff does recommend

1:03:40approval of the special use, and I am

1:03:43available for any questions.

1:03:52>> As the crow flies?

1:03:54>> Madam Chair, through you, I think when I

1:03:56did my measurements, I was going in

1:03:58walking distance. So I was having to

1:04:01basically walk streets or sidewalks. If

1:04:03it's the crow flies, it's

1:04:04possibly a little shorter.

1:04:06>> Leopard Elementary is much is quite a

1:04:09bit further than the 1,500 ft,

1:04:11um, from this facility.

1:04:13The other

1:04:15piece to note is that that church is no

1:04:16longer a church. It's now a non-profit

1:04:18agency.

1:04:20Um, so there is not a church within 900

1:04:22ft of this property, either.

1:04:24So,

1:04:25just for the record.

1:04:28Um,

1:04:29>> [clears throat]

1:04:30>> are there any other any questions from

1:04:32committee?

1:04:33Okay, we'll go out to public comment.

1:04:35Any public comment?

1:04:44Oh, you'll need to turn that on. Thanks.

1:04:46>> Madam Chairwoman, Committee, my name is

1:04:48Brennan Rhodes. I'm a representative of

1:04:49Cowboy, uh, or sorry, 307 Horse Racing

1:04:52in Wyoming Downs.

1:04:53Um, I'm the one who's been sending you

1:04:54all emails. Yeah, I don't have a whole

1:04:56lot to add to that. The only additional

1:04:58thing I would add is that last Thursday

1:05:00we held a public meeting, um, with the

1:05:02mayor and any of the neighbors who

1:05:03wanted to attend. Um, unfortunately, or

1:05:05I suppose fortunately, depending on how

1:05:07you look at it, only one neighbor showed

1:05:09up. Um, and we and the mayor sat down

1:05:11and talked to that individual, Um, but

1:05:13otherwise this is just basically our

1:05:15first pass through the local control

1:05:17bill.

1:05:18And uh you'll be seeing a lot of us cuz

1:05:19we have to do basically every OTB we

1:05:21have in the city that will go through

1:05:23the same exact uh process.

1:05:26Um if there are any questions, I'm happy

1:05:27to answer them.

1:05:30>> Thank you.

1:05:31>> Thank you for your time.

1:05:33>> Any other public comment?

1:05:39A

1:05:40And do we have any uh

1:05:42Mr. Miller, it appears that you would

1:05:44like to make a comment.

1:05:47>> Um yes, can you hear [clears throat] me?

1:05:49>> Yes, we can.

1:05:52>> All right. Um

1:05:55Charles Miller.

1:05:56Uh Madam Chair, members of the

1:05:57committee, Charles Miller for the

1:05:58record, item 32.

1:06:00Um I'd like it noted that the applicant

1:06:02Wyoming Downs LLC is not new to this

1:06:04community.

1:06:06A Wyoming Downs off-track betting

1:06:08operation has held a city liquor license

1:06:10at 1345 Delaware Avenue since at least

1:06:132022.

1:06:15Um I have that on the record from this

1:06:17body's own October 20 2022 liquor

1:06:20license docket. This application isn't a

1:06:23new operator coming to town.

1:06:26>> [clears throat]

1:06:26>> Excuse me. It's an existing one

1:06:28expanding its footprint to a second

1:06:29site.

1:06:31That's relevant context the staff memo

1:06:33doesn't provide.

1:06:34On the substance, [snorts]

1:06:35the site plan lists 124 games,

1:06:39a required parking calculation of one

1:06:41stall per five seats yielding 25 stalls

1:06:45and 42 stalls provided, but games and

1:06:49seats aren't the same unit.

1:06:52Um I'd ask uh staff to clarify which was

1:06:55actually used to size that lot.

1:06:58Um the facility is approved for 10:00

1:07:00a.m. to 2:00 a.m. operation on a

1:07:03um 0.8 acre site zoned CB with

1:07:07medium-density residential parcels on

1:07:09Belair Avenue

1:07:11and 11th and 12th streets directly

1:07:13adjacent. Staff's memo discloses 139

1:07:16views and exactly one public comment

1:07:19generally not in favor.

1:07:21I'd ask that a 2:00 a.m. closing time

1:07:23next to a residential block get more

1:07:26than one citizen's worth of scrutiny

1:07:28before this resolution reaches final

1:07:30consideration next week. Thanks.

1:07:33>> Thank you.

1:07:34Any other comments?

1:07:37Hearing none, I would entertain a

1:07:38motion.

1:07:41>> Madam Chairwoman, I move to adopt.

1:07:46>> Second.

1:07:47>> We have a motion from Councilwoman

1:07:49Emmons and a second from Councilman

1:07:51Rainey. Is there any discussion?

1:07:53>> Madam Chairwoman, first of all, um two

1:07:56two points. Um

1:07:57first of all, I think that the hours

1:07:5910:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.

1:08:02reflect state statute.

1:08:04I I remember because I was instrumental

1:08:07in helping write the

1:08:09changes to the gaming ordinance last

1:08:10year that went through the legislature

1:08:12and

1:08:13and um

1:08:15gaming licenses were treated very

1:08:17similarly to liquor licenses. And so I

1:08:19think that as I said that language

1:08:22mirrors state statute and I'm not sure

1:08:24we can be more restrictive.

1:08:26And um

1:08:28second point is over the years, we

1:08:30haven't heard anything recently, but we

1:08:32have over the years had complaints from

1:08:34the neighborhood about

1:08:35activities from the bar, so

1:08:38um

1:08:39even though I'm not the biggest ag-

1:08:40advocate of gaming

1:08:42facilities, um

1:08:45this one may actually the neighborhood

1:08:47may experience less of an impact from

1:08:49noise and and invasion than what they

1:08:51were experiencing when it was an active

1:08:53bar, so

1:08:54I will probably vote to support it.

1:08:57>> Councilwoman Emmons.

1:08:58>> Oh, no. Okay, sorry.

1:09:00>> Yeah, I I personally will miss the neon

1:09:02palm trees.

1:09:03So,

1:09:05maybe we can help those. Um, all in

1:09:08favor say I.

1:09:09>> I.

1:09:10>> Opposed? This item will move forward

1:09:12with a recommendation to adopt. Next

1:09:14item, please.

1:09:15>> Number 34F, grant of easement between

1:09:18the City of Cheyenne and the Department

1:09:20of the Air Force to grant and convey to

1:09:22the city a non-exclusive easement on FE

1:09:25Warren Air Force Base property for the

1:09:27construction, use, operation, and

1:09:29maintenance of a parking lot to serve

1:09:31patrons of Cheyenne Frontier Days.

1:09:33>> Okay, staff report, please.

1:09:35>> Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of

1:09:37the Public Service Committee. Tom Cobb,

1:09:38City Engineer. Jennifer, would you mind

1:09:40pulling up a slide for me so I can do a

1:09:42visual?

1:09:44Under my folder, under the S drive,

1:09:46Public Services Committee.

1:09:48While she's pulling that up, um, I'm

1:09:50pinch-hitting for the mayor and the

1:09:52chief of staff on this one.

1:09:53Um, and as as indicated, this this is a

1:09:56grant of a construction easement between

1:09:58the City of Cheyenne and the United

1:09:59States Air Force for the use of the

1:10:01property for FE Warren to support

1:10:03Cheyenne Frontier Days CFD operations in

1:10:052027 and for the construction of the

1:10:08parking lot.

1:10:09The summary of the easement, the city

1:10:11will This is This grants the city a

1:10:12one-year no-cost easement for

1:10:14approximately 36.5 acres on the eastern

1:10:17perimeter of FE Warren Air Force Base.

1:10:19The easement authorizes construction,

1:10:21use, and maintenance of the park and

1:10:22ride facility and for serving the in

1:10:242027 for CFD. All work and access must

1:10:27comply to the Air Force security

1:10:28requirements. Um, the property is

1:10:31accepted as is where the city assumes

1:10:33responsibility for insurance and

1:10:35compliance obligations with any required

1:10:38site restoration. And finally, the Air

1:10:40Force may restrict access or terminate

1:10:43the easement within 120 days notice for

1:10:46mission requirements or national defense

1:10:48needs. So, it's very specific. Um, on

1:10:51the screen above you, if you can see it,

1:10:54um, I've kind of outlined the area of

1:10:56this This includes the construction and

1:10:58use of the roadway on Patriot Drive.

1:11:00There's an extension of it, which is to

1:11:02the right of the screen, working our way

1:11:04to the north, which is left of the

1:11:06screen.

1:11:07And you can see there's that 39 acres

1:11:09plus or minus 39.5 with a parking lot.

1:11:12This contains about 2,868

1:11:15stalls, including 39 ADA stalls, which

1:11:18are concrete paved. This is a aggregate

1:11:21parking lot, so it is it is not paved

1:11:23other than the ADA areas.

1:11:27Um you'll see updated agreements coming

1:11:29to you soon and related agreements. One,

1:11:32a separate agreement between the city of

1:11:33Cheyenne and CFD, will present it to the

1:11:36governing body in the near future, which

1:11:38allows them to construct this parking

1:11:40lot. And the second component under this

1:11:42um

1:11:44would be a long-term lease um between

1:11:47the city of Cheyenne and the Air Force

1:11:49or CFD for the long-term maintenance and

1:11:52use of this area. So this is not this is

1:11:54a one-year term on this one, but there

1:11:56will be a longer term lease coming in

1:11:58front in front of you.

1:12:00And with that, I recommend approval of

1:12:01this construction easement to authorize

1:12:03the mayor to sign it. And if you have

1:12:05any questions you might have of me, I do

1:12:07have an additional slide if you want to

1:12:09look at the more of the detail in the

1:12:10area where we enter the parking lot. I

1:12:12get a lot of questions about that. So it

1:12:14is off the area of Randall just near

1:12:17gate one there.

1:12:18And so this is the area we have to

1:12:19remove. You can see the red or elements

1:12:21would have to come out. And if you could

1:12:24one more slide, Jennifer.

1:12:27This is sort of the area that what it

1:12:28would look like as we finish the as they

1:12:30finish the construction and provide the

1:12:32entry. So you can see there are several

1:12:35lanes in and out um and uh

1:12:38reconstruction that median area.

1:12:41>> Are there any questions from committee

1:12:43or Mr. Cobb?

1:12:48Councilman Rennie.

1:12:50>> Um no.

1:12:50>> Okay.

1:12:52Hearing none, seeing none, we'll go out

1:12:54for public comment here in the chambers.

1:12:56Are there any public comments in the

1:12:57chambers?

1:13:07>> Uh Madam Chairwoman, Mary Kay Hill. I am

1:13:10on the Board of Directors of Cheyenne

1:13:12Frontier Days. Been working on this

1:13:14project for about 4 years now. So, what

1:13:17you're seeing does not involve any

1:13:19public dollars at this point. Um the

1:13:23overall project, which includes the

1:13:25ultimate construction of a bridge from

1:13:28this parking lot onto Cheyenne Frontier

1:13:30Days,

1:13:31um will come in a phase two.

1:13:34Uh the city is the lead on the project

1:13:36with partners with Cheyenne Frontier

1:13:38Days and Laramie County, uh the Laramie

1:13:41County Commission, as well as the state

1:13:44of Wyoming when we get to the bridge

1:13:46portion. Parking lot portion is funded

1:13:49entirely by Cheyenne Frontier Days,

1:13:51which is why this construction easement

1:13:53going through the lead, the city, but

1:13:56ultimately

1:13:57brought Cheyenne Frontier Days is using

1:13:59our resources entirely to build this

1:14:03parking lot portion. So, we thank you

1:14:05for your consideration, and um I'll just

1:14:08add uh hearing lots about the

1:14:11neighborhoods and how you talk about

1:14:13this, we are eager to take pressure off

1:14:16the neighborhood to the south of

1:14:17Cheyenne Frontier Days, and we believe

1:14:202,800 spaces, people can come and go um

1:14:23as they please and take a a bridge and

1:14:26come back will relieve one, our concern

1:14:30about safety, your concern about safety,

1:14:32as well as what is uh

1:14:36maybe one of the less attractive parts

1:14:38of the Cheyenne Frontier Days visitor

1:14:40experience, which is the park and ride.

1:14:44>> Okay, it's Councilwoman Emmons has a

1:14:46question for you.

1:14:47>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um Mary

1:14:49Kay, so if the bridge isn't until next

1:14:52year, how are we going to get people

1:14:54Will they be parking there this year?

1:14:58>> Uh Madam Chairman, um Councilman,

1:15:00uh

1:15:01yes, our intent is to park people there

1:15:04and then use the buses to bring them

1:15:07across. And we're we know once people

1:15:09are sitting there waiting for the buses

1:15:11and they see how close their cars are,

1:15:13that bridge is going to be a real

1:15:15popular item.

1:15:17>> Thank you.

1:15:19Any other public comment here in the

1:15:20chambers?

1:15:23Hearing or seeing none, I believe Mr.

1:15:25Miller has a comment.

1:15:35>> Can you hear me?

1:15:37>> Yes, we can.

1:15:41>> All [sighs]

1:15:41right.

1:15:44Oh,

1:15:44sorry, my

1:15:46Uh Charles Miller

1:15:48uh for the record here on

1:15:53item number 34

1:15:55F.

1:15:56>> [snorts]

1:15:57>> Um

1:15:58Excuse [clears throat] me.

1:16:00Uh Engineer Cobb just told this

1:16:01committee this parking lot will have

1:16:032,868

1:16:05stalls and that 39 of them are ADA

1:16:07stalls, which are concrete paved.

1:16:09Uh I'd asked directly, what are the

1:16:12other 2,829

1:16:14stalls going to be surfaced with?

1:16:17If this committee only needs to say the

1:16:19ADA spaces are paved, that tells me the

1:16:21rest of this lot is not necessarily

1:16:23paved and that this committee passed an

1:16:25ordinance earlier on this very agenda,

1:16:27item number 19, that creates a brand new

1:16:29exception for exactly that kind of lot.

1:16:33Um item 19's low usage or overflow

1:16:35parking exception applies to parking

1:16:37used fewer than 55 times a year and

1:16:39explicitly names overflow parking for

1:16:41entertainment venues and similar outdoor

1:16:44and assembly uses.

1:16:46Um item number 19 also creates a new

1:16:48regional stormwater management

1:16:50exception. A 2,868

1:16:53stall lot used roughly

1:16:5610 days a year for Frontier Days sitting

1:16:58on the perimeter of an Air Force Base is

1:17:00close to a textbook example of what

1:17:02those two exceptions were written for.

1:17:04Um

1:17:05is uh

1:17:07I'd ask the staff directly on the record

1:17:09is the lot relying on the exceptions

1:17:11this committee just approved in item 19

1:17:12and if so, which stalls are paved and

1:17:14which are gravel?

1:17:16Um

1:17:18>> [clears throat]

1:17:19>> Uh let's see here.

1:17:20Also,

1:17:22uh

1:17:23Mr. Cobb said the city accepts this

1:17:26property as is and assumes

1:17:27responsibility for insurance compliance

1:17:29and site restoration and that the Air

1:17:30Force can terminate this easement on 120

1:17:33days notice.

1:17:35If Frontier Days is is paying to build

1:17:372,868

1:17:39gravel stalls,

1:17:40I'd ask who is paying the city's

1:17:42insurance and restoration obligation if

1:17:44the Air Force exercises that 120-day

1:17:46clause because no public dollars so far

1:17:50has only been said about construction,

1:17:52not about the liability this committee

1:17:53is being asked to accept.

1:17:55Um third, Mr. Cobb

1:17:58also disclosed two two agreements still

1:18:00to come, a construction agreement

1:18:01between the city and CFD and a long-term

1:18:03lease between the city and the Air Force

1:18:05uh or CFD for ongoing maintenance.

1:18:08Meaning uh today's one-year

1:18:11easement is just the first of at least

1:18:13three instruments on this project. I'd

1:18:15ask that those two follow-on agreements

1:18:17come back to this committee, not just to

1:18:19the governing body given the surfacing

1:18:21and liability questions raised here

1:18:23today.

1:18:24Finally, this easement was approved as

1:18:25to form on October 7th, 5 days before

1:18:27item 19 was introduced to council on

1:18:29October 12th. I'm not suggesting one

1:18:31caused the other. I'm asking whether

1:18:32these two items were ever discussed

1:18:34together.

1:18:35Um

1:18:40>> Uh thank you, Mr. Miller. Uh Mr. Cobb,

1:18:42would you like to respond?

1:18:44>> Um Madam Chair, through you, I I guess

1:18:47the first thing to state is this is not

1:18:49within the city limits and it is in the

1:18:51jurisdiction of the

1:18:53United States Air Force. Um we have no

1:18:56jurisdictional control over the Air

1:18:58Force whatsoever.

1:18:59Um they did meet the requirements of

1:19:01detention on their site. That the area

1:19:04that I described as non-ADA stalls will

1:19:07be aggregate surfaced as indicated.

1:19:10Um there is no relationship to this the

1:19:12ordinances previously done and this is

1:19:15just a timing issue.

1:19:16As far as the liability concerns are,

1:19:19that's the point of the memo coming or

1:19:20the the agreements coming to you

1:19:21forthright, but we do need to get

1:19:23construction started. Obviously, the

1:19:25contractor will be responsible with

1:19:27their insurance to be able to cover

1:19:29anything that happens during

1:19:30construction. That's with standard

1:19:32agreements with with anyone. So, I hope

1:19:35that answers his question.

1:19:36>> Thank you, Mr. Cobb.

1:19:39Okay, any other public comment?

1:19:43Seeing or hearing none, I would

1:19:44entertain a motion.

1:19:45>> So moved.

1:19:47>> Second.

1:19:48>> We have a motion from Councilman

1:19:50Leybourn, a second from Councilwoman

1:19:52Immens.

1:19:53Um is there any discussion by the

1:19:55committee?

1:19:56>> Yeah, Madam Chairman.

1:19:58>> Yes, Councilman Leybourn.

1:19:59>> Thank you.

1:20:01Well, this is a long sought and

1:20:03really wonderful project that uh

1:20:07certainly was difficult, but

1:20:09it's going to elevate Well, I don't I

1:20:13It's we're not really elevating Cheyenne

1:20:15Frontier Days

1:20:16since it is the world's greatest rodeo

1:20:18already, but it is putting it on the

1:20:21level of a uh

1:20:23more urban

1:20:25uh sensible way to park and to deliver

1:20:29people to the area. It's uh

1:20:32certainly, I know the bridge is coming

1:20:34and

1:20:34that's

1:20:36really going to make a big difference. I

1:20:38do want to point out that uh

1:20:40this leads to another consideration

1:20:43that I think we'll be looking at as time

1:20:45goes on

1:20:47and that is the Greenway connection

1:20:49in the loop of the city

1:20:51that is

1:20:53very much part of the original master

1:20:55plan

1:20:56and something that uh

1:20:58has a lot of difficulty as well

1:21:01but we want to make sure that uh

1:21:04it is included or at least considered

1:21:07and some effort is made to make sure

1:21:09that that connection is made.

1:21:11So um

1:21:13this is wonderful and I look forward to

1:21:15uh

1:21:16using it someday. Thank you.

1:21:18>> Thank you, Councilman Leybourne. Uh

1:21:19Councilman Rooney.

1:21:21>> Madam Chairman, I

1:21:22um speaking in favor, I

1:21:25as Ms. Hill noted

1:21:28um

1:21:29Frontier days really is kind of a pain

1:21:32to the people that live in that area

1:21:33south of of the park and so I'm hoping

1:21:36that this

1:21:37will give them some relief and make a

1:21:39difference in that neighborhood. So we

1:21:40need to pursue it. I just

1:21:42think it's sad that we traded a golf

1:21:44course for a parking lot.

1:21:48>> Any other comments?

1:21:49>> It's like Melanie said, we paved

1:21:50paradise and put up a parking lot.

1:21:52>> All in favor, say I.

1:21:54>> I.

1:21:54>> Opposed?

1:21:56This item will move forward with

1:21:57recommendation to approve on at the next

1:22:00meeting of the council. With that, we

1:22:02have finished today's agenda much

1:22:03earlier than anticipated.

1:22:06So we are adjourned.

1:22:49>> Mhm.