2026-11-02 - Public Services Committee

01:51Well, good afternoon and welcome to the

01:52November 2nd public services committee

01:54meeting. If you are joining us here in

01:56the uh council chambers, if you would

01:58make sure that your phone is turned to

02:00uh manners mode, we would appreciate it.

02:02If you'd like to make public comment,

02:04please uh come up to the podium, make

02:06sure the green light is on the

02:08microphone, and be sure to give us your

02:10name for the public record. If you're

02:12joining us online and would like to make

02:14public comment, you'll need to raise

02:15your virtual hand. And once Jennifer has

02:18recognized you, um she you'll be able to

02:21speak and we are running a threeminut

02:22timer today. So, um we appreciate

02:25everyone being here and if we could have

02:28the first item, please.

02:30Number six, ordinance third reading,

02:32annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyomi,

02:34land south of US30 and north of Commerce

02:37Circle. Staff report, please.

02:40>> Chair, members of the committee, Conor

02:41Way, Planning and Development

02:42Department. Uh, the annexation before

02:44you, it's mainly for Christensen Road.

02:46So, it's annexing the rightway. As I'd

02:48mentioned, there is the little triangle

02:49piece of property that the city owns

02:51that will become right ofway once it is

02:53annexed. Um, it is not currently right

02:55of way. Uh the city just owns it as a

02:58parcel, but it will be turned into a

03:00right of way upon annexation. I have the

03:03basically the plat maps uh in our office

03:06ready for recording. Just can't record

03:08them until the land is actually annexed.

03:11Um

03:13there's been no further public comment

03:15on this. Uh I'm available for any

03:18questions.

03:20>> Okay. Any questions for staff from the

03:23committee?

03:24Okay. We will go out for public comment.

03:27Is there anyone who would like to make

03:28public comment on item number six?

03:36Mr. Miller, um I see your hand raised.

03:38If you'd like to go ahead and you have

03:40three minutes.

03:42>> Can you hear me?

03:44>> We can.

03:46>> All right. Uh madame chairwoman uh

03:49members of the committee Charles Miller

03:52uh the city has offered a practical

03:54reason for this annexation. It already

03:56con constructed and maintains

03:59Christensen Road and annexation would

04:01clarify jurisdiction and emergency

04:03response boundaries. That purpose does

04:05not answer the quality control problems

04:07in the instrument being recommended for

04:09adoption. Section one parcel A repeats

04:12the same 100 footbearing language. vents

04:15north 89° 59 minutes 16 seconds east for

04:20a distance of 100 ft. That language

04:22appears twice consecutively. I'm not

04:25offering a professional survey opinion

04:27or asserting an exact closure error. I

04:30am asking why a proposed recording

04:31instrument contains a repeated call and

04:34whether the surveyor has confirmed the

04:36intended description. Please obtain

04:38written confirmation of which language

04:40of which language is correct, whether

04:42the description closes as intended and

04:44the exact amendment necessary. The staff

04:46report also changes project numbers on

04:48its later pages using the HL case number

04:51instead of the Christensen number. The

04:52application and later analysis contain

04:54different contiguity figures. These may

04:57be correctable administrative errors,

04:59but correctable is not the same as

05:01corrected. The public should receive one

05:03controlling version that consistently

05:05identifies the property projects survey

05:08and findings. There is also a service

05:10question. Staff says water and sewer are

05:12not in this section of Christensen, but

05:15could be extended. Please distinguish

05:17existing road maintenance

05:18responsibilities from new obligations

05:21created by annexation.

05:23Identify any anticipated drainage,

05:25utility, or other capital improvements,

05:27the responsible department, and the

05:29party expected to pay. Nobody needs to

05:31oppose a clearer emergency response

05:33boundary to ask those questions. My

05:36request is recommendation conditioned on

05:38a surveyor confirmed legal description,

05:41corrected project references, and a

05:43written explanation of the

05:44responsibilities that change. Do not

05:47send a known textual discrepancy forward

05:50on the assumption that someone else will

05:51fix it before recording. Identify the

05:54correction, responsible official, and

05:56controlling exhibit now. Thank you.

06:00Thank you, Mr. Miller. We appreciate

06:02your help with editing and um it is

06:05always it truly takes a village to pass

06:07legislation, so we appreciate that. Any

06:10other public comment?

06:15Okay, hearing none, I would entertain a

06:17motion.

06:19Chairwoman, I move to approve on third

06:20and final reading.

06:22Second.

06:23>> We have a motion from Dr. Emmens and a

06:25second from Dr. Renie. Is there any

06:27discussion?

06:31Dr. Renie,

06:34>> I just wanted to know from staff, are

06:36Mr. Miller's comments accurate? Are we

06:39is our surveyor happy with the

06:42descriptions? U Madam Chair, through you

06:45the surveyor has reviewed legal

06:46descriptions both on basically the

06:50ordinance and then also we record the

06:52annexation myar with the ordinance. So

06:55all those legal descriptions both on the

06:57myars or on the map as well as in the uh

07:03basically legal description in the

07:04ordinance comes from the map which was

07:06reviewed by the city surveyor and was

07:08deemed to be correct.

07:11>> Thank you madam chairman.

07:13>> Thank you.

07:16Any other discussion hearing? None. All

07:18in favor say I.

07:19>> I.

07:20>> Opposed. This item will move forward

07:22with our recommendation to approve on

07:23third and final reading. Next item,

07:25please.

07:25>> Number seven, ordinance, third reading,

07:27amending the official zoning map of the

07:29city of Cheyenne, establishing the

07:30zoning classification of BP Business

07:32Park for land annex to the city of

07:34Cheyenne, located south of Tate Road,

07:37north of Commerce Circle, and west of

07:38and adjacent to Christensen Road.

07:41>> Okay. And as uh the mayor reminds us on

07:43a regular basis, we do have to assign

07:45zoning to this. So staff report

07:48>> chair and members of committee Conor Way

07:49planning and development department.

07:51This assigned zoning is just for the

07:52triangular piece of portion that uh for

07:55the annexation that we just discussed

07:57that the city owns. Uh it's to basically

07:59assign it the BP zone. BP is the

08:02surrounding zone district. Um again this

08:05is going to become rightway. So

08:06ultimately this isn't really going to

08:08matter. Um we just have to have it as a

08:11procedural thing because it is currently

08:13an actual lot. It is not right away at

08:15this time. Once it becomes right ofway,

08:18it just takes on usually the zone

08:19district that's adjacent to it, which

08:21would be the BP zone. So,

08:24>> are there any questions for staff?

08:27>> Okay, seeing none or hearing none, we

08:29will go out for public comment. Um, and

08:32is there anyone that would like to make

08:33public comment here in the chambers?

08:36Seeing or hearing none, we'll go out for

08:38public comment u virtually. U Mr.

08:41Miller, I believe that you have your

08:42hand raised.

08:51Hello.

08:52>> Hello.

08:53>> Oh, okay. Um,

08:56all right. Uh,

08:59uh, Madame Chairwoman, members of the

09:01committee, Charles Miller, uh,

09:04Christensen Road assigned zoning. This

09:07ordinance assigns business park zoning

09:09to a small city parcel that staff a

09:12city-owned parcel that staff says will

09:14become public right of way. The report

09:17explains that the parcel needs an

09:19interim zone before dedication and

09:21recommends business park because of

09:23surrounding zoning. Please explain the

09:25relationship between that temporary

09:27rationale and the permanent legal effect

09:29of the ordinance. What instrument

09:31secures the right-of-way dedication? Has

09:33the administrative plat been submitted?

09:36who is responsible for completing it and

09:37when will it be recorded? If dedication

09:40is postponed or never completed, what

09:42uses remain available under business

09:44park zoning? That is not a claim that a

09:46data center can automatically be built

09:48on this tiny parcel. It is a request to

09:51distinguish the public transportation

09:53purpose being offered today from the

09:54zoning rights the city is actually estab

09:56establishing.

09:58Please also explain why business park is

10:00more appropriate than the alternatives

10:01using the assigned zoning criteria

10:03rather than ownership alone. The staff

10:05report identifies assigned zoning as the

10:07applicable process, but its analysis

10:10introduces the zoning map amendment

10:11section before discussing the assigned

10:13zoning criterion. Please correct that

10:16reference. So, the recommendation

10:18identifies the standard actually

10:19applied. There is a broader question

10:22worth answering openly. Does this

10:25assignment change eligibility for any

10:27identified future business park

10:28expansion across or north of the

10:30railroad? If it does, show that effect

10:33on a map. if it does not say so and

10:35explain why. I am not asking the

10:37committee to infer a hidden strategy. I

10:40am asking the city to disclose the

10:42foreseeable consequences of its zoning

10:44choice. My request is to to identify the

10:47dedication mechanism, explain the

10:49interim development rights, correct the

10:51review reference, and state whether the

10:53assignment has consequences for future

10:55district expansion. If this is if this

10:59is transportation housekeeping, make the

11:01transportation outcome secure. The

11:03public should not have to rely on an

11:05expectation that is never incorporated

11:08into an enforceable instrument. Thank

11:10you.

11:12>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Is there anyone

11:14else who would like to make public

11:15comment?

11:18>> Hearing or seeing none, I would

11:19entertain a motion.

11:21>> Madam Chairwoman, I would move to

11:23approve on third reading.

11:24>> Second. We have a motion from Dr. Renie,

11:27a second from Dr. Emmens. Is there any

11:28discussion?

11:31>> All in favor say I. opposed.

11:34This item will move forward with a

11:36recommendation to approve on third and

11:37final reading. Next item, please.

11:39>> Number eight, ordinance third reading.

11:40Annexing to the city of Cheyenne,

11:42Wyoming, land south of East Foxm Road,

11:46north of East Allison Road, and east of

11:48and adjacent to South College Drive.

11:51Staff report, please.

11:52>> Chair, members of committee, Conor Way,

11:54Planning and Development Department.

11:56This annation is owner requested. Um it

11:58is part of county pocket 10 which we'll

12:01be discussing uh later on the agenda as

12:03that has come back. Um so there's going

12:07to be a couple discussions I think with

12:08this parcel.

12:11So this is owner um owner initiated for

12:14this specific annexation. Uh we'll have

12:17a

12:19public hearing next Monday uh for the

12:22annexation for this specific annexation.

12:26Again, in state statute, it does not

12:29state anywhere that you have to have the

12:30public hearing at the beginning of the

12:31process. It just has to take place at

12:33some point during the process

12:36um and happen prior to council um

12:39approving.

12:42That's also why in the ordinance it says

12:44the effective date for this annexation

12:45would be December 7th because an

12:47annexation cannot become effective until

12:4920 business days after approval of the

12:52annexation.

12:54Um

12:57now being this is part of County Pocket

12:5910, uh more than likely County Pocket 10

13:02will probably be at the beginning of the

13:04agenda next Monday.

13:06Possibly.

13:09I would think it would be, but we'll

13:11see. Um, if it is,

13:14wouldn't it be at the beginning?

13:19If it can be at the beginning of the

13:21agenda, it probably should be. If it is,

13:23and that one goes through, then this

13:26ordinance basically would not need to be

13:28continued. Um, because that would

13:30duplicate basically the annexation.

13:33The property would ultimately be annexed

13:35with County Pocket 10.

13:39So that's why next Monday if County

13:42Pocket 10 is at the beginning of the

13:43agenda that is approved and then we get

13:45to this item, it can basically just have

13:48um a motion without a second and it

13:51would die due to lack of a second. That

13:53would not basically prevent this

13:54property from being annexed because it

13:55would have already been annexed earlier

13:56on the agenda.

14:00Same thing with the assigned zoning uh

14:02which is the next item. Same thing would

14:04happen with that. The zone change

14:05completely separate item. Um, at that

14:08point, uh, the zone change would then be

14:10able to basically move forward as is.

14:12And I can discuss that when we get to

14:13that item on today's agenda. I know this

14:16probably sounds very confusing because

14:17we have two annexations of the same

14:19property running at the exact same time.

14:22Basically, the owners submitted this

14:24annexation because they weren't sure

14:25what was going to happen with County

14:27Pocket 10 and they would like their

14:28property annexed. It just happens it

14:30came to the point where they're on the

14:33same night on third reading.

14:39If there are any questions, I'm more

14:40than happy to try to explain it the best

14:42I can.

14:43>> Could

14:45could another workaround be removing

14:48that particular parcel from the

14:51annexation prior to the annexation being

14:53done?

14:55Um, okay. And madam chair, yes, you

14:57could technically amend county pocket 10

14:59to remove this parcel, but then the

15:02thing with that is we would then have to

15:03then contact the surveyor and update all

15:05of our annexation maps

15:07>> financial

15:08>> because county or parcel 7, which I will

15:11pull up the maps when we get to county

15:12pocket 10 again, just as a refresher,

15:14but parcel 7 is what contains this

15:16parcel and it has two other parcels that

15:19are being annexed. So that's why I would

15:23hope and I can talk with the clerk's

15:24office that if this is towards the

15:26beginning of the agenda, then if you

15:28annex it with county pocket 10, we don't

15:31have to update the county pocket 10 maps

15:34and basically this item just dies due to

15:36lack of a second. Um, and the parcel is

15:40still annexed at that point. Um, it's

15:42just annexed under county pocket 10

15:45rather than this ordinance. So I hope

15:47that kind of clarifies things. It's just

15:49going to come down to

15:51what the ordin basically the uh

15:56order is on the agenda uh excuse me is

15:58on the agenda for the items. Um

16:03otherwise we could just amend and then

16:05we update the maps with county pocket

16:0810. So there there is different ways to

16:09do it. We just don't need to annex it

16:12twice.

16:12>> Okay. Thank you. Are there any other

16:14questions from committee for staff?

16:18Okay. Hearing none or seeing none, we'll

16:20go out for public comment. Is there

16:22anyone here in the chambers who would

16:23like to make public comment?

16:27Okay. Hearing or seeing none, um I

16:29believe Mr. Miller, you have your hand

16:30raised.

16:34>> Yes. Can you hear me?

16:35>> Yes, we can.

16:37>> Um Madame Chairwoman, members of the

16:41committee, Charles Miller, uh staff has

16:43now explained the alternative annexation

16:45strategy. I'm not disputing that an

16:47owner may pursue a separate application,

16:50but the explanation depends on several

16:52future events. County pocket 10 being

16:55placed first, council approving it, and

16:57the separate annexation and assigned

16:58zoning ordinances then failing for lack

17:01of a second. That is a proposed

17:04parliamentary sequence. Please

17:05distinguish it from the legal effective

17:07dates of the instruments. Staff said the

17:09property would already have been annexed

17:11earlier on the agenda. Does that mean

17:14legally within city limits at the moment

17:16at that moment or does it mean council

17:18would have approved an annexation that

17:20takes effect later? Those are different

17:23propositions. They matter because a

17:25separate ordinance would establish

17:26business park zoning. Please have

17:28council identify the governing effective

17:30date provision and explain the sequence

17:32under each outcome. County pocket 10

17:34approved unchanged approved with this

17:37parcel removed, postponed, or denied. Do

17:39not leave the property's jurisdiction

17:41and zoning dependent on an assumed

17:43agenda order or a missing second.

17:45Second, the operative descriptions need

17:48a specific answer. The separate havl

17:51instrument uses a curve radius of

17:532,764.79

17:57ft. The county pocket instrument uses

17:592,746.79.

18:03I heard the earlier assurance that the

18:05surveyor reviewed the descriptions. My

18:07question is whether the surveyor

18:09specifically compared the these

18:10differing calls, determined that they

18:13described the intended boundary and

18:15identified which wording should be

18:17adopted. If that reconciliation exists,

18:20identify it. If it does not, make

18:22obtaining it a condition of your

18:23recommendation. Third, the report states

18:26that water and sewer mains require

18:28extension as development occurs.

18:30Identify the capacity evidence, required

18:32improvements, and responsible payers

18:34supporting the service finding. My

18:36objection is not that every discrepancy

18:38automatically invalidates annexation. It

18:41is that unresolved discrepancies should

18:44not be converted into adopted findings

18:46through a general assurance that staff

18:48will manage the process. Please

18:50condition approval on a written

18:52sequencing determination, surveyor

18:54certified reconciliation, and identified

18:57service obligations. If those matters

19:00are already resolved, the city should be

19:02able to identify the controlling

19:04documents now. If they are not, an

19:06unconditional recommendation is

19:08premature. Thank you.

19:10>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Is there any

19:12other public comment?

19:14>> Okay. Hearing or seeing none, I would

19:16entertain a motion.

19:18>> Chairwoman, I move to approve on third

19:20and final reading.

19:23>> Second.

19:24>> We have a motion from Dr. Emmens and a

19:26second from Dr. Renie. Um, is there any

19:29discussion?

19:31Hearing seeing none, all in favor say I.

19:33>> I. opposed. This item will move forward

19:36with a recommendation to approve on

19:37third and final reading. Next item,

19:38please.

19:40Number nine, ordinance, third reading,

19:42amending the official zoning map of the

19:43city of Cheyenne, establishing the

19:45zoning classification of AG Agricultural

19:47for land annex to the city of Cheyenne,

19:49located south of East Foxm Road, north

19:52of East Allison Road, and east of and

19:54adjacent to South College Drive.

19:57Staff report, please.

19:59>> Chair, members, committee, Conor,

20:00Planning Development Department. So this

20:02is the assigned zoning for HL property

20:06again um with this one. So if the

20:10previous annexation is ahead of county

20:12pocket 10 you approve that one then

20:14approve the assigned zoning. If it's the

20:16opposite order then it's basically we

20:19amend and then if the these two are

20:22approved then you just amend county

20:23pocket 10 to remove it. Same thing with

20:25this assigned zoning and we just remove

20:27the reference uh to that parcel.

20:30Otherwise, uh, with this, it is the

20:32assigned zoning for the HL property.

20:34Staff is still recommending the AG zone,

20:36uh, which is the same as what is

20:38recommended in the county pocket 10

20:41assigned zoning, uh, based on current

20:43use of the property.

20:46Hasn't been any additional public

20:47comment. I'm available for any

20:49questions.

20:50>> Thank you. Any questions for staff?

20:53>> Hearing or seeing none, we'll go out for

20:55public comment. Is there anyone here in

20:56the chambers that has public comment?

21:00Seeing or hearing none, I believe Mr.

21:01Miller, you have a comment.

21:09>> Can you hear me?

21:10>> Yes, we can.

21:13>> Um,

21:15I'm sorry. I just lost my place here.

21:20Uh, Charles Miller, Madame Chairwoman,

21:22members of the committee, uh, Charles

21:24Miller,

21:27the

21:30uh Hav assigned zoning to AG. Um staff

21:33has explained that this assigned zoning

21:35ordinance may become unnecessary if

21:37county pocket 10 is approved. That makes

21:39it important to identify the legal

21:41foundation for the separate business

21:42park resoning under either pathway. If

21:45this agricultural assignment dies for

21:47lack of a second, which ordinance

21:48supplies the initial city zoning? When

21:51does that assignment become effective?

21:52And what language ensures the business

21:54park resoning follows rather than

21:56precedes it? Please answer for both

21:59possibilities. County pocket 10 approved

22:01with this property included and county

22:02pocket 10 amended to remove it or

22:04otherwise not approved. The earlier

22:06explanation supplied a possible

22:08parliamentary sequence. I'm asking for

22:10the operative sequence of annexation and

22:11zoning. There is also a question about

22:14the hearing recital. Section three

22:16refers to the February 2nd planning

22:18commission hearing. The cover memo

22:21explains that the parcel was reviewed

22:22then as part of county pocket 10 before

22:25the separate landowner application was

22:27filed. I'm not claiming the earlier

22:29hearing did not occur. Please identify

22:32why its recommendation satisfies this

22:34separate action. What record is

22:36incorporated and whether the boundaries

22:38and proposed assignment remain the same.

22:40If that reliance is proper, describe it

22:42accurately in the ordinance. The report

22:44also justifies agricultural zoning

22:46because it accommodates the existing

22:48residents and agricultural activity. The

22:50separate business park proposal serves a

22:52different purpose. Please keep those

22:54findings distinct. Preserving an

22:56existing use is not by itself an

22:58explanation for granting a broader range

23:00of development rights. If business park

23:02is postponed or denied, identify which

23:05current activities remain conforming

23:06under agricultural and what change

23:08changes require permission. My request

23:11is a re recommendation conditioned on an

23:13accurate hearing recital and an explicit

23:15zoning sequence under each annexation

23:17outcome. Do not leave the final map

23:20dependent on an expected agenda order in

23:22omitted second or an assumption that

23:25approval and legal effectiveness mean

23:27the same thing. Thank you.

23:29>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Is there any

23:31other public comment?

23:34Hearing seeing none, I would entertain a

23:36motion.

23:42Madam Chairwoman, I move to approve on

23:43third and final reading.

23:44>> Second.

23:45>> We have a motion from Dr. Renie, a

23:47second from Dr. Emmens. Is there any

23:49discussion?

23:52>> Hearing none. All in favor say I.

23:53>> I.

23:54>> I.

23:54>> Opposed. This item will move forward

23:56with our recommendation to approve on

23:58third and final reading. Next item,

23:59please. Number 10. Ordinance. Third

24:01reading. Amending the official zoning

24:03map of the city of Cheyenne. Changing

24:04the zoning classification for land

24:06located south of East Fox Farm Road,

24:08north of East Allison Road, and east of

24:10and adjacent to South College Drive from

24:12AG Agricultural to BP Business Park.

24:16>> Staff report.

24:18>> Chair, members, committee, Conor,

24:19Planning Development Department. So,

24:21this is a owner requested zone change

24:23for um property that we just had the

24:26last two items on to BP Business Park.

24:29Um so to answer the question about which

24:31or basically which assigned zoning

24:33ordinance would uh cover this parcel

24:38either one. Um this parcel like I said

24:41is a part of county pocket 10. It has an

24:43assigned zoning ordinance with it that

24:45would assign it AG.

24:47Um same thing with the standalone uh

24:50zoning assignment uh that we just

24:53discussed in the last item would assign

24:54it AG. So whichever one council ends up

24:57approving in the end would what would

25:00would give it the city zone uh for

25:03establishing

25:04with the zone change uh regardless of

25:06whether it come from county pocket 10 or

25:08come from the owner initiated uh this is

25:11basically a request to reszone that

25:13parcel once it is annexed um into the

25:16city limits to BP business park. It is

25:19surrounded by BP on two sides and then

25:23should the other two parcels in county

25:24pocket 10 be annexed they will be

25:27assigned the LI zone. So they will

25:29become light industrial and then county

25:31light industrial is across College

25:33Drive. So this entire area is now

25:36ultimately just industrial by nature.

25:40Um Steph's understanding and I believe

25:42the applicant has mentioned it uh this

25:44request for the BP zone is to then

25:46combine this parcel with the larger read

25:49parcel that was uh recently reszoned to

25:51BP. To combine parcels it is best to

25:54have the same zoning on those parcels.

25:57Um

25:59again this area is now basically

26:02industrial by nature with its zoning. So

26:05staff does recommend approval of the BP

26:06zone and I'm available for any

26:08questions. Are there any questions for

26:10staff?

26:12>> Yes, Dr. Renie.

26:14>> Madam Chairman, I'm just I want to know

26:16is there a difference between BP zone or

26:19light industrial zone as far as

26:21screening or buffering along college

26:23drive?

26:25>> Um madam chair through you to Dr. Renie.

26:27No. Um and I believe it's even the same

26:30setback requirement along college in our

26:33BP and light industrial. I believe it's

26:3525 ft from from the street is how far a

26:38building would have to be set back

26:39>> and any and then what would the

26:41screening requirements be? Are they

26:43going to be required to plant anything

26:44along there?

26:46>> Um madam chair through you. So we still

26:48have street tree requirements whether it

26:50be BP or LI. Uh BP does have different

26:54kind of landscaping right now that kind

26:56of reduces but otherwise still street

26:59tree requirements. Um, if it's outdoor

27:04storage, then there'd be a lot more

27:06requirements uh for screening, but we

27:10don't have an exact use specific to this

27:12portion of the property. We obviously

27:15all know the rest of the property is a

27:16data center, but I don't believe they're

27:19building a separate data center on this

27:20small 5acre lot. It's just becoming part

27:23of the larger.

27:26>> Thank you, Madam Chairman.

27:29So, uh, Seth or sorry, Connor, I my

27:33guess I thought light industrial did not

27:35allow outdoor storage.

27:37>> Man, uh, through you, light industrial

27:40allows outdoor storage as a conditional

27:42use.

27:42>> Okay.

27:43>> So, it does have to go through an extra

27:45process. It does allow it. It's just

27:47another process that has to go through

27:49and then it has in tensor screening

27:51requirements for landscaping and

27:53buffering and things of that nature.

27:56>> Thank you.

27:57Um, is there anyone any other questions

27:59for staff from committee? Is there

28:02anyone here in the chambers who would

28:04like to make public comment?

28:08>> Okay, hearing or seeing none, I believe

28:09Mr. Miller, you have your hand raised.

28:14>> Hear me.

28:17>> Can you hear me?

28:18>> Yes, we can.

28:20Um, madam, excuse me, madam chairwoman,

28:22members of the committee, Charles

28:23Miller, staff has now clarified that the

28:25anticipated purpose [snorts] is to

28:27combine this property with a larger reed

28:29parcel, that the adjoining development

28:31is a data center and that staff does not

28:33have an exact use for this portion. That

28:35is the issue I'm asking the committee to

28:37evaluate. Whether a separate data center

28:39building will be constructed on these

28:41five acres is not the whole question.

28:43The land could potentially support the

28:45larger development through access,

28:47circulation, utilities, drainage,

28:49staging, storage, buffering, or another

28:52function. I am not asserting that any

28:54particular support use has been

28:55proposed. Please distinguish what the

28:58applicant has documented from what staff

29:00presently understands or expects. If

29:02partial combination is central to the

29:04recommendation, identify the com

29:06combination proposal and whether it is

29:08required. if combination never occurs

29:10explained the independent basis for

29:12granting business park zoning. Dr.

29:14Renie's question about question about

29:16screening is directly relevant. Staff

29:19has described similar building setbacks

29:21and continuing street tree requirements

29:23but also different business park

29:24landscaping and additional screening

29:26dependent on outdoor storage. Please

29:28identify the actual standards and and

29:30explain which protections can be

29:31determined now when the eventual use

29:34remains unspecified.

29:36A statement that staff does not believe

29:37a separate data center will be built is

29:39not an enforcable limitation. What uses

29:42would this zoning allow if the plan or

29:44owner changes? The applicant's map

29:47leaves daily trips undetermined. Does

29:50the city's analysis evaluate this

29:51addition independently or as part of the

29:54enlarged development? Identify the

29:56access, drainage, utility, and emergency

29:58response questions resolved now and

30:01those left to later review. Finally,

30:04staff has said the resoning would occur

30:06once annexation happens. Please reflect

30:08that sequence expressly in the effective

30:11date provision and resolve the report's

30:13conditional future land use reference.

30:15My request is a conditional

30:17recommendation requiring documented

30:19development assumptions, identified

30:21protections for the resulting site, and

30:23consistent operative language. Do not

30:25limit the review to whether these five

30:27acres contain a separate building.

30:29explain the development rights granted

30:31and the role this land may play in the

30:33larger project. Thank you.

30:35>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. I believe

30:36Shelley, um, you have your hand raised.

30:40Good afternoon.

30:49It looks like she's on mute.

30:55Shelley Kurthers, you can go ahead if

30:56you'd like.

31:10Shelly, it looks like you are on mute

31:12right now.

31:18You can unmute yourself.

31:34I don't Oh, there you are. You're

31:36unmuted now.

31:41Shelley, did you want to make a public

31:42comment?

31:51Hey, we'll go ahead and go and it looks

31:54like Mr. Lloyd has a comment and then

31:56we'll come back to Shelley if she's able

31:58to talk to us.

32:03>> Seth Lloyd, Planning and Development

32:04Department. I just wanted to clarify

32:06outdoor storage briefly. Um, the BP zone

32:08actually does not allow outdoor storage

32:10as the principal use of the property and

32:12the LI zone that is a conditional use.

32:14However, both the LI zone and the BP

32:16zone allow limited outdoor storage,

32:18which means it's an ancillary use as a

32:19permitted use. If any of that ancillary

32:22storage areas up against the rightway,

32:23it is required to be screened and

32:24buffered. Just trying to answer that

32:26question. Thank you.

32:27>> Thank you.

32:29>> Any other public comment here in the

32:31chambers?

32:32We'll try one more time. Shelley, um,

32:35did you have a comment that you'd like

32:37to make?

32:46You should be able to speak now if

32:48you're

32:50wanting to. I see that the mute is off.

33:01Got it. Well, um we'll go ahead and move

33:04forward. Is um any other public comment

33:08here? Seeing none, I would entertain a

33:10motion.

33:12>> Chairwoman, I move to approve on third

33:13and final reading.

33:16>> Second.

33:16>> We have a motion from Dr. and a second

33:18from Dr. Renie. Is there any discussion?

33:23>> Seeing none, all in favor say I.

33:24>> I.

33:25>> Opposed? This item will move forward

33:27with a recommendation to approve on

33:29third and final reading. Next item,

33:30please. Number 11, ordinance third

33:32reading amending sections 1.4.3,

33:351.4.4,

33:372.2 2.3, 5.1.4,

33:41and 5.7.2

33:43of the Cheyenne Unified Development Code

33:45to add and clarify specified use

33:48allowances, clarify processes for

33:50agricultural uses, and providing

33:52definitions.

33:54>> And staff report, please.

33:56>> Madam Chair, members of the committee,

33:57my name is Seth Lloyd. I'm with the City

33:59of Shine Planning and Development

34:00Department. Um this item coming before

34:02you on third reading um has had uh no

34:05changes except for one which I'll

34:06address and no public comments since the

34:09last meeting of on this item. The one

34:11change that has was requested at the

34:14last public services committee meeting

34:15was to propose substitute language to

34:18remove the nonconforming

34:20status out of the site plan

34:22applicability section and move it to um

34:25the non-conformances section of the

34:26unified development code. Currently, the

34:28non-conformances section of the unified

34:30development code does not address

34:31annexation specifically, and this

34:32proposed substitute would allow that to

34:34happen. It addresses um what happens

34:37when a property is annexed in multiple

34:39places throughout that section.

34:42Basically, um allowing for any use that

34:45was legally uh that was legal in the

34:47county to continue to exist in the city,

34:49the same as any use that existed prior

34:51to the adoption of the UDC, can

34:53continue. There is some added language

34:56specific to when a city initiates an

34:58annexation. Um because state statute has

35:00a little bit of a different uh

35:02threshold. Um the UDC's threshold is

35:05that the property has to be in

35:07continuous use whereas the state statute

35:10just says it has to be legally used

35:12within the last year um prior to

35:14annexation. So that language is included

35:16in this section. Um I'm available for

35:19any questions on the main ordinance or

35:21on the proposed substitute.

35:24Okay.

35:25Are there any questions for staff?

35:29>> Okay. Seeing or hearing none. Oh, go

35:31ahead. Sorry, Dr. Under agricultural

35:34uses in the

35:37red language, we have um those things

35:41that are will be prohibited. Um I

35:43believe yeah, general agriculture

35:46specifically excludes and it has

35:48concentrated feeding operations,

35:50commercial stables, and nurseries. Um,

35:54so how do we handle if if we're not

35:57allowing nurseries as an agricultural

35:59use, how are we handling those or do we

36:02have none within the city?

36:04>> Madam Chair, um through you too, Dr.

36:07Rainey, the that section of code has a

36:10separate um use called nursery. Um and

36:14so we're keeping that use

36:17um

36:19so we're keeping nurseries as that

36:20separate use.

36:24Okay. And Madam Chairman, in then the

36:27next changes,

36:29um, under gardens and homemade foods,

36:31use the property

36:33essentially does not exceed $10,000 in

36:36gross revenue annually from food and

36:38drink products.

36:40Um,

36:42how are we going to monitor that?

36:46Madam Chair, through to Dr. Renie. Um

36:49this is a bright line that we have to

36:51put in code. Um we wouldn't monitor

36:54unless we received a complaint and

36:56someone was um obviously beyond that

36:59scope. So a property that is um appears

37:04to be relatively in compliance or that a

37:07property that no one's complaining

37:08about, we wouldn't worry too much about

37:10it. But when it becomes excessive, then

37:12we do an investigation and ask for that

37:13information. So this wouldn't be an

37:15active enforcement situation. This would

37:17be um complaint based enforcement which

37:20is mostly what the zoning code is

37:21generally is complaint based

37:23enforcement.

37:24>> Thank you Madam Chair one.

37:27>> Thank you. Any other questions for

37:29staff?

37:31>> Okay. I hearing or seeing none. Is there

37:34anyone who would like to make public

37:35comment here in the chambers?

37:44Good afternoon.

37:49Hi, it's me again, Tommy Nicely 200

37:52Walters Yresh Farm. Um, there's a lot of

37:56good things in these proposed urban laws

37:59that we're excited to see. Um, there's

38:03still some concerns with a lot of um,

38:06unless there's on-site sales. Um, it's

38:09my understanding, however, that we can

38:12be grandfathered in with that.

38:16Unfortunately, the few things we did ask

38:19for just so we could continue are not in

38:23place. And

38:26this is probably the wrong meeting to

38:29bring up these concerns, but I don't

38:31know what else to do. So, I hope you

38:34guys allow me to get these on records.

38:39My most perplexing concern is the matter

38:41of fixing our fence that the city has

38:43damaged and protecting our right to

38:46farm. Neither has been addressed.

38:50Um the city has decided that the state

38:53protection offered under Wyoming right

38:56to farm and ranch act will not apply to

38:58us. Um we came to speak about this on

39:02August 21st and no comment was being

39:06taken. We came to speak about it

39:09September 5th, but that was postponed.

39:13We came again to speak on September 21st

39:16and that meeting was cancelled.

39:19Um, we spoke with one of the

39:22commissioners on September 21st and he

39:25urged us to be more active in this

39:29annexation process and suggested that we

39:32come with specific language that we

39:35wanted to be added that we were seeking.

39:40So that's exactly what we did. And

39:43again, when I say I'm only a farmer, I'm

39:45not meaning that as a derogatory term.

39:49I'm meaning that my

39:51set of expertise lies in a small field

39:55of farming. Not even I mean a is a is is

39:58a big subject. Um so we did our best and

40:04we took the time out to look at

40:06requested amendments.

40:09Um,

40:10so we come back October 5th to be told

40:14that our efforts did not apply,

40:18that the planning commission only deals

40:20with UDC codes, and to try a city

40:23counselor.

40:25So, we missed October 19th because I

40:28mistakenly thought the meeting was at 6

40:32and not at 12.

40:34And then we had October 26 and I was so

40:38frustrated and emotionally wore down. I

40:42was unable to communicate clearly. So I

40:45stand before you November second, 7 days

40:50before our farm is about to be part of

40:53the city and here's some of our requests

40:56just to allow us to continue our way of

40:59life. Tommy, um you you've used the

41:02three minutes. So I if the fencing piece

41:05I think actually is under item number 14

41:08um and each one of these items you'll

41:11have three minutes on. So I don't know

41:13if that's something that you can the

41:15document you have is something you can

41:17hand off to um David to continue on

41:21because he'll have three minutes as

41:23well.

41:25>> Would you like to do that?

41:26>> Would that work for you?

41:28What am I doing?

41:29>> I just wanted this.

41:32>> All right.

41:32>> What we've asked

41:36>> in the uh David Nicely 200 Waltershide.

41:39Um it was included in the agenda um for

41:42last week's city council meeting. This

41:45document requests for amendments to

41:47rules regarding agriculture.

41:50various amendments to the city code um

41:53clarifying that the Wyoming Right to

41:55Farm and Ranch Act does apply in the

41:58city of W of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

42:01Protection for livestock guardian dogs

42:04from nuisance ordinances.

42:07Um protection of rodent control dogs and

42:09barn cats from nuisance ordinances.

42:13um

42:16an exemption for us from policing a half

42:20acre of property. That's the public

42:22right away surrounding our property for

42:24trash given that the trash doesn't

42:26originate on our farm. Uh that it blows

42:29in from the neighborhoods surrounding

42:31us. Um

42:36so that um we can could continue or an

42:39urban farm could continue

42:42um protecting its livestock

42:45um through the use of livestock guardian

42:47dogs could um continue to have livestock

42:51that smells badly to some folks. Um so

42:56that general a practices, manuring um

43:00plowing, dust from plowing, whatever it

43:03may be, would be protected as the state

43:05legislature considered.

43:08Um

43:10and as I understand it, um the um city

43:15attorney's office is not um available at

43:19this point to consider these um

43:22amendments. And because the city

43:25attorney's office, for whatever reason,

43:26isn't available to consider these

43:28amendments, they can't happen before

43:30we're annexed, which would leave us

43:33unprotected.

43:35Um, we had asked for these things um

43:39again on March 9th. Um, you all and and

43:45Mr. labor and you were eloquent in the

43:48hope that we could work with the city

43:52and almost immediately we were told by

43:56the city's um the mayor's chief of staff

44:00that they wouldn't meet with us. They

44:02wouldn't talk to us. Everything has to

44:04be done in writing. The warmth

44:06evaporated.

44:08Um we asked for these amendments as

44:12early as May.

44:15um they were unforthcoming until

44:18September

44:19any discussion of this

44:22um and so we're at a loss.

44:26Um we're back here having the goal been

44:31stated unanimously by city council on

44:34March 9th that you would work for a way

44:36to work with us. the city administration

44:39stonewalled us.

44:41And

44:43you know, to to Mr. um Wolf's contention

44:47at the last meeting that that's the way

44:49it works,

44:51I'd uh I'd give to you that you're the

44:54governing body. It only works that way

44:57because you allow it.

44:59Um, so I would respectfully ask that you

45:03um ask the city administration to talk

45:06to us, to work with us, and that you

45:08seek to pass the ordinances that we need

45:12to continue.

45:13>> Thank you, Mr. Nicely.

45:15Is there anyone else who would like to

45:17make public comment here in the

45:18chambers?

45:20>> Okay, we will go out for public comment.

45:22Um, we'll start with Shelley Kurthers.

45:26And Shelley, um, looks like you're on

45:28mute right there. It looks like you're

45:30on mute.

45:32If you could unmute yourself, you should

45:34be able to talk. There you go.

45:40Shelly, are I if you're talking to us,

45:43we're not hearing you.

45:55Shel, do you have your microphone on?

46:06Okay, we'll go ahead and go to Mr.

46:08Miller and then we'll come back, Shel.

46:10and check in with you again.

46:13>> Hear me,

46:14>> Mr. Miller?

46:15>> Can you hear me?

46:16>> Yes, we can.

46:17>> Madam Chairwoman, members of the

46:19committee, Charles Miller, the owners

46:20have now described repeated requests,

46:23specific proposed amendments, and their

46:26understanding that legal review cannot

46:27be completed before annexation. Please

46:30confirm or correct that understanding

46:32and identify the city's actual response

46:34to each outstanding proposal. If the

46:37city disputes the owner's timeline,

46:39provide its documented timeline. When

46:41the requests were were received, who

46:43reviewed them? What decisions were made?

46:45And what remains pending? If legal

46:47review is incomplete, why must the

46:49annexation timetable move faster than

46:51the city's ability to explain the rules

46:53that will govern this operation? I'm not

46:55asking this committee to guarantee every

46:57exemption requested. I am asking for a

47:00decision, an explanation, and an

47:01identifiable process, not another

47:04referral without responsibility or a

47:06deadline. On the ordinance before you,

47:08staff has described a substitute moving

47:10annexation protections into the

47:12non-conformance section that addresses

47:14the placement concern, but please

47:16distinguish three separate questions.

47:18Whether the activity may continue, which

47:21category governs it, and which separate

47:23operating regulations still apply. Does

47:26the farm stand remain conforming by

47:28right or continuous and non-conforming

47:29use? What happens when production

47:31exceeds the gardens and homemade foods

47:33thresholds? How are seasonal

47:35interruptions, rotation, repairs, and

47:37ordinary operational changes treated?

47:40Staff has explained that revenue

47:41enforcement would follow complaints,

47:43identify the evidence required to

47:45establish a classification violation,

47:48the owner's notice and review process,

47:49and the permission available afterwards.

47:52The owners also dispute their

47:54understanding of the right to farm and

47:55ranch acts protection. Please identify

47:57council's actual position rather than

48:00leaving competing assumptions

48:01unresolved. Finally, examine any

48:04documented reliance on specific

48:06authorized city asurances. I am not

48:09declaring an estoppel. I am requesting

48:11the factual and legal review necessary

48:13to evaluate that issue. My request is to

48:17publish the controlling substitute,

48:19provide an activity byactivity

48:21determination, and identify the

48:23disposition and review deadline for the

48:25outstanding proposals before final

48:27annexation consideration.

48:29Useful amendments can move forward

48:31without being portrayed as a complete

48:33solution. Where the city has not

48:35finished its review, the record should

48:37say so plainly, and the committee should

48:39explain how affected owners will be

48:41protected in the meantime. Thank you.

48:44>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Um, we'll go back

48:46and try Shelley Kthers again. Shelley,

48:55looks like you're muted still currently.

49:07Yeah.

49:11Shelley, are you unable are you able to

49:13unmute yourself?

49:33I think the only other possibility that

49:35I can think of is

49:38um

49:40Tommy Do you have her um by phone where

49:45she could uh we could put her um by

49:49speaker phone into the microphone?

49:54I don't know how else we would be able

49:57to hear what she has to say.

49:59No, I know. That's why I think Tommy has

50:02her has the ability to call her and add

50:06her.

50:10Oh. Oh, she's having difficult. Okay.

50:12Okay, that's fine. Thank you for

50:14checking.

50:19Okay, thank you.

50:21Thank you. Okay,

50:25Mr. Labour, did you have a comment?

50:32I think this process is uh really

50:35getting uh out of control when you

50:38suggest that people can come up with a

50:40cell phone and communicate with us. Um

50:44really this is uh inappropriate.

50:47>> Thank you for that. Duly noted. Thank

50:49you.

50:50>> You're welcome.

50:51>> Any other comments?

50:54Okay. Um I would entertain a motion.

50:57Chairwoman, I move to approve on third

50:59and final reading.

51:02>> Second.

51:03>> We have a motion from Dr. Amens, a

51:04second from Dr. Renie. Is there any

51:07discussion?

51:10>> All in favor say I.

51:12>> I.

51:12>> Opposed. This item will move forward

51:15with our recommendation to approve on

51:16third and final reading. Next item,

51:18please.

51:20>> Number 12, ordinance third reading,

51:22amending section 6.2.8 8 of the unified

51:25development code to allow for onpave

51:27parking in certain sightsp specific

51:29situations.

51:34>> Hey, staff report.

51:36>> Madam chair, members of the committee,

51:37Seth Lloyd with the city of Shine

51:38Planning and Development Department. Um,

51:40this ordinance on third reading has been

51:42to this committee and to the governing

51:43body and we have no updates on this. Um,

51:46no changes or requests. I would however

51:50note that at the end of all four of

51:52these ordinances, both the last one,

51:54this one, and the next two, there is a

51:56comment from the Nisley's regarding

51:58sections of code they would want to have

51:59amended. However, it is not relevant to

52:02the UDC. Um, most of these are regarding

52:05animals and animal control. Um, and

52:07there's various sections of the code

52:09that they've called out. Um, but that's

52:11why they haven't been um included in any

52:13of these ordinances is because these are

52:15different sections belonging to a a

52:18separate department within the city. Um,

52:21uh, but they are there for your uh,

52:23review if you're interested in reviewing

52:25those.

52:26>> And these amendments could be done at

52:28any time. Is that correct,

52:30>> Madame Chair? Um, the council can

52:32initiate amendments to these sections at

52:34any time. um or discussions with uh the

52:37staff that are enforcing those sections

52:40of code and and see what um what is

52:43workable, what what may be um make

52:48things better, maybe not exactly what

52:49the NIC is requested, but make things

52:50better in code.

52:52>> Great. Thank you for that clarification.

52:54Are there any questions? Uh Dr. Edmonds.

52:57>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just want

53:00to verify one more time so that we're

53:03all on the same page that

53:07the federal laws still supersede our

53:10regulations regarding ADA accessible

53:14parking. Is that correct,

53:17>> Madame Chair? That is correct.

53:20>> Thank you. Thank you. Any other

53:21questions for staff? Okay. Hearing none,

53:25um we will go to uh comments here in the

53:28chambers. If anyone would like to make

53:29comments on the uh we are talking about

53:32the park unpaved parking in certain

53:35sight specific situations

53:44nicely why fresh farms again I'm going

53:47to use this three minutes to get through

53:49the amendments I do understand this is

53:51not udc but it's just one more time I

53:55get a chance to plead my case in front

53:57of somebody if somebody's willing to

54:00help, I'd really appreciate it. I

54:02appreciate um Mr. Lloyd um making that

54:07available to you and to the rest of

54:09Cheyenne by putting it up in the

54:10website. So, I'm going to run through

54:12the amendments. Um I know they're

54:14rudimentary, but it's the best we could

54:17do. Amend 6.08.090

54:22add C. Quote, "This section shall not

54:24apply to any working farm, working cats,

54:27or working dog dogs," unquote. Amend

54:306.08.11

54:32add quote except as provided by Wyoming

54:35statute 11-44-103.

54:39End quote. Amend 6.08030C.

54:43Add number five, livestock guardian

54:45dogs, rodent controls, and barn cats

54:48under the exempt animals. Amend 6.0.

54:5208.070

54:56add quote this section shall not apply

54:59to any livestock guardian dog end quote

55:02amend 8.60.035

55:06add quote this section shall not apply

55:08to any working farm end quote amend

55:118.60.030

55:13030 add quote except as is consistent

55:17with Wyoming statute 11-44-103

55:21end quote. Thank you.

55:24>> Thank you

55:28>> Mr. Nicely.

55:29>> David Nicely 200 Waltershide. Um I just

55:31like to thank the planning commission.

55:33There's been uh again um I started in

55:38February of this year asking that we

55:40could be kind and respectful. Um we've

55:44tried to live by that. um have some

55:48concerns with some in the city, but in

55:52this case with respect to parking, I'm

55:54thankful to the planning uh department

55:58um for coming up with uh I think a

56:01helpful addition to the city code that

56:04we didn't ask for.

56:07Um we haven't gotten what we needed to

56:09continue. Um and I expect by this time

56:12next week, we'll be out of business.

56:16But we the city did get something that

56:19we didn't ask for out of the process and

56:21so so thank you. Um and uh that's all I

56:26have to say. Thanks.

56:26>> Thank you.

56:29>> Okay, it looks like Mr. Miller, you have

56:30your hand raised.

56:36[clears throat]

56:38>> Can you hear me?

56:39>> Yes, we can. [snorts] Uh, Madam

56:41Chairwoman, members of the committee,

56:42Charles Miller. Staff has identified a

56:45route for reviewing the owner's separate

56:47municipal code requests. Council can

56:49initiate amendments or discussions with

56:51the responsible departments. The owner

56:54has now read those proposals into the

56:56record. Please turn that available route

56:59into an identified referral, responsible

57:01official, and timetable at any time.

57:05could not or should not become an

57:07identif in indefinite answer while

57:09annexation proceeds on the parking

57:12ordinance itself. I am not asking the

57:14city to wave applicable accessibility

57:16obligations. I am asking the committee

57:19to distinguish three things. Relief from

57:21paving, compliance with accessibility

57:24requirements, and relief from the

57:26remaining local parking design

57:27standards. The farm's written questions

57:29concern concerns the farm's written

57:32question concerns that distin

57:35distinction directly.

57:37Does agricultural permission for gravel

57:39resolve the existing layout or must the

57:41owner obtain a separate administrative

57:43adjustment? Please demonstrate the

57:45answer using that layout. Identify the

57:47parking spaces, required accessible

57:49features and approaches, landscaping

57:50obligations, and every additional

57:52application. State the submissions,

57:54fees, decision criteria, and review

57:57available if relief is denied. An

58:00opportunity to request an exemption is

58:02not the same as an exemption already

58:04granted. The director also evaluates

58:07surrounding character. What objective

58:09findings govern that determination when

58:11a working agricultural property is

58:13surrounded by more urban development?

58:15Please explain how comparable

58:17agricultural operations will receive

58:19consistent treatment. For overflow

58:21parking, identify how low frequency

58:23eligibility is documented. For drainage,

58:26identify the required engineering,

58:28showing, and continuing maintenance

58:29responsibility.

58:31The city should not remove an

58:33unnecessary paving burden only to leave

58:35owners uncertain about another

58:36application, another expense, or another

58:39discretionary decision. My request is a

58:42proportionate agricultural parking

58:44pathway, a worked example for the

58:46affected operation, and a documented

58:49referral for the separate municipal code

58:51requests. Useful amendments can proceed

58:54without being represented as resolving

58:56every annexation concern. Please

58:59identify what this ordinance actually

59:00fixes, what permission remains

59:02necessary, and who will finish the

59:04outstanding work before the city asks

59:06the owners to rely on the package. Thank

59:09you.

59:10Thank you, Mr. Miller. Is there any

59:12further public comment?

59:15Hearing or seeing none, I would

59:17entertain a motion.

59:20>> U Madam Chairwoman, I move to approve on

59:22third and final reading.

59:24>> Second.

59:25>> We have a motion from Dr. Emmens, a

59:26second from Dr. Renie. Is there any

59:28discussion?

59:29>> Madam Chairman, I do have a couple

59:31questions if I may.

59:32>> Sure.

59:33>> It's under 6.2.8.

59:35C3, which is the low usage overflow

59:38parking. Um I understand like in the

59:42last line I understand

59:44Rick like open space trail heads and you

59:48know and similarly because those are

59:50rarely paved. Um but I guess like in the

59:56in regard to one two and the third line

59:58is civic uses entertainment venues. Um,

1:00:03is this

1:00:05I guess I want an example or is this

1:00:07specific to

1:00:09um to frontier days in their overlow

1:00:13overflow parking lots? So,

1:00:17>> do we have a respon madam chair? This is

1:00:19Seth at the planning and development

1:00:20department. Um, that is one example of a

1:00:23potential application. Um there's also

1:00:27uh there's also um uh churches are often

1:00:31considered civic or entertainment uses

1:00:33and often don't use all their parking

1:00:35lot all the time. Um you know I don't

1:00:38know if it's really fair to ask a church

1:00:39to be paving parking for Christmas and

1:00:41Easter for example a Christian church.

1:00:44Um I can't speak to other religions.

1:00:46Maybe a Jewish church would require

1:00:48extra parking during other holidays. Um,

1:00:50and so the overflow parking, civic uses,

1:00:53and entertainment venues are actually

1:00:54where churches normally fall within our

1:00:57code. Um, similar with um, uh, a

1:01:03veterans club type use or a order. Um,

1:01:08th those types of uses, they often don't

1:01:11use their entire parking lot all the

1:01:12time. They only have one or two large

1:01:14events a year. And so, um, that that was

1:01:18the purpose here. So it it applies to

1:01:20more than just one property.

1:01:22Hopefully that helps explain where we

1:01:24what we were thinking as staff.

1:01:26>> So Madam Chairman, if in the example of

1:01:29a church, if you have a church and they

1:01:32happen to have a field adjacent to their

1:01:35to the church that's part of their

1:01:38property and it

1:01:40happens to get used at Christmas and

1:01:42Easter.

1:01:44I mean, do we actually consider that I

1:01:46mean, do we consider that a parking lot?

1:01:48Do we regulate it as such or does it

1:01:50just happen to be a field that people

1:01:52park on

1:01:56>> and chair members of the committee and

1:01:58to Dr. Renie? Um, it really depends on

1:02:01the

1:02:01>> you Charles Bloom planning and

1:02:03development director.

1:02:04>> It really does depend on the the

1:02:06circumstance. for example, Cheyenne

1:02:08Hills um out on US30 in Christensen and

1:02:12the Berean Church which is located just

1:02:14south of Story on Powder House. Um those

1:02:17both have areas where they have uh

1:02:19gravel parking lots that are somewhat

1:02:22formalized that yes, this these

1:02:24provisions would work for for those

1:02:26organizations. Um those are used less

1:02:28than that 55 uh days per year

1:02:31essentially less than you know one

1:02:33Sunday. um and a couple of major um um

1:02:37events over the course of the year. Um

1:02:40there are instances where some

1:02:41institutions may uh use overflow parking

1:02:45for one or two days uh since those are

1:02:48under that 14-day temporary use type of

1:02:51provision. Um that would be able to

1:02:53occur without any approval. Um but

1:02:55really what this would look at is um

1:02:58those

1:02:59types of facilities that are um seeking

1:03:02to improve an area to designate it as

1:03:05some type of parking which would occur

1:03:07on a regular basis. That would be uh

1:03:10graveled and it'd be different than

1:03:12something that would be a one or two

1:03:14times per year type of of thing.

1:03:18>> Dr. Renie, any other questions? No.

1:03:20Okay. Dr. Emmens.

1:03:22>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um, I just

1:03:24wanted to respond to Mr. Miller that um,

1:03:29in his comment about getting rid of the

1:03:32ADA compliance. We cannot do that.

1:03:35That's a federal law that we that

1:03:39everybody has to comply with. We cannot

1:03:41get rid of that even if we wanted to.

1:03:44So, I just want to get that out there.

1:03:47Thank you. Any other comments or

1:03:50questions from committee?

1:03:52Okay. Hearing none, I would entertain a

1:03:54mo. Oh, we have a motion. So, all in

1:03:56favor say I. Opposed.

1:04:00Okay. This item will move forward with

1:04:01Dr. Emmens and Councilman Labbourne

1:04:04voting yes and Dr. Rooney voting no.

1:04:06Next item, please. Number 13, ordinance

1:04:09third reading, amending section 6.08.020

1:04:13of the municipal code of the city of

1:04:14Cheyenne, Wyoming to revise exceptions

1:04:17to restrictions on keeping livestock

1:04:19within the city.

1:04:22Okay. Staff report, please.

1:04:23>> Madam Chair, members of the committee,

1:04:24my name is Seth Lloyd. I'm with the City

1:04:25of Shine Planning and Development

1:04:27Department. Um, once again, this is a

1:04:29ordinance on third reading. We have no

1:04:31proposed changes from what you last

1:04:33heard, and we haven't had any public

1:04:35comments on this item since the last

1:04:36meeting of the governing body, but I'm

1:04:39available for any questions on any

1:04:40portion of this amendment.

1:04:42>> There any questions from committee for

1:04:43staff?

1:04:45Okay. Hearing or seeing none, we'll go

1:04:47out for public comment. Is there anyone

1:04:48who would in here in the chambers who

1:04:50would like to make comment on um this

1:04:53item?

1:04:57Okay, hearing or seeing none, we'll go

1:04:58out for um Mr. Miller.

1:05:06>> And you hear me?

1:05:07>> Yes, we can. [snorts]

1:05:11>> All right. Um,

1:05:14Charles Miller, Madam Chairwoman, uh,

1:05:16members of the committee, Charles

1:05:17Miller, uh,

1:05:21uh, one brief clarification of my pre

1:05:24proceeding comment. I expressly said, I

1:05:26am not asking the city to wave

1:05:28applicable accessibility obligations. I

1:05:29requested clarification of the remaining

1:05:31local parking standards. Please reflect

1:05:33that distinction accur accur accurately

1:05:35in the record.

1:05:36>> [snorts]

1:05:36>> Um

1:05:38uh turning to livestock, the owners have

1:05:40identified specific concerns about

1:05:42working animals and nuisance

1:05:43enforcement. Staff has explained that

1:05:45some requested amendments concern

1:05:47separate sections and departments. That

1:05:49distinction explains the administrative

1:05:51assignment. It does not resolve the

1:05:53owner's questions. Please identify who

1:05:55will initiate the separate review, which

1:05:57departments will participate, and when

1:05:58the owners will receive a written

1:06:00response. For each request, state

1:06:02whether existing law already

1:06:04accommodates the activity. another

1:06:06amendment is needed or the city

1:06:08recommends rejection with reasons on

1:06:10this ordinance. Explain the scope of

1:06:11subsection F. How does the AG, AR, and

1:06:15RR exception operate? How do the

1:06:18approved operation and preceding year

1:06:20alternatives apply to owners relying on

1:06:22them? Does agricultural or grazing was

1:06:25lawful refer to legal permission or

1:06:27actual recent activity? Explain seasonal

1:06:30grazing, rotation, drought recovery, and

1:06:32temporary interruptions. Please also

1:06:34state how subsections F how subsection F

1:06:37interacts with the chicken restrictions

1:06:39elsewhere in this se in this section.

1:06:41Then distinguish this exception from

1:06:43separate rules governing working dogs,

1:06:45cats, animal numbers, containment, and

1:06:47nuisance complaints. A permission to

1:06:49keep livestock is not a complete

1:06:51explanation of how the owner may protect

1:06:53and manage it. The owners have also

1:06:55asked about the right to farm and ranch

1:06:56act. Please identify council's actual

1:06:59interpretation and distinguish statutory

1:07:01nuisance protections from other

1:07:02regulatory requirements. I am not asking

1:07:05the committee to adopt every proposed

1:07:07exemption unchanged. I am asking for an

1:07:09identifiable decision process before the

1:07:12city relies on this package as assurance

1:07:14that the operation can continue. My

1:07:16request is a cross-referenced

1:07:18explanation, a documented referral, a

1:07:20responsible official, and a review

1:07:23deadline. If review means remains

1:07:25incomplete before annexation

1:07:27consideration, identify the protections

1:07:29already available and explain why

1:07:30proceeding beforehand is appropriate.

1:07:33Departmental boundaries should assign

1:07:34responsibility, not leave the complete

1:07:36problem without an owner. Thank you.

1:07:40>> Thank you, Mr. Miller.

1:07:42Yes, Mr. Nicely.

1:07:43>> Yeah, David Nicely 200 Waltershide. Um,

1:07:47I think Mr. Miller has correctly

1:07:49identified the problem. Um Tyler

1:07:53Lindholm, who was uh had a hand in

1:07:55writing the uh Wyoming Food Freedom Act

1:07:58on seeing the urban farm amendments,

1:08:02identified that it would be effectively

1:08:04impossible to farmer ranch in this urban

1:08:08setting given the provisions we've been

1:08:11given. because those nuisances

1:08:15haven't been dealt with and because

1:08:17effectively in a complaint driven

1:08:21enforcement anyone can complain and no

1:08:23nuisances are protected.

1:08:26Um given Dr. Emmen's cons consistent um

1:08:32finding that we are in violation of the

1:08:36Americans with Disability Act. We fully

1:08:38expect, for instance, that there will be

1:08:40an anonymous complaint against us for

1:08:43not having what's considered to be a

1:08:45compliant ADA accessible space. Um,

1:08:50simply put, um, because these provisions

1:08:53protecting us from nuisances,

1:08:55um, as they're perceived by others, um,

1:08:59we will live expecting a visit from the

1:09:04enforcement agencies

1:09:07and dealing with the strife

1:09:10um, continually of being under that

1:09:13oversight.

1:09:15In a previous discussion with city

1:09:18planning, we in fact saw urban farm

1:09:20ordinances that contained provisions to

1:09:24deal with these nuisances that we've

1:09:25requested.

1:09:27That was in my hand when we were still

1:09:31allowed to talk to the city or should I

1:09:34rephrase it when the city departments

1:09:36were still allowed to talk to us.

1:09:38Um the fact is this these ordinances

1:09:41would be much better had city planning,

1:09:46dealt with, interacted with a process of

1:09:50visiting with actual farmers about what

1:09:52we actually needed. That didn't happen

1:09:55because there was no respect

1:09:59for our craft, for what we needed. In

1:10:02fact, there was disrespect.

1:10:04Um we were cut off. [snorts]

1:10:07I don't know what happened between March

1:10:099th and May,

1:10:12but I tend to think that

1:10:15we were viewed with contempt for

1:10:16speaking up.

1:10:18Um,

1:10:20Dr. Renie in a recent conversation with

1:10:22me said, "We don't have anything against

1:10:25you personally." And I think in some

1:10:27senses that's the problem. You have no

1:10:29thoughts of us personally.

1:10:32Um, it's just cold. It's just formal.

1:10:36Um, for some on the city council, it's

1:10:38hard to even get them to make eye

1:10:40contact.

1:10:42Um, that shouldn't be, it should have

1:10:44never been. I don't understand where the

1:10:47kindness and the respect is. Um,

1:10:52>> thank you, Mr. Nicely.

1:10:54>> Thank you,

1:10:57>> Tommy.

1:10:59>> Tommy Nicely, 200 Walters, Yresh Farm.

1:11:03um talking about trying to make Cheyenne

1:11:06a better place and we would really like

1:11:08to see a government that's more

1:11:10accessible

1:11:12um especially if forced annexations are

1:11:15going to continue and I just want to

1:11:16commend Dr. Aldrich for trying to give

1:11:20voice to those who she thought didn't

1:11:23have a voice and I think that's

1:11:25extremely important especially being a

1:11:27governing body. So thank you

1:11:30Councilwoman Aldridge.

1:11:32Welcome. Any other public comment?

1:11:38>> Uh Dr. Renie.

1:11:40>> Yeah, Madame Cher Chairman, I just had a

1:11:43question. Um now if I can find it might

1:11:47in regard to F4 um livestock brought in

1:11:52the city for the purpose of being

1:11:53shipped out of the city. We don't really

1:11:55have a stockyard anymore. So why can the

1:11:59staff address why we even included that?

1:12:03Madame Chair, this is Seth with the

1:12:05planning development department if I

1:12:06may. Yeah. Okay. Um the that provision

1:12:11we've always read as staff is for um

1:12:13animal transportation. So if a

1:12:16semi-truck full of cows comes through

1:12:17the city, they're not illegally having

1:12:20cows or something like that. Or if they

1:12:22have to stop in the city because I80 is

1:12:24closed, um we're not we're not

1:12:27processing that as a violation. Um, this

1:12:30section is not in the zoning section.

1:12:32This is in the municipal code section.

1:12:33So, this is more directed toward, you

1:12:36know, police type enforcement as opposed

1:12:37to zoning code enforcement. So, they

1:12:39might could be a little more strict in

1:12:41terms of timelines. And so, that's how

1:12:43we've always read it. Um, there is no,

1:12:45this is existing language, so there is

1:12:47no real um, great guidance on that, but

1:12:50that's how we've read it. If there was a

1:12:53actual stockyard concentrated feeding

1:12:55operation stable or something like that,

1:12:57that would go through the process to be

1:12:58approved and that would apply under

1:13:00either AG or RR zoning one or number two

1:13:05uh a conditional use or site plan which

1:13:07specifically includes livestock as part

1:13:08of the approval. So if we had a

1:13:10stockyard or something like that, it

1:13:11would be probably under one or two

1:13:13instead of this uh four.

1:13:16I hope that answers your question.

1:13:17>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay.

1:13:23Yes, ma'am.

1:13:27>> Tommy Nicely at 200 Weltershide Wresh

1:13:29Farm. I appreciate that um leniency to

1:13:34have a temporary

1:13:37um higher holding capacity. In the past

1:13:40with wildfires, we have opened up our

1:13:43farm for people that are retreating. And

1:13:46so that would allow um temporary

1:13:49um higher hold holding capacity and um

1:13:54our neighbors have never complained. Um

1:13:56I think genuinely people like to help.

1:13:59So I appreciate once again that that was

1:14:02allowed.

1:14:03>> Thank you. Any other public comment

1:14:07hearing or seeing none, I would

1:14:08entertain a motion.

1:14:12>> I'll move to approve.

1:14:13>> Second. We have a motion from Dr. Renie,

1:14:16a second from Dr. Emmens. Is there any

1:14:18dis discussion on the committee?

1:14:21Hearing seeing none, all in favor say I.

1:14:23>> I.

1:14:23>> Opposed. This item will move forward

1:14:26with a recommendation to approve on

1:14:27third and final reading. Next item,

1:14:29please. Number 14, ordinance third

1:14:31reading, amending section 9.12.080 080

1:14:35of the municipal code of the city of

1:14:36Cheyenne, Wyoming to allow electric

1:14:39fencing for certain agricultural and

1:14:41livestock uses.

1:14:43>> Okay. Staff report please.

1:14:45>> Chair, members of the committee. Charles

1:14:46Bloom, planning and development

1:14:47director. Um, this was third reading.

1:14:50This was discussed um at the last

1:14:52meeting um of of the regular sorry of

1:14:55the entirety of the governing body with

1:14:57a lot of detail. Uh at this time there

1:15:00are no proposed changes regarding this

1:15:02ordinance.

1:15:05Thank you. Um, any questions from

1:15:07committee for staff?

1:15:12>> I did have one. There was a question

1:15:14that came up on Monday night, last

1:15:16Monday night, about um being

1:15:18grandfathered in. Would um the Wildresh

1:15:22farms be grandfathered in under this

1:15:26piece of um ch this municipal change if

1:15:30they already have it? Chair, members of

1:15:33the committee, Charles Bloom, planning

1:15:35and and development director. Um, yes,

1:15:37if they have a actively installed

1:15:39electric fence, it would be

1:15:40grandfathered in.

1:15:42>> Great. Thank you. Thanks for answering

1:15:43that. Um, okay. Any other questions from

1:15:48committee for staff? Okay. If not, we'll

1:15:50go out for public comment. So, is there

1:15:52anyone here in the chambers who would

1:15:53like to make public comment on this item

1:15:55number 14?

1:15:58Hearing or seeing none, uh, Mr. Miller?

1:16:06Can you hear me?

1:16:07>> Yes, we can.

1:16:09>> All right. Um, [clears throat] Madame

1:16:11Chairwoman, uh, members of the

1:16:13committee, Charles Miller, uh, staff has

1:16:15now said an actively installed electric

1:16:18fence would be grand grandfathered in.

1:16:20That answers one question, but the

1:16:21excerpt does not explain repairs,

1:16:25replacement, relocation, crop only

1:16:27fencing, or the separate damage

1:16:30allegation.

1:16:32Um

1:16:34the

1:16:36director director Bloom has is the one

1:16:39that had stated that it would be

1:16:40grandfathered in. Um please identify the

1:16:43legal pro provision supporting that

1:16:44assurance and provide the owners a

1:16:46written determination identifying the

1:16:48fencing it covers.

1:16:50But an existing fence is not a permanent

1:16:53agricultural operation. Fences require

1:16:55maintenance, replacement, and adaption.

1:16:56Does that protection survive replacement

1:16:59of damaged wire posts or energizers?

1:17:01Does it permit relocation around

1:17:02rotating crops, seasonal expansion, um

1:17:06or restoration of a fence that is

1:17:08presently damaged or inactive? The

1:17:10phrase actively installed makes that

1:17:11last question particularly important.

1:17:14The owners have alleged city-caused

1:17:15fence damage. I am not asking you to

1:17:18accept liability without investigation.

1:17:21Um, I am asking whether damaged or

1:17:24inactive fencing could fall outside the

1:17:26very grandfathering assurance offered

1:17:28today. Please answer that before relying

1:17:30on the assurance as protection for this

1:17:33operation.

1:17:34There is also a separate question about

1:17:36this ordinance's livestock area

1:17:38language. Does it authorize electric

1:17:40fencing around crops, orchards, and

1:17:42agricultural tunnels where no livestock

1:17:45are enclosed? If yes, identify the

1:17:48controlling language. If no, acknowledge

1:17:49the limitation and explain the available

1:17:51approval pathway. A statement that an

1:17:54existing fence may remain does not

1:17:56answer whether a farm may maintain and

1:17:58adapt the fencing it needs to continue.

1:18:00Nor does permission to keep a fence

1:18:02resolve an allegation that the city

1:18:03damaged it. These are three separate

1:18:07decisions. What may retain? What may be

1:18:09repaired or changed? And who will

1:18:11investigate the alleged damage? Please

1:18:13do not substitute an answer for the to

1:18:15the first for answers to all three. I

1:18:18ask a committee member to request a

1:18:20written determination covering those

1:18:22operational questions before final

1:18:24council consideration and a named

1:18:26official and response date for the

1:18:28damage allegation. If the committee

1:18:31recommends approval without that

1:18:32information, please state which which

1:18:35questions remain unresolved.

1:18:37The owners should not have to choose

1:18:39between relying on an incomplete

1:18:41assurance and risking an enforcement

1:18:43dispute to discover what it means. The

1:18:46standard should be straightforward. If

1:18:47the city says this amendment

1:18:49accommodates a working farm, demonstrate

1:18:51how that farm can actually maintain its

1:18:53protective fencing. Thank you.

1:18:56>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Nicely.

1:19:00>> Yeah, David Nicely 200 Waltershide. Just

1:19:02a historical note. Um, grandfathering

1:19:06for our fences is not an issue. For the

1:19:09last uh 15 years, we've been discussing

1:19:13and dealing with the city of Cheyenne

1:19:15because

1:19:16water from the streets surrounding us

1:19:19run off, erode our fences. A fence that

1:19:22started out 4t high is now a foot and a

1:19:25half high, and the city refuses to fix

1:19:27it. In February, Mr. Doug Claw of the

1:19:30city of Cheyenne was sent by the mayor's

1:19:33chief of staff, Amber Ash, and we walked

1:19:36the fences to talk about the damage. Mr.

1:19:40Clon committed to sending engineers that

1:19:43are already under contract with the city

1:19:45to come and consider the drainage

1:19:48um so that we could effectively

1:19:51stabilize the drainage off the city. Um,

1:19:55and and for context, I've asked and

1:19:58asked and asked various administrations

1:20:00to deal with this erosion. And again,

1:20:03the city makes it an adversarial matter,

1:20:06refuses to be a good neighbor, refuses

1:20:09to fix the damage they've done. Mr.

1:20:11Clone was perfectly reasonable and I

1:20:13could share with you his email back to

1:20:15me. Uh committing to fixing the fences

1:20:18that the city destroyed, committing to

1:20:21sending engineers um to look at the

1:20:23drainage, committing to try to find a

1:20:26way to fix it. Um March 9th came and in

1:20:30the meeting prior to our March 9th

1:20:31meeting, Miss Ash of the mayor's office

1:20:37refused to acknowledge any of that.

1:20:40refuses to commit to any of that,

1:20:42effectively withdrew it all and offered

1:20:46us a pittance to fix our fence. We

1:20:49refuse the pittance. That pittance

1:20:53effectively, it hasn't happened.

1:20:55Again, those are um articulated in Miss

1:20:59Woodhouse's letter of May 10th. You have

1:21:02a copy. Um, we don't, the biggest reason

1:21:07we didn't want to be annexed,

1:21:09um, was because the city's been a bad

1:21:11neighbor for 17 years. I see no reason

1:21:15to believe that the city will be a

1:21:16better neighbor in the future. Again,

1:21:20um, to Mr. Wolf's contention that that's

1:21:22just the way the city works. If that's

1:21:24the way it is, it's because the

1:21:25governing body chooses to allow it. Um,

1:21:28I'd effectively ask you to rebuke the

1:21:30mayor's office for the way they've

1:21:32handled this matter with respect to

1:21:34fences. And

1:21:37we're not going to hurry to build an

1:21:39electric fence to be grandfathered in,

1:21:41not knowing what the standards are going

1:21:43to be. Um,

1:21:46and we're not going to hurry to build an

1:21:47electric fence in a place where the

1:21:50water off the streets will erode it,

1:21:53destroy it, and the city won't take

1:21:55responsibility for their actions. So,

1:21:57I'd effectively ask that the city

1:22:00council do something,

1:22:04have some courage,

1:22:06do something. The mayor's office is out

1:22:09of control.

1:22:11Thank you.

1:22:12>> Thank you, Mr. Nicely. Any other public

1:22:15comment?

1:22:18Okay. Hearing none or seeing none, I

1:22:20would entertain a motion.

1:22:22>> Madam Chairwoman, I move to approve on

1:22:24third and final reading.

1:22:26Second.

1:22:27>> We have a motion from Dr. Emmens, a

1:22:28second from Dr. Renie. Is there any

1:22:30discussion?

1:22:33Hearing none. All in favor say I.

1:22:34>> I.

1:22:35>> Opposed.

1:22:40>> Did you vote?

1:22:44>> Okay. Um, okay. This item will move

1:22:47forward with a recommendation to approve

1:22:49on third and final reading. Uh, next

1:22:51item, please. Number 15, Ordinance,

1:22:53second reading, creating sections 1.1.8,

1:22:571.1.9,

1:22:59and 5.8.9, and amending sections 1.4.3,

1:23:044.5.3,

1:23:05and 4.5.4

1:23:08of the Unified Development Code to

1:23:09clarify requirements around establishing

1:23:12uses, including exceptions for all

1:23:14construction sites. Okay. Staff report,

1:23:17please. Madam Chair, members of this um

1:23:20public services committee, my name is

1:23:21Seth Lloyd. I'm with the City of Shine

1:23:23Planning and Development Department. The

1:23:25UDC ordinance in front of you proposes

1:23:26amending three sections of code and

1:23:29adding three sections of code regarding

1:23:31how to establish um uses in the city,

1:23:34including construction. Um a lot of the

1:23:37things in here are clarifications of

1:23:40policy um and uh codification thereof.

1:23:44Although there is uh with the

1:23:46construction um element there is uh

1:23:49closing of what has kind of been a

1:23:51loophole. Um historically the city of

1:23:53Shand zoning office has kind of given

1:23:55construction uses a little bit of a

1:23:56pass. Uh a strict application of the

1:23:59code would determine that the

1:24:01construction of a single family home

1:24:02neighborhood is kind of an industrial

1:24:04use due to its noise, dust, um heavy

1:24:07trucks, heavy truck traffic. And that

1:24:10doesn't make a lot of sense if what

1:24:11you're doing is building single family

1:24:12homes. Um, so we've kind of given that

1:24:14pass historically, but we've discovered

1:24:16recently that that um pass that's been

1:24:19given has been pushed to the limits and

1:24:21so we're codifying some of those things

1:24:22that are allowed um for construction

1:24:25sites. Um, that's kind of the last one

1:24:28in the order. So I'll I'll go through

1:24:30the various items um kind of one by one.

1:24:34Um the first one talks about how uh what

1:24:38we have what it gets submitted to the

1:24:41city is a public record and can be

1:24:42requested uh through a public records

1:24:43request. Um and that we don't have any

1:24:46expectation from any applicant to um uh

1:24:51have confidential records unless they

1:24:53are confidential by law. Um next is

1:24:55about development agreements. just

1:24:57specifying that we can do development

1:24:58agreements not just where specified um

1:25:01but that those government development

1:25:02agreements have to be approved by city

1:25:04council. Um and then we go into um

1:25:08defined terms. We've defined uh

1:25:12discernable noise which is a term used

1:25:14in our industrial section. Um I know

1:25:16that some members of the public have not

1:25:18liked the term discernable noise but

1:25:19that's what we already use in the code.

1:25:21So we're now we're trying to define it

1:25:22into a more regulatory framework. Um,

1:25:25city staff has been using a policy

1:25:27document on that, but we thought it

1:25:28might be better to actually codify that.

1:25:31Um, I would note that staff's original

1:25:34uh, proposal on that was changed by the

1:25:36planning commission to um, make it more

1:25:38limiting in terms of the noise levels

1:25:40allowed. Um, and the various comments

1:25:43and ration uh, from both staff and from

1:25:47um, why the planning commission changed

1:25:48it are included in the packet. Um, we

1:25:51also defined uh a few other items

1:25:53including workforce accommodation

1:25:55corridors. Uh, there was an amendment by

1:25:57the planning commission to put a setback

1:25:59buffer in the definition of workforce

1:26:02accommodation quarters, but that would

1:26:03probably be better placed in 589 where

1:26:06we discuss workforce accommodation

1:26:07quarters as kind of a permitting

1:26:08requirement instead of a definition. Um,

1:26:12so that's the definitions that we're

1:26:15adding. Um then in 4.5.3 and 4.5.4 we're

1:26:21clarifying some elements around water

1:26:23and sewer and utilities um specifying

1:26:26specifically that uh we need to have

1:26:29capacity in order for a project to go

1:26:31through. Um the BOU realistically

1:26:33already does this. If we have a water

1:26:35proposed water user that is going to use

1:26:37more water than the city of Cheyenne can

1:26:38provide, they're just going to say no.

1:26:41But this clarifies that they can say no

1:26:44um like they have been. And it also um

1:26:47allows us to ask and request um will

1:26:50serve letters from the utilities

1:26:52essentially saying um do you have

1:26:55applicant have you talked to the

1:26:57utilities including not just BOPU but

1:26:58Black Hills Energy or other franchise

1:27:00utilities and have you asked them if

1:27:01they have capacity to serve this

1:27:02development and we can use that as part

1:27:04of our um review of projects.

1:27:08Um, and then going back to the

1:27:10construction uses that we're creating,

1:27:12um, we're addressing various issues such

1:27:14as whether the construction site is

1:27:16on-site or off-site. Um, we've had some

1:27:19issues where off-site construction sites

1:27:22are, um, not cleaned up after

1:27:25construction is over. Uh, effectively,

1:27:28we've had issues um, for on-site

1:27:32construction where there's been lighting

1:27:34issues or truck traffic. Um this so we

1:27:38allow here to have a traffic impact

1:27:42study on construction traffic so that we

1:27:44can and analyze what that construction

1:27:45traffic adds to our system not just the

1:27:48final project. Um and then we also

1:27:50include

1:27:52um requirements for site layout uh and

1:27:58um buffers and screening to residential

1:28:00areas and a few once again kind of

1:28:02clarifications of things they already

1:28:04have to do like meeting requirements to

1:28:06getting a rideway permit, meeting

1:28:07requirements for getting a grading

1:28:08permit, um tracking materials into the

1:28:10ride of wave, hazardous material

1:28:12storage, confined space operations.

1:28:14These sorts of items are already

1:28:15required. We're just kind of all putting

1:28:16them in there as kind of a reminder.

1:28:18these are what's required and then by

1:28:20putting them in here they can also be

1:28:21required of us on their submitt of their

1:28:24construction site to show that they're

1:28:25going to address these items. Um so that

1:28:28is the amendment in front of you. I

1:28:31believe there's one other change

1:28:33planning commission made that I should

1:28:34mention. Um,

1:28:40oh, they the planning commission also

1:28:42added that um anticipated water use

1:28:45needs to be provided at site plan in

1:28:47gallows. Um, the board of public

1:28:49utilities seems to not be too big of a

1:28:51fan of that, but they weren't given the

1:28:52opportunity to comment. So, um, if any

1:28:54member of the board of public utilities

1:28:55wants to comment on that one, they can.

1:28:57Um, but at the same time, we would be

1:28:59analyzing their project based on their

1:29:01proposed water usage. So, I don't know

1:29:02if it would be too much of a challenge

1:29:04to retain that inclusion. Um,

1:29:08that's it from our staff presentation,

1:29:10but I'm available for any questions on

1:29:12any section.

1:29:13>> Thank you. Are there any questions from

1:29:14committee for staff?

1:29:17>> Councilman Lebornne.

1:29:20>> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, and what

1:29:24public participation came

1:29:28as part of uh either the original or

1:29:31this amendment

1:29:33from the uh data center constructors,

1:29:38the data center owners

1:29:41or um was there a public hearing? Uh did

1:29:45you uh get comment and include that?

1:29:49Madam Chair, um we did have

1:29:51conversations with various stakeholders

1:29:53including um uh the board of public

1:29:56utilities, the fire department, the data

1:29:58center organizations. We did have

1:30:00members of the public who gave us

1:30:02written comments who also show and then

1:30:03we also had members of the public show

1:30:05up at the planning commission public

1:30:07hearing on this item. Um, I will say

1:30:10that a majority of the items within this

1:30:13section, um, from a data center

1:30:16standpoint, um, were acceptable, but

1:30:19they would did have concerns over the

1:30:21levels of decibbing

1:30:24commission in table one, two.

1:30:28>> [clears throat]

1:30:29>> So, um, the planning commission

1:30:32completed their effort [clears throat]

1:30:34and included their comments in this, uh,

1:30:38information before us. Is that right,

1:30:41>> Madame Chair? This is now a two-part

1:30:44ordinance. The planning commission

1:30:45actually had a hearing that addressed

1:30:47more than what is in the ordinance in

1:30:48front of you today. Um, but they

1:30:50postponed the other portion. Um so

1:30:53everything that the planning commission

1:30:54forwarded at their last hearing is in

1:30:56front of you including and that's in the

1:30:59amendments that they planning commission

1:31:00made are included in the ordinance in

1:31:02front of you. So the the what's in front

1:31:04of you is the planning commission's

1:31:06recommendations.

1:31:07>> Thank you.

1:31:08>> Any other questions from committee

1:31:12hear Dr.

1:31:14Okay. hearing or seeing none we'll go

1:31:16out for public comment. Is there anyone

1:31:18that would like to make public comment

1:31:19here in the chambers?

1:31:22Okay, Mr. Miller, it looks like you are

1:31:26able to talk again.

1:31:28>> Can you hear me?

1:31:30>> Yes, we can.

1:31:33>> All right. Um,

1:31:36uh, madame chairwoman, uh, members of

1:31:39the committee, Charles Miller, um, let

1:31:43me see here.

1:31:47This is going to be the items number

1:31:50item number 15 the UDC text amendment

1:31:53PLTA26-5

1:31:57construction sites noise workforce

1:32:00quarters public records and utilities.

1:32:02It seems as if you guys have quite a bit

1:32:05uh bundled here. Um and um I think in

1:32:09the planning commission uh meeting that

1:32:12they were uh splitting them.

1:32:16uh so that they could vote individually

1:32:18on each of them. And it seems like that

1:32:20might be prudent for you guys to do. But

1:32:22um [clears throat]

1:32:24staff has just explained that this

1:32:25ordinance closes a historical pass that

1:32:29has been pushed to the limits on

1:32:30construction sites while codifying

1:32:32existing policies on public records,

1:32:35development agreements, noise, workforce

1:32:37housing, and utility capacity. I'm not

1:32:39opposing construction standards. I am

1:32:41asking the committee to examine five

1:32:43specific loopho loopholes built into the

1:32:45operative text before second reading.

1:32:47First on section 118 public records. The

1:32:51last sentence states that this section

1:32:53does not alter the separate statutory

1:32:55authority of the board of public

1:32:57utilities over records in its custody.

1:32:59Subsection A also preserves withholding

1:33:02for proprietary operational details and

1:33:04allows advanced notice agreements so an

1:33:06applicant can seek a protective order

1:33:08before disclosure. Please explain why

1:33:11BOPU records are carved out of the

1:33:13anti-confidentiality rule when section

1:33:164.53 relies on BOPU to verify water and

1:33:19sewer capacity. Will monthly water usage

1:33:22figures or industrial discharge submitts

1:33:24held by BOU be treated as public records

1:33:26or shielded as proprietary operational

1:33:28details? second on section 119 and

1:33:31section 589H2

1:33:34development agreement. Subsection H2

1:33:36states that where a development

1:33:37agreement is approved by city council

1:33:39before January 1st, 2027, its terms on

1:33:42construction hours, phasing or related

1:33:45matters override this construction

1:33:46ordinance. Please identify whether any

1:33:48pending data center or industrial

1:33:49project is currently negotiating a

1:33:50development agreement intended for

1:33:52approval before January 1st, 2027. That

1:33:54would lock in an exemption from the very

1:33:56rules you're adopting. Third on work

1:33:57force workforce accommodation quarters.

1:33:59Staff suggested moving the planning

1:34:01commission's 1000 foot buffer from

1:34:02schools, churches, and residential areas

1:34:04out of the def definition in section 143

1:34:06and into section 589E. Look closely at

1:34:09section 589E. It requires conditional

1:34:11use approval for workforce accommodation

1:34:13quarters only in zone districts other

1:34:14than BP, LII, and HI. In business park

1:34:17and industrial zones, on-site quarters

1:34:19are permitted without conditional use

1:34:21review.

1:34:22Uh, please keep the buffer applicable

1:34:24across all zones. Thank you. [sighs]

1:34:26Thank you, Mr. Miller. Is there any

1:34:28other public comment

1:34:30online or here in the chambers?

1:34:35Okay, I would entertain a motion.

1:34:38>> Madam Chairwoman, I would move to

1:34:40approve on second reading.

1:34:43>> Second.

1:34:43>> We have a motion from Dr. Renie and a

1:34:45second from Dr. Emmens. Is there any

1:34:48discussion? Dr. Renie?

1:34:52>> Oh, I'm sorry,

1:34:54>> Mr. like one, but I'll let

1:34:58>> Okay.

1:34:58>> Gee, thanks.

1:35:00>> Uh, Madame Chairman, um, I speak in

1:35:04opposition to this

1:35:10entire item.

1:35:13It is uh premature.

1:35:18It is

1:35:20really something that requires a lot

1:35:23more understanding

1:35:25both on the part of ourselves

1:35:29and I think the construction community

1:35:31and particularly all the different data

1:35:36centers and where their participation in

1:35:39this occurs.

1:35:41This is uh

1:35:43the most massive

1:35:46industrial development this city has

1:35:48ever seen.

1:35:50It is uh

1:35:53absolutely

1:35:56without comparison.

1:35:59And yet

1:36:02we want to do this. And and one of the

1:36:04things I want to particularly mention,

1:36:06members of the committee,

1:36:08is my attendance at the planning

1:36:11commission meetings.

1:36:14Um,

1:36:17and my appreciation for some of the

1:36:20planning commission members to wrestle

1:36:22with issues that uh

1:36:27I'm sure they never dreamed they would

1:36:30have to interpret uh when they signed up

1:36:32for the committee. And good for them.

1:36:35I'm glad we have people that care enough

1:36:37to try to help our city with their uh

1:36:42interpretation of these matters so that

1:36:45uh we can

1:36:47the council can have some good

1:36:49information to act on.

1:36:52Uh that didn't happen

1:36:56and I expect uh when I attend the

1:36:59commission meeting tonight it'll be a

1:37:01continuation of that.

1:37:05This is inadequate.

1:37:08This is hurried.

1:37:11And why it had to be hurried is an

1:37:13interesting question.

1:37:16I am very interested

1:37:19in how this

1:37:22very complex

1:37:25constantly changing I might add. I mean,

1:37:28there are u

1:37:31items that appear

1:37:34and we're trying to get a grasp on them

1:37:36and then we're going to be acting on

1:37:38them. And I refer to particularly

1:37:42the fact that we are looking at

1:37:45uh the production of electricity on

1:37:48site.

1:37:50We are looking at uh activities within

1:37:53the city that never happened before.

1:37:57So, I appreciate the fact that I think

1:38:00there's an amendment coming, but it's

1:38:03amendment to something that is

1:38:05inadequate.

1:38:07And when we look at the entire process,

1:38:13did the public know

1:38:16what they were talking about?

1:38:18Probably not.

1:38:23is the staff and I and I do respect the

1:38:25staff.

1:38:27Are they really up to speed on these

1:38:30highly technical matters?

1:38:35and are we

1:38:37has been demonstrated by the recent

1:38:39activities that we have approved in

1:38:41these annexations and these uh

1:38:44agreements really understanding the

1:38:47long-term effect on our community with

1:38:50this heavy industrialization.

1:38:53So, I think that when we look at this

1:38:56and uh down the road here, it's going to

1:39:00become more obvious

1:39:02that there's going to be some real

1:39:05adjustment here.

1:39:07So, why not do it right the first time?

1:39:10Thank you,

1:39:12>> Councilman Renie.

1:39:14>> Madam Chairwoman, thank you. Um, first

1:39:17of all, I guess before we go any

1:39:19further, I do have an amendment I would

1:39:21like to make, and I hope I get it in the

1:39:23right place. Um,

1:39:27first of all, on page one, line one, we

1:39:29need to amend the entitlement to after

1:39:31ordinance creating sections 1.1.8 and

1:39:351.1.9 to insert 5.7.1.

1:39:41Um and then before section 8

1:39:44um in line four line one before section

1:39:468 that's section 5

1:39:498.9 of the UDC is to insert section 8 um

1:39:54that section 5.7.1

1:39:56of the UDC is created and read as

1:39:58follows and madam chairman and then um

1:40:03the members of the committee all have

1:40:04copies of this in writing. This was

1:40:06original language that was included in

1:40:09the um in the proposed ordinance and has

1:40:14been carved out by the planning

1:40:16commission. Um

1:40:20and so I would like it included also in

1:40:24the ordinance as originally planned. And

1:40:27so if I can get a second to my

1:40:29amendment, then I can discuss a little

1:40:31further.

1:40:33I have an emot a motion and a second to

1:40:35the amendment. Is there any discussion?

1:40:38>> Madam chairwoman.

1:40:39>> Okay.

1:40:40>> The this started mid to early September.

1:40:44So it's not like it's I don't know that

1:40:46it's necessarily been rushed um in

1:40:49discussions with the planning with the

1:40:51planning office. I had um upon learning

1:40:54that

1:40:56um one of our data centers is is still

1:40:59in the process of construction is still

1:41:01doing evaporative cooling. Whereas

1:41:04myself, the mayor, I'm sure you, Madam

1:41:06Chairwoman, and some of my other

1:41:07colleagues have all been out there

1:41:08saying we're not allowing that anymore.

1:41:10We're only doing closed loop systems or

1:41:13better. Um so at that so that was that

1:41:17was my incentive was to go say hey I

1:41:19want an ordinance that prohibits the use

1:41:22of of inefficient water cooling or

1:41:26inefficient cooling systems for data

1:41:28centers. um with subsequent discussion

1:41:31and as listening to the public, I you

1:41:33know then added that I told staff we may

1:41:37as well add in light light and sound

1:41:40concerns. And then staff went on and

1:41:43addressed um to their credit added in

1:41:46the section on NDAs and also added in um

1:41:50as as they just recently discussed

1:41:54construction and um what the impacts of

1:41:57that has been on neighborhoods and

1:41:58perhaps you know maybe some of these

1:42:01major constructions we should be less

1:42:04lenient. So um so because so that was

1:42:09the the impetus for the original

1:42:12um ordinance and and and

1:42:16obviously as I explained it has grown

1:42:19but the port but the portion that I

1:42:20really wanted addressed is not in in

1:42:23this what's before us and that's why I'm

1:42:24amending that back in and it is in

1:42:27regard to data centers. It does address

1:42:29noise and sound. It does address um

1:42:33water use and and the section on

1:42:36on 5.7.1

1:42:403b

1:42:42is the section that that's been massaged

1:42:44a couple times in discussions with the

1:42:46board of public utilities and I think

1:42:48that is finally um language that they're

1:42:52happy with. Um under C sanitary sewer I

1:42:55see I'm happy to see Mr. strong came in

1:42:58because Madam Chairman when you asked me

1:42:59a question about that earlier that you

1:43:02know are we um requiring are we no

1:43:06longer allowing them to dispose of their

1:43:09their glycol laden water into our

1:43:11sanitary sewer system and I'm would like

1:43:14Mr. Strong to come up and address how

1:43:16we're handling that. Um but this

1:43:19addresses all the things that we have

1:43:22been listening to from the public for

1:43:24months now. And so the purpose of the

1:43:26ordinance and you know you can say well

1:43:29we need to we need to discuss this

1:43:31longer we need to work with this longer

1:43:34that's fine you can discuss it for long

1:43:35as you want but madam chairman I would

1:43:37like to see some action and the action

1:43:39is based on what we have heard from the

1:43:42public over the last few months now I

1:43:45think you know I think this is a good

1:43:47start as our staff says it codifies what

1:43:50we are currently doing and just puts it

1:43:53into law what they're they're how

1:43:56they're currently handling policy. Um so

1:43:59I would urge my colleagues to vote for

1:44:01it. Obviously, you know, over time if it

1:44:04needs massaged, it's not like it can't

1:44:07be amended farther down the road. If you

1:44:09find like anything else we've done, you

1:44:11learn things as we go along. But I think

1:44:13we need to start somewhere. And this is

1:44:15that start. And without this amendment,

1:44:18Madam Chairwoman, it lacks

1:44:21actually what I wanted it to do from the

1:44:23inception. So, thank you for allowing me

1:44:25that time.

1:44:26>> Thank you, Dr. Renie. Mr. Strong, can

1:44:28you address that question?

1:44:35>> Uh, Madam Chair, Frank Strong with the

1:44:37Cheyen Board of Public Utilities. I

1:44:38believe the question was it was a little

1:44:39hard to hear regards to the construction

1:44:42water and uh fill and flush water from

1:44:45data centers. Do we accept that into the

1:44:47wastewater system? Our current policy is

1:44:49no until we have a better understanding

1:44:51of how to properly monitor and prevent

1:44:53an event like that occurred previously.

1:44:57>> Thank you.

1:45:00>> Any other questions? Other comments?

1:45:04Councilman Lebornne.

1:45:05>> Thank you, Madam Chairman.

1:45:08Well, I just heard uh the explanation of

1:45:11the very reason I'm opposing this

1:45:15and that is that this began in

1:45:17September.

1:45:20It is now

1:45:22the beginning of November

1:45:25and over those

1:45:28I don't know probably less than 60 days

1:45:30but um I'm not sure exactly how much

1:45:35less but

1:45:37we're looking at something that is uh

1:45:40highly technical

1:45:43uh very controversial

1:45:47and something that um

1:45:51is difficult to interpret and I I can

1:45:54certainly agree that uh we've heard from

1:45:57the public.

1:46:00Um what their knowledge of this was is a

1:46:04very interesting question.

1:46:06I referred to what they read in Texas or

1:46:12who knows where and with systems that

1:46:16may or may not have any applicability

1:46:18here. So, I certainly don't disparage

1:46:21people coming forward and attempting to

1:46:24discuss this with us,

1:46:26but I'm very concerned about the

1:46:28specifics

1:46:30of a highly technical

1:46:34and

1:46:35very very

1:46:38I I guess I could call it high pressure

1:46:41coming to us from those uh data centers.

1:46:48and how they have uh begun.

1:46:52So massaging something

1:46:56uh really is not uh the proper approach

1:46:59here.

1:47:01We should we should have better

1:47:02information

1:47:04and we should have better information as

1:47:06we began

1:47:09uh to go down this road. I'm pleased

1:47:12that we're doing better with some of our

1:47:15projects that are coming up, the

1:47:17development agreements that might

1:47:18happen,

1:47:21but without a really uh more indepth

1:47:25understanding that certainly could have

1:47:27been acquired um some time ago when we

1:47:31knew that this was occurring um

1:47:36just didn't happen. [clears throat]

1:47:40So

1:47:42I believe that that this is inadequate

1:47:46and I believe that massaging it

1:47:50will begin a process of massaging and

1:47:54dealing with issues that are very

1:47:58difficult and very very much uh hard to

1:48:03interpret and understand.

1:48:05Uh the water use is uh something that uh

1:48:09I certainly

1:48:11have concerns about

1:48:14and the noise is uh

1:48:19um

1:48:21extremely difficult. We don't we don't

1:48:25really have the expertise to go out and

1:48:29measure the existing sites.

1:48:32Although the public comes and

1:48:36u

1:48:38mentions to us their problems with that

1:48:41and I don't think that uh

1:48:44we can just go out there and stand next

1:48:46to the building and uh measure it with a

1:48:50handheld device

1:48:52is adequate in any way

1:48:55because we're going to be living with

1:48:56this and once it's underway and it is

1:48:59very much underway

1:49:01Um,

1:49:03it's going to have some

1:49:05long-term effects here that are going to

1:49:09uh be

1:49:12really difficult to deal with,

1:49:14particularly when you're talking about

1:49:16workforce housing,

1:49:18when you're talking about how we're

1:49:20going to coordinate this possibly

1:49:23someday with the massive development

1:49:28occurring next door to next across the

1:49:31county line.

1:49:33This this is not just the city. I think

1:49:37our communication with the county could

1:49:39definitely be vastly improved.

1:49:43And so, um

1:49:45I I understand we want to do something.

1:49:50I don't believe this something is it,

1:49:53but uh can't can't go wrong having the

1:49:56discussion, I guess. But uh this is this

1:50:01is an issue that deserves a lot more.

1:50:03Thank you,

1:50:06>> Dr. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I I'm a

1:50:09little bit confused by all of this

1:50:11because for the last five months, we've

1:50:15heard about the need to make sure that

1:50:17we're protecting water, that we're

1:50:19protecting people from noise issues,

1:50:21that we've got electrical electric

1:50:24issues taken care of, all the things

1:50:27that that we know are

1:50:31critical for going forward. We've

1:50:35already approved

1:50:37people to build companies to build data

1:50:40centers. To say now, well, but we're

1:50:44going to wait and keep studying. This

1:50:46just makes zero sense to me at all. And

1:50:50I just keep thinking of a lot of

1:50:52analogies like the b the barn the horse

1:50:54is already out of the barn. Now we got

1:50:56to figure out what are we doing with the

1:50:58horse? Where is it going to live? What's

1:51:00it going to eat? all of those things

1:51:02that we've been telling the public for

1:51:04many months now that we are going to

1:51:08make sure is in place to keep our

1:51:10community safe. So to now say we're not

1:51:14going to have rules and we're not going

1:51:16to have boundaries and we're not going

1:51:18to have guideposts or guard rails just

1:51:23makes no sense to me. Um, and I guess

1:51:27the other analogy that comes to mind is

1:51:30that sometimes when you're sometimes you

1:51:33have to build the ship, sail the ship,

1:51:35and turn the ship all at the same time.

1:51:37You don't have the luxury of doing each

1:51:39one separately. Um, and I don't think we

1:51:42have that luxury. Um,

1:51:46I think we need something in place to

1:51:48protect our community, to protect our

1:51:51citizens, and if it's not perfect, which

1:51:54it's not going to be, then we make those

1:51:58midcourse corrections. But we've said we

1:52:01would put those safeguards in place. And

1:52:05I don't really understand why the

1:52:06planning council hasn't done it. Um, I

1:52:09think putting these back in is critical.

1:52:13and I've been sitting through those

1:52:14meetings, too. And um I I just think I'm

1:52:19speaking in favor of this amendment. I

1:52:21think we've got to have something in

1:52:23place to go forward.

1:52:26Okay. Thank you. So,

1:52:30we have a motion and a second on the

1:52:34amendment. Um but I don't believe that

1:52:38we took public comment on the amendment.

1:52:40So, we'll go out for public comment on

1:52:42the amendment. Is there anyone who would

1:52:44in the chambers who would like to make

1:52:46public comment on the amendment?

1:52:47[clears throat]

1:52:50Okay. It looks like um it appears that

1:52:53Mr. Miller has his hand raised. This is

1:52:55only on the amendment. Mr. Miller,

1:52:59>> can you hear me?

1:53:00>> Yes, we can. [snorts]

1:53:02>> Um madam, Madam Chairwoman, members of

1:53:05the committee, Charles Miller. Um, I'm

1:53:07speaking directly to the amendment

1:53:08restoring section 5.7.1.

1:53:12Uh, Dr. Renie has identified a serious

1:53:14discrepancy. Officials were public

1:53:17publicly saying evaporative cooling was

1:53:19no longer being allowed while a data

1:53:21center under construction was still

1:53:22using it. Please explain whether that

1:53:25reflects an existing approval in an in

1:53:28inaccurate public assurance or a failure

1:53:31to enforce an actual requirement. Those

1:53:33are different problems and the public

1:53:35deserves to know which one occurred.

1:53:38Um then demonstrate what this amendment

1:53:40changes. Does it apply to existing

1:53:42facilities, projects under construction,

1:53:45approved future phases, and uh

1:53:48replacement equipment? Identify the

1:53:50projects or activities that remain

1:53:52outside its requirements. Please have

1:53:54council explain whether the development

1:53:56agreement provision in section 5.8.9.8.2

1:54:01two affects these data center

1:54:03requirements or only the separate

1:54:05construction provisions. A restriction

1:54:07is not adequately explained until its

1:54:09exceptions are explained. On noise,

1:54:12Councilman Leborn has raised the city's

1:54:14lack of measurement expertise. The

1:54:16proposed framework appears to allow

1:54:18operators supplied measurements that

1:54:20makes independent verification

1:54:22essential. Who approves the ters

1:54:24qualifications? Who selects the

1:54:26measurement locations and operating

1:54:28conditions? How will a short measurement

1:54:30address intermittent equipment and

1:54:32nighttime disturbances?

1:54:34Will the city receive underlying

1:54:35readings, calibration records, and

1:54:37equipment operating conditions, or

1:54:39simply a conclusion that the facility

1:54:40complies? I request express authority

1:54:43for city directed independent testing at

1:54:46the applicant's expense using a

1:54:48qualified professional selected or

1:54:50approved by the city. The applicant

1:54:52should demonstrate compliance. The city

1:54:54must retain the ability to verify it on

1:54:57wastewater. Mr. Strong has clarified

1:54:59that BOU's current policy is not to

1:55:01accept the construction, fill, and flush

1:55:03water he described until monitoring and

1:55:05prevention are better understood. Does

1:55:08this amendment preserve that

1:55:09restriction? What findings, safeguards,

1:55:11and public documentation would be

1:55:13required before acceptance resumes?

1:55:16Finally, staff said the planning

1:55:17commission postponed the other portion

1:55:19of this ordinance. Please identify

1:55:21whether this amendment restores that

1:55:22portion, what technical review remains

1:55:25outstanding, and what changed in the

1:55:27language developed with BOPU. My request

1:55:29is to defer the amendment until the

1:55:31exact text, its applicability, and its

1:55:33enforcement mechanisms are publicly

1:55:35documented with a def definite return

1:55:39date. Um,

1:55:41I support meaningful protections. I do

1:55:43not support replacing an inaccurate

1:55:45assurance with a rule whose coverage and

1:55:46enforcement remain uncertain. The public

1:55:49should not have to discover what this

1:55:50ordinance fails to protect after a

1:55:52facility is built and operating. Thank

1:55:54you.

1:55:55>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Any other public

1:55:57comment on the amendment itself?

1:56:01Seeing none. Um, we already have a

1:56:04motion in a second. So, um, all in favor

1:56:06say I.

1:56:08>> I.

1:56:08>> Opposed?

1:56:09>> No.

1:56:10>> Okay. this item. The amendment has been

1:56:12approved with Councilman uh Renie and

1:56:15Councilwoman Emmens uh voting yes. Uh

1:56:19we're back now on the main motion.

1:56:22>> Madam Chair, I just want to address Mr.

1:56:24Miller's question, which I'm sure other

1:56:26people will ask.

1:56:28>> Um the data center that I referred to

1:56:31that is still doing evaporative cooling

1:56:33had their approvals done in November of

1:56:362025.

1:56:38Um, as we all know, we didn't start

1:56:40talking about closed loops till sometime

1:56:42in the spring of 2026. So,

1:56:45so that one is already approved. This

1:56:47would um apply to any future

1:56:51construction.

1:56:52>> Thank you. Any other discussion on the

1:56:55committee?

1:56:59>> Okay,

1:57:02Labour.

1:57:03>> So, we have a motion and a second.

1:57:07Um,

1:57:15I just want to emphasize

1:57:20that I as well as others are

1:57:25not suggesting that

1:57:28we don't need

1:57:30regulation of this sort.

1:57:34I'm suggesting that the specificity is

1:57:37not here

1:57:39and I'm suggesting that um

1:57:45it is really not accurate to

1:57:50suggest that those of us that want

1:57:56enforcable

1:57:57actionable

1:58:02ordinance

1:58:07have a different opinion. Yeah, I have a

1:58:10different opinion.

1:58:13Is an opinion formed in this room

1:58:16listening to the testimony

1:58:20both by the public,

1:58:23by the data center developers

1:58:25and by the planning commission.

1:58:31It is something that uh

1:58:34certainly speaking only for myself, I've

1:58:37been involved with and interested in for

1:58:40a long time.

1:58:42And I

1:58:44freely admit I'm not an expert.

1:58:47But that decision is before us today.

1:58:53And I would suggest that uh as we

1:58:55continue,

1:58:57we can

1:59:00take an approach that might respect all

1:59:03opinions,

1:59:06that might listen to different opinions

1:59:11and might attempt to

1:59:14deal with in a substantive continual way

1:59:18with the industrialization of our city.

1:59:23This is unlike anything we've ever seen.

1:59:28The annexations that we've done

1:59:32and the regulations that govern them,

1:59:36whether they're the state,

1:59:40the federal,

1:59:43the public service commission,

1:59:46these are very complicated issues.

1:59:50So, I'm glad to have the opportunity to

1:59:53point out that

1:59:57this it's interesting to hear from

1:59:59people and I I value that.

2:00:03But who I [clears throat] think we

2:00:05haven't listened to

2:00:08are those data center developers

2:00:13and the specificity of their operations.

2:00:17And I look forward to reviewing what

2:00:19material I can find

2:00:22before we come back to the council

2:00:24meeting

2:00:26uh a week from today.

2:00:29So just one more time, let's respect

2:00:32others opinions. Let's work together

2:00:37to ordinance that is really well thought

2:00:40out.

2:00:42And having been here for quite a while,

2:00:47Madame Chairman,

2:00:50I have a lot of experience with we're

2:00:52going to do it now, we're going to

2:00:53massage it later.

2:00:56Um, that doesn't work very well,

2:01:00and it leads to long nights,

2:01:06difficult communication.

2:01:09It's better to start off right. And I

2:01:11would suggest to you that there is a

2:01:14number of factors in this amendment and

2:01:17this proposed ordinance

2:01:20that are broad, general,

2:01:23and really not specific to some of the

2:01:27concerns that we've heard. So,

2:01:31um, thank you for your time.

2:01:35>> Is there any other discussion?

2:01:38Okay, we are voting on the main motion

2:01:41now which has been amended. Um, all in

2:01:43favor say I.

2:01:45>> Opposed?

2:01:46>> No.

2:01:47>> This item will move forward with a

2:01:48recommendation to approve on second

2:01:50reading. Next item, please. Other items.

2:01:53Letter A, Ordinance Third Reading,

2:01:56annexing to the city of Cheyenne,

2:01:57Wyoming various tracks of land

2:01:59completely surrounded by current city

2:02:01limits situate in western and southern

2:02:03Cheyenne generally located east of I25,

2:02:07south of the intersection of Westland

2:02:09Road and Missile Drive, north of north

2:02:13of West and East Allison Road, and east

2:02:16of and adjacent to North College Drive.

2:02:20Okay. Is a staff report, please?

2:02:24Chair and members of the committee,

2:02:25Connor Way, Planning and Development

2:02:26Department.

2:02:28Now that we're in November, uh we are

2:02:32back with county pocket annexation

2:02:34number 10. This is the final county

2:02:36pocket annexation that um

2:02:39was initiated by the city. These are the

2:02:42last remaining uh county pockets.

2:02:46Um,

2:02:48as we discussed earlier, this does have

2:02:50a parcel in it that is uh also has owner

2:02:53initiated. Um, again, when it comes to

2:02:56city initiated annexation,

2:02:59any uh parcel that is annexed is

2:03:03grandfathered in its use and is

2:03:05grandfathered in what is currently uh

2:03:07has been legally established in the

2:03:09county.

2:03:11Um,

2:03:13just a couple of things. Uh, County

2:03:15Pocket 10 has 16 different properties.

2:03:17Uh, one of those properties is uh, city-

2:03:20owned.

2:03:22Um,

2:03:25another thing to point out is over the

2:03:27county pocket annexations we have done,

2:03:29we have annexed 333 properties uh, over

2:03:32nine different ordinances already. And I

2:03:36can say that we have yet to shut down a

2:03:38single business in any of those

2:03:40annexations. Um, there have been

2:03:42businesses in every single annex almost

2:03:45every single annexation we've done. Um,

2:03:48to my knowledge, they're all still

2:03:49running. I have yet to talk to any of

2:03:52them about their business.

2:03:54Um,

2:03:56because again, when the city initiates

2:03:58the annexation, we grandfather the uses.

2:04:00We grandfather what has been legally

2:04:01established in the county. Um, water and

2:04:05sewer is not required to be hooked to

2:04:07immediately. uh well and septic does

2:04:09fail then that's when that gets

2:04:12triggered and then you'd have to hook to

2:04:14water and sewer but that is not a

2:04:15requirement with city initiated and same

2:04:18thing with improvements to rights of way

2:04:20that is not required upon city initiated

2:04:23annexation that only comes if there are

2:04:25development actions on the properties

2:04:29so again these are all 100% surrounded

2:04:31properties uh so they are completely

2:04:33surrounded by city limits uh the minute

2:04:35somebody steps off of one of these

2:04:37properties they are within the city.

2:04:42Staff has been recommending approval of

2:04:43this throughout the process and

2:04:45continues to recommend approval of it. I

2:04:47am available for any questions if there

2:04:49are any on uh county pocket annexation

2:04:51number 10.

2:04:52>> Thank you. Are there any questions from

2:04:54committee?

2:04:56Hearing or seeing none, we'll go out for

2:04:57public comment. Um if there is anyone

2:05:00here in the chambers who would like to

2:05:01make public comment,

2:05:12Hi, Tommy Nicely. Why Fresh Farms 200

2:05:15Walter side. Again, we've stated our

2:05:18reasons. Um, some things are

2:05:21grandfathered in, some aren't. Um, we

2:05:24will be stripped of protection for

2:05:27farming if that's what Cheyenne wants to

2:05:29be known for. Um,

2:05:32I don't know what else to do. Um, I was

2:05:36really hoping that the city would

2:05:39proceed forth in a manner that was

2:05:42workable. Um, it's been real

2:05:46heart-wrenching year. Um,

2:05:50I wish you guys would just like to make

2:05:53Cheyenne a better place. Um, for those

2:05:56already here, not for those that you're

2:05:59trying to attract. Um,

2:06:04please.

2:06:07>> Thank you.

2:06:12>> David Nicely, 200 Waltershine.

2:06:14Um my friend Cody Smith who's uh runs

2:06:17multiple businesses, runs a farm,

2:06:19started an ice cream business with his

2:06:21wife, stood here in this podium and on

2:06:24March 9th and said um as it's written,

2:06:28as it was done, annexation would be a

2:06:30death by a thousand cuts. That might be

2:06:33too merciful. It probably wouldn't take

2:06:35a thousand cuts. Um, grandfathering

2:06:38doesn't deal with the city's refusal to

2:06:41recognize the Wyoming Right to Farm and

2:06:44Ranch Act protecting us from nuisance

2:06:47complaints. We've al already re been the

2:06:50victim of anonymous complaints.

2:06:53We expect that we'll be the victim of

2:06:54more anonymous complaints. Um, we've

2:06:58been approached by predatory

2:07:01people attempting to buy our property at

2:07:04cutthroat rates.

2:07:06Um because the city has put us under

2:07:09distress.

2:07:10[snorts] Um with respect to Mr. White's

2:07:14comments through you, um this will put

2:07:17us out of business. Mark my words, it

2:07:20absolutely will put us out of business.

2:07:23We're not even sure we can continue if

2:07:26we remain in the county.

2:07:30the there are folks

2:07:34in this city administration

2:07:36that have determined that us speaking up

2:07:40means that we should lose our right to

2:07:43farm and ranch.

2:07:46Um there are forces at work.

2:07:49There is

2:07:51it has been alleged that we are people

2:07:54who engage in misinformation and

2:07:56intimidation and because of that no city

2:08:00agency should speak to us.

2:08:03Mr. Connor White is not permitted by

2:08:05this administration to talk to me about

2:08:07this ma these matters.

2:08:10He hasn't.

2:08:12Um

2:08:14those are simply the facts.

2:08:17Um, the public believes us

2:08:22because what we're telling is the truth.

2:08:25Um, I'd simply tell you all, um,

2:08:29do something about this situation.

2:08:33Um, it shouldn't have been like this. We

2:08:36just asked that the city be nice.

2:08:40Um, that hasn't happened.

2:08:43Um, you know, one of your members said

2:08:47this family ought to have the right to

2:08:49do with their property what they want

2:08:51to. Unfortunately, he was talking about

2:08:53the Lumis family.

2:08:56Um,

2:08:58all we wanted to do was share what we

2:09:01have with folks in the city and folks in

2:09:04the city want it. People come from

2:09:06Colorado Springs to get what we have and

2:09:11the city doesn't want it.

2:09:13I don't know. I mean, I can engage in

2:09:15lots of thoughts. It seems to me like

2:09:17right now that Wyoming is for sale at

2:09:20cutthroat rates to everybody that will

2:09:23come in and buy it. Um,

2:09:26>> thank you, Mr. Nicely.

2:09:27>> Thank you.

2:09:30>> Okay. Is there any other public comment

2:09:32here in the chambers?

2:09:35Okay, we'll go ahead and go online. Mr.

2:09:37Miller,

2:09:47>> can you hear me?

2:09:48>> Yes, we can.

2:09:53Um, madame chairw chairwoman, members of

2:09:55the committee, Charles Miller, county

2:09:58pocket 10 annexation

2:10:00staff has just assured this committee

2:10:03[sighs and gasps] that the city has

2:10:04annexed 333 properties across nine

2:10:08ordinances,

2:10:10[clears throat] excuse me,

2:10:12without shutting down a single business.

2:10:15emphasizing that existing county uses

2:10:17are grandfathered and immediate hookups

2:10:19to water, sewer, or street improvements

2:10:21are not required for city initiated

2:10:24annexations.

2:10:26That assurance misses the core of the

2:10:28Nisley's objection. Grandfathering a use

2:10:31on paper does not protect a working farm

2:10:33from a death by a thousand cuts when it

2:10:36is subjected to complaintdriven urban

2:10:38enforcement. As Mr. Nicely just

2:10:41testified. They have already been the

2:10:43targeted of an of anonymous complaints

2:10:46and under the UDC rules and municipal

2:10:48codes being pushed through. Um, they

2:10:51will live under the constant threat of

2:10:53urban nuisance viol uh citations for

2:10:56standard agricultural practices such as

2:10:59odors, dust, working livestock, guardian

2:11:03dogs, and rodent control barn cats that

2:11:06the city refuses to shelter under the

2:11:08Wyoming Right to Farm and Ranch Act.

2:11:11Furthermore, staff's assurances about

2:11:13infrastructure ignore the physical

2:11:15reality outside the gate. 15 years of

2:11:18unmititigated city street runoff eroding

2:11:20their perimeter fences while the mayor's

2:11:22office repudiates its own engineers

2:11:24written commitments to fix the drainage.

2:11:26You cannot dismiss these concerns by

2:11:28pointing to statistics on commercial or

2:11:30residential parcels that do not rely on

2:11:32soil, water, livestock, and perimeter

2:11:34security to operate. A farm is not a

2:11:37passive warehouse. It is an active

2:11:39biological system that cannot survive

2:11:41under urban nuisance standards. My

2:11:43request is to condition the annexation

2:11:44of parcel 4 on a binding

2:11:47written agreement resolving the storm

2:11:49water drainage and fence damage and

2:11:51adopting the requested agricultural

2:11:53exemptions before this annexation goes

2:11:55into effect. Thank you.

2:11:58>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Are there any

2:12:00other public comments?

2:12:03Jennifer, I don't see any online.

2:12:06Okay, I would hearing or seeing none, I

2:12:08would entertain a motion.

2:12:11Madam Chairwoman, I move to approve on

2:12:13third and final reading.

2:12:15>> Second.

2:12:15>> We have a motion from Dr. Emmens and a

2:12:17second from Dr. Renie. Um, is there any

2:12:20discussion by the committee?

2:12:24>> Councilman Leborn.

2:12:26>> Thank you, Madam Chairman.

2:12:31Having a lot of experience here through

2:12:33many

2:12:35challenging situations, I can't think of

2:12:37anything that quite measures up to this

2:12:40one.

2:12:42I believe that it is uh

2:12:46important for council people to

2:12:49take a vote

2:12:51yay or nay.

2:12:53I don't believe that there is an option

2:12:56to abstain from a vote.

2:12:59Um, I came to attend this meeting

2:13:03because I think it's my responsibility

2:13:05to do that.

2:13:09But on both sides of this issue,

2:13:13I see failure.

2:13:16I see failure of the WFAS farms to be

2:13:22able to articulate and work with the

2:13:24city.

2:13:27I especially see a failure of the city

2:13:29to reasonably and responsibly respond to

2:13:33their concerns.

2:13:36So that's a that's a tough place to be,

2:13:38Madame Chairman.

2:13:41And uh

2:13:44I'm not sure what uh the final result

2:13:47will be, but

2:13:49I think we've seen something that

2:13:53is not helpful to us as a community

2:13:58and as a means of progressing. I

2:14:02recognize and appreciate everything that

2:14:04went into those 333

2:14:08city initiated annexations. I think

2:14:10they're going to

2:14:12benefit us in the long term. No doubt

2:14:14about it.

2:14:16But this is u

2:14:19a real failure on both sides

2:14:23that puts us in the position of

2:14:26supporting

2:14:29a city that

2:14:32has

2:14:35not done all it can

2:14:37or supporting

2:14:39WFresh with their

2:14:42allegations and

2:14:46really uh inaccurate presentations.

2:14:52So,

2:14:54I'm going to be a no on this in this

2:14:58committee meeting

2:15:00because I think the city can do better

2:15:04and I don't think we did.

2:15:07But I would point out that uh the

2:15:10Nisley's have made that very difficult

2:15:12for the city.

2:15:14So this isn't a vote for Yfresh.

2:15:21It is a vote against a failed process.

2:15:24Thank you.

2:15:26>> Any other discussion?

2:15:28>> All in favor say I.

2:15:32>> Opposed?

2:15:32>> No.

2:15:33>> This item will move forward with her

2:15:34recommendation to approve on third and

2:15:36final reading. Last item on the agenda,

2:15:38please. Letter B, ordinance third

2:15:41reading, amending the official zoning

2:15:42map of the city of Cheyenne establishing

2:15:44the zoning classifications of AG

2:15:47agricultural,

2:15:48MR, medium density residential, CB

2:15:51community business, and LI light

2:15:53industrial for land annex to the city of

2:15:55Cheyenne, generally located east of I25,

2:15:58south of the intersection of Westland

2:16:00Road and Missile Drive, north of West

2:16:03and East Allison Road, and east of and

2:16:06adjacent to North College Drive.

2:16:09Hey, staff report please.

2:16:11>> Chair, members, committee, Conor Way,

2:16:12Planning and Development Department

2:16:14with any annexation as it's always

2:16:17stated has to have an assigned zone. So,

2:16:19this is the assigned zoning for these

2:16:21various parcels.

2:16:23Uh, parcel one is proposed to be zoned

2:16:27LI, light industrial, parcel 2, same

2:16:29thing, LI light industrial.

2:16:33Parcel three CB community business.

2:16:39Parcel four uh AG agricultural.

2:16:44Parcel five is MR medium density

2:16:47residential.

2:16:52Parcel six is LI light industrial. And

2:16:56then parcel seven,

2:16:59uh, you'd have the top two parcels zoned

2:17:01LI and the bottom parcel zoned AG.

2:17:04Again, that bottom parcel was the items

2:17:06that we discussed at the beginning of

2:17:08the meeting. So sign zoning did not

2:17:10change uh, with this.

2:17:16I am available for any questions.

2:17:18>> Thank you. Is there any Councilwoman

2:17:20Lebourne?

2:17:22>> Excuse me, I turned it off. Oh, is there

2:17:24any uh questions for staff from

2:17:26committee?

2:17:28Hearing or seeing none, we'll go out for

2:17:30public comment. Are there any public

2:17:31comments here in the chambers?

2:17:35Seeing

2:17:37hearing none, uh we'll go to Mr. Miller.

2:17:39Mr. Miller,

2:17:44[snorts]

2:17:46>> can you hear me?

2:17:47>> Yes, we can.

2:17:51[sighs]

2:17:51>> All right.

2:17:53Uh, madame chairwoman, uh, members of

2:17:56the committee,

2:17:58Charles Miller,

2:18:00>> uh,

2:18:02today, Councilman Leborn described the

2:18:04county pocket 10 proceedings as a failed

2:18:06process and said the city could do

2:18:08better. That deserves a response in the

2:18:12work, not just a place in the minutes.

2:18:15You do not have to accept every

2:18:17allegation made by the farm owners, but

2:18:20disagreement with an owner does not

2:18:22relieve the city of its responsibility

2:18:24to investigate, explain, and decide. If

2:18:28their account is inaccurate, identify

2:18:30the inaccurate statement and produce the

2:18:32record that corrects it. If a request is

2:18:35unreasonable, reject it with reasons. If

2:18:37a commitment was made, explain whether

2:18:40it was fulfilled. That is

2:18:42accountability. It does not require

2:18:44choosing a side. Today also exposed the

2:18:47difference between a public assurance

2:18:49and an enforcable protection. We heard

2:18:52that officials have said evaporative

2:18:53cooling was no longer being allowed. We

2:18:55later heard that the facility discussed

2:18:57had a November 2025 approval and that

2:18:59the proposed requirement would apply to

2:19:01future construction. That may explain

2:19:03the approval. It also demonstrates why

2:19:05exceptions must accompany asurances. The

2:19:09same precision is owed to this farm.

2:19:11Grandfathered is not a complete answer

2:19:13to questions about working animals,

2:19:15nuisance rules, or ordinary changes, and

2:19:18the practical ability to continue

2:19:19operating. No business has been shut

2:19:22down is not a complete assessment of

2:19:24what what annexation costs a business or

2:19:26requires it to change. And permission to

2:19:29install a fence is not a resolution of

2:19:31an allegation that street runoff is

2:19:33destroying the ground beneath it. I'm

2:19:35not asking you to promise that nobody

2:19:37will ever have a problem. I'm asking you

2:19:39to stop treating unanswered questions as

2:19:41though a favorable favorable vote has

2:19:44answered them. Before final council

2:19:46consideration, publish a written

2:19:48response identifying the farm's

2:19:50operating status, the disposition of its

2:19:52requested amendments, and the official

2:19:54responsible for reviewing the drainage

2:19:56and repair records. for the data center

2:19:59ordinance. Publish the controlling text,

2:20:00its applicability to existing approvals

2:20:02and future phases, and the process for

2:20:04independently verifying technical

2:20:05compliance. Where work remains

2:20:08unfinished, identify it honestly and

2:20:10give it a deadline. The city can require

2:20:12residents to comply with written rules.

2:20:14Residents are entitled to ask the city

2:20:16for written answers. Growth should not

2:20:18require people already here to surrender

2:20:20clarity, predictability, or a fair

2:20:22hearing. You have the authority to

2:20:24advance these measures. You also have

2:20:26the responsibility to establish what

2:20:28they actually accomplish. A vote records

2:20:30your decision. It does not repair a

2:20:32fence, verify a noise limit, or resolve

2:20:33an unanswered question. Put the

2:20:35protection in the ordinance. Put

2:20:36responsibility beside a name. Put a

2:20:38deadline beside the promise. Do not ask

2:20:39the public conf to confuse moving an

2:20:41agenda with finishing the work. Thank

2:20:42you.

2:20:43>> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Any other public

2:20:45comment?

2:20:48>> Seeing none, I would entertain a motion.

2:20:51>> Madam Chair, I would move to approve.

2:20:54>> Second.

2:20:57Uh, we have a motion from Dr. Renie, a

2:20:59second from Dr. Emmens. Is there any

2:21:01discussion?

2:21:02>> Yes,

2:21:02>> Dr. Emmens.

2:21:03>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um, I think

2:21:05Mr. Miller just made such an important

2:21:08point that exceptions don't work and

2:21:14once we start making exceptions, things

2:21:17fall apart. So, thank you for that, Mr.

2:21:19Miller.

2:21:21Um that my question is for um

2:21:26planning

2:21:28theoretically if someone so say nicely

2:21:33the Nicely family decides not to

2:21:35continue their business of farming on

2:21:38that piece of land but someone else came

2:21:41in within the year and wanted to do that

2:21:46business wanted to continue that

2:21:48business would they also be

2:21:50grandfathered in

2:21:52>> madam chair through you. Uh that is

2:21:54correct.

2:21:54>> So basically a use as long as that use

2:21:57continues or doesn't stop being a use

2:22:00for a year it is basically

2:22:02grandfathered.

2:22:04>> So if the nicely decided not to continue

2:22:06somebody else could come in and

2:22:09>> madam chair that's correct.

2:22:10>> Thank you.

2:22:12Any other discussion

2:22:14hearing? None. All in favor say I.

2:22:16>> Opposed?

2:22:17>> No.

2:22:18>> Okay. This item will move forward with a

2:22:20recommendation to approve on third and

2:22:21final reading. That concludes our agenda

2:22:23for today. Thank you and have a great

2:22:24day.