Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I have everything.

Call the meeting of the city planning commission order. We have guest tonight. Uh just to remind everybody, there's usually a three minute rule. Uh if you've got a coaching thought going, I tend to ignore it. And if you can repeat yourself, we'll let it go later. Uh clerk, if you will call the role, please. Pacino is absent. Bull is absent. Heiser White Moody Oul

here here Schneider is absent and Madammore here there's four present three absent changes to the agenda from staff. You turn your mic on too. Sorry. Thanks. Uh, is there a motion to approve the agenda and the minutes from the previous meeting? So, so move. Do I hear a second? Moved and seconded. All those favor say I. I.

I. Agenda is meeting minutes are approved. Uh, we now we go to citizen comments on non-aggenda related items. We can't take any action, but now's the time to speak your peace. You've got something that's not on the agenda. You have anybody online? I have one, but they haven't raised their hand or anything. If you're online and wish to speak on a non-aggenda item, now's your chance.

Apparently not. We'll carry on. Uh, planning commission, do you have any planning staff? Do you have any reports or comments? Not this evening. No. Okay. Disclosures. Exparte communications and potential conflicts of interest. Anybody got one? I had some correspondence with Siobhan Kelly about the uh 4G property and some of that I shared with you.

Yeah. I I participated in that recently. Uh that's not on the agenda tonight, so I don't think there'll be a problem with it. Current planning projects have no old business. We will go to item 6BI, 2026, submittal schedule. Joe, take it away.

Honorable Chair, Commission. Um so this is a yearly activity for us. We produce this document so that applicants know our time frames and um hopefully the best case scenario for when things will be before either yourselves as planning commission or city council. Um accordingly I do realize that it has been well into 2026. Seems like we are moving towards fiscal years but that is partially my own fault. I was messing with this trying to it's easier for us to fill out in the future and so it did take us a little bit longer to to get it out for you guys. But this one is the 2026 submittal schedule. We want you all to see them at the very least so that you can um you know like this is what we usually provide to applicants so that they have an idea how long their their process will take. And these are only for items that go before planning commission or city council. Um there are some items that don't. Generally those review times take about 3 weeks. You got this one.

Do we need to we need to approve this schedule? Submittal. So I'll make a motion to recommend approval of committed schedule 26. Second. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. I. carry on.

Thank you, chair. Um the next item we have before you tonight is a conditional use permit um for 306 East Given. Um this is a location where the applicant is asking for an auto automobile service station. Um in our thing, it says minor repairs included in that within the B2 zoning district. Um, just so you guys know, a conditional use is a process that we go through for types of uses that may not be commonly seen in these areas, but could be um appropriate depending on the exact location and how it's built um and those sorts of things. Um, this specific location is is close to a residential zoning district, but not adjacent, not directly touching one. Um, so I'll just say in a lot of ways we weren't super concerned about this. This is along the major thorough affair of Third Street. Um, Take Five Oil is requesting approval of the automobile service station at 306 East Gibbons Street. Um, this is a national company and you may have seen them at other locations. Um, and we do feel like um, the B2 zoning district is just our general business zoning district. Um, currently that site is used as Cowboy Car Wash. Um, and I think for at least a number of months now that's been shut down. Um, as you all know, we've had a few additional car washes built in the community. And so this is kind of just the normal eb and flow of of business. A new car wash comes in and another one goes out. And so the applicant is trying to reuse this property. um to to um accommodate their needs. I will say this is a relatively small site um

around 10,000 square ft. Um so there was a lot to fit into this this small area, but I think that we're moving down a good path right now to make sure that that happens. Um the site itself um is in like I said the general business district B2 and is currently a car wash. Um I've included there what the future land use is designation is there. A B2 is is very normal. The applicant is not requesting reszoning or anything like that. That is just something that we include as part of this um review. Um everything around it is B2 and varies between retail, you know, like a the vape shop across the street or dry cleaner or a residential unit. Um and then retail, grocery, gym space as well. So this area is highly commercialized. Um so that that does add in the applicant's favor as we go through this. This is kind of like your guys' shot to see what we review kind of in order. Um and so we do go through that with you during a conditional use process. Um to make sure that you all know how we think about things or how we look at things during a review process. The first thing that we're looking at here is ingress and egress to the property and proposed structure. This is a somewhat unique site because it is connected to Third Street um which is managed by Y DOT. um Y dot kind of as we've seen development along Third Street and even to some extent Grand has been closing off accesses to to it to minimize congestion or access points, potential areas of um traffic conflict, crashes, those sorts of things. Um so White Dot did request that this applicant close down its or close its third street access. So, the only access that you see on this site

now is going to be off of Gibbon Street. Um, during our review, we did note that it was fairly close to the intersection, maybe a little bit closer than we would have generally liked. Um, but our engineering department did note that it was still still an improvement. and also um that the applicant themselves didn't have a whole lot of options in this specific case um to to bring it down very much. The next thing we look at is um off- streetet parking and loading areas. Um this this site does um propose the required amount of parking spaces. Um there there's one that we had a little bit concern with. As you can see, the ADA spot is directly into the drive aisle going into um the bay on the farthest east side. Um however, kind of during review, we did note that uh the that the general business runs with people staying in their car as opposed to dropping off their vehicles. Um and so people will be driving in, staying in their car, getting serviced, and then driving out. So those spaces are primarily um not going to be used or used by employees. Um next we looked over control over off-site impacts, economic noise, glare or odor effects of the conditional use. Um we didn't note that there was going to be any significant issues here. In fact, the car wash next door makes noise at all hours of the night. um lots of beeping, those sorts of things, and is generally disturbance to to the neighbors, the residential unit specifically next door. Um this is I mean this site will be used

during business hours. Um and so most likely not impacting um the neighbors quite as much as as the previous use was. Next, we looked at the refues and service area. Um, refu is a fancy term for trash. Um, and so we did note in here that um the the site itself is is still working on their trash enclosure as part of the site plan process and it hasn't fully come into conformance yet. um this is one of the odds and ends that we're still still working with with the applicant, but we did feel like it was an appropriate time to still bring this before you um for your review. Um as part of that I did add in the conditional uses uh or as the conditions of what I'm suggesting which is approval of this um that that any oil solvents detergents things that you would normally see in relation to a automotive use be stored within the building or within the the uh trash enclosure so that they're not just standing out there especially since we're we're looking at a property right on Third Street that is highly traffic, highly visible. Um so uh then we were looking at utilities with reference to location availability and compatibility. Um this is a somewhat unique site in the fact that a lot of the utilities are running over a property. This is the way that the property behind it on Gibbon to the east of it and this property were subdivided or reallocated was through a quick claim deed. Um this was a historic process that the county readily accepted at one time. At this point, we do require

um actual plats to review these and make sure things like service lines and and and those sorts of things going to a property are not going to be impactful to other neighboring properties. Generally, that's because we don't want um neighbors having to dig through the adjoining property to extend services through there. Um, everything is underground with the exception of a power line. Um, and um, I'm not sure if we've ever talked about it here, but you know, in our office, we do require undergrounding of power lines um, and those sorts of things to reduce visual clutter. Um, I think it is the goal generally speaking to make sure that um, all of our power lines within especially new properties are undergrounded. So the applicant has undergrounded it from an accessory pole. Um so it goes from the alley where the main line runs to an accessory pole on site and then runs underground from there. We have requested that the applicant look at undergrounding that line all the way to the alley. Um as far as screening and buffering with reference to um type, dimension or character, um the screening requirements for the site are minimal and are inconsistent with uh the standard outlined in LMC 1514050H. Um just so that we can go over this when we're looking at what sort of screening and buffering standards um as well as landscaping we are looking at what it's next to. So it is it a arterial street is a collector street that all has impact on it but it also looks at things like the zoning districts and what is adjacent to it. Um, so

we are still working out a few of the finer points on on the landscaping in particular. Um, but everything else is looking um within compliance and certainly at a point where we can bring it before you. Last is or next we're going to signs if any and proposed exterior lighting with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effects and compatibility and harmony with properties in the district. Um so as part of this we we have reviewed it according to our normal site standards and our development standards. Um the balcon did provide a phototric plan which um which is within the normal requirements. A sign has not been proposed yet for this for the site. What we will likely see is a sign permit come before our department. That will not be something that you all need to review. That said, we did request that um they originally proposed a sign on the corner of Gibbon and Third Street and in order to improve visibility of for anybody coming out onto Third Street, um we did request that that was moved to the other side of the property. The proposed use is appropriate to the specific location related to the intensity and bulk. Um, like I said, this is a somewhat small site. Um, but the applicant did get everything in there that they need to. Um, while we're working out a few of the finer details, we did feel like it was an appropriate use, um, within that site. Um, the proposed use is appropriate to specific to the specific location relative to public health safety and convenience. Um, our public safety staff did not notice note any major concerns with this specific site. Um, I think like we

already said, um, we were a little bit concerned about entrance egress um, into the site, but um, but I think that overall we've done about what we can to this site to make sure that it it is functional to the best of its abilities. The last is a series of of things that are generally fairly benign, but we do want to go over versus setback. The property structure comply with all the setback requirements there. There's no walls with the exception of the trash enclosure. Um, and we're still waiting on some details on that. landscaping. The proposed landscape plan um will does require a little bit of refinement like I already said, but we are moving in the correct direction and as long as everything um does meet standards, then we should be able to move forward. Um buffer yards, the proposed the proposed buffer yards do comply with the applicable LMC standards. Uh and there are no specific standards related to this use. Again, you know, we've talked about this at a few meetings recently. Sometimes there are uses with very specific standards associated with them. And so we there's none of those in relation to this. Planning staff did send out legal notice. Um, it was primarily published in the Larmy Boomerang on March 27th, 2026, and letters were sent to the surrounding property owners within 300 ft of the property itself. Um, as I stand up here today, I got no comments or calls regarding this this use. Um and so in conclusion, we do we did recommend um the that planning

commission approve this application with the recommended conditions that I have outlined below. Um I can certainly go through those if you need to. Most of them are very standard and so if we if you've gone through one of these processes before um you'll recognize them. But like like I said, some of these are specific such as like where are any oils, detergent, solvents supposed to be stored and that sort of thing. Um do believe that the applicant is here today um if you have any questions for them and I also stand for questions if uh you need any more details.

Anything? Go ahead. Um, so Joe or the applicant, do you know um how the oil used oil and any hazardous materials would be stored and disposed of? I think I'll let the applicant address that question. Hi, how are you, sir? Good.

My name is Jacobe Maidwell and first thing I was going to say is uh this is a nationwide brand, Take Five, fast, rapidly growing, but we are franchises, small business owners. Um, but the oil isn't stored inside. It's inside. Uh, there's nothing that's stored exterior. Um, and we clean. This is a very clean site. One of the things I want to make note is it's not going to be reusing the current car wash building. We'll be demoing and building a brand new facility there. So, it'll be very pretty, very nice. I think that uh the down toear cleaners and the carpet store next door and the Safeway, everybody will be appreciative of getting rid of the the old car wash that we purchased already. Um, but yes, the oil's it's stored inside. It's ran through a very simple system. We don't they don't do basements anymore. It's a small 3ft pit. So, it's a little small. It's about 8 ft long, 3 ft 4 ft wide, 3 and 1/2 4 ft wide, and you go down three steps, and you just kind of hunch down underneath the cars. And so, there's no basement anymore. No EPA regulations, any of that thing. So, it goes through a draining system that's pumped right to the used tank storage and then that is hauled off from a company called Jebro. And as of this moment, they still pay for used oil. It might change where we have to pay them, but we'll see how high the oil gets, but um it's all just pumped right out through there. And then they come in, they know exactly where our switch is. Boom. They just switch it and they just pump it out to their trucks. So, nothing is ever poured on site or anything like that uh exteriorly. It's all maintained right inside the shop.

Yes, sir. Anything else? Can I can I have y'all seen uh I don't know if you have the ability but like we have a site plan and Mitchell our um my civil engineers I think we have a site plan.

You have it? Okay. I just want to make sure y'all saw it. We are definitely taking uh Joseph's notes. You know it's easier for me honestly if we go in and out through Gibbon. Um because the last thing we want is cars trying to slow down stop off of Third Street. I want them to turn in come in and we've got it set up where they have to come to the back of the building. That's how kind of Take Five Corporates prototype is. And the reason they do that is for car stacking. So you can stack enough cars. We'll be running probably 15 20 cars a day per metrics. Now let's hope we do way more, right? But you're talking a 12-h hour period of being open from 7 to 7 running 15 to 20 cars. So we shouldn't see uh a massive line at all to where it'll be thing messing with traffic or inflow or anything like that. But it's a stay in your car oil change. 10 minutes is our is our uh big marketing spill. It's really probably about 18 to 25, but uh get you in and out so you can stay in your car and um service you. No more three-hour waits at the dealership.

What other things do you um besides oil changes and fluids?

That's a great question. One of the things that they mentioned was minor repairs. We don't do any repairs. We do oil change, cabin filter, air filter, differentials, transfer case. Um, I mean it's it's all everything that's related to a simple service of, you know, brand standards for Take Five is is speed getting in and out. We want the client to go do something else. You don't have time to sit in your car and get your oil changed. Like it's just a nuisance. So, um, it's really everything that you can do quickly. We don't want to do anything that you're never getting out of your car at our shop. We don't want that. Safety, OSHA, everybody. That's not our that's not our setup. So, it's really just oil change, uh, coolant exchange, filters.

Okay. Any other questions? We have two open in Cheyenne currently and Lar will be number three and then we're looking to go to Casper as well. Um, Wyoming's been very good to us and we really enjoy it up here. So, Well, thank you. Yes, sir. Very much. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you, sir. You had to fit everything in there with a shoe horn. Oh yeah. You know, the the uh they they say we could fit it on a quarter of an acre uh to a smaller spot and you know, it depends on sometimes exactly how it lays out. If it wasn't on a corner, I don't think we could do it, but it fits just perfectly. Oh, good job squeezing it in there.

Yes, sir. And we do have I don't know if you can see the landscape plan. We do have a little our first trash enclosure kind of drawing there and it and it'll be everything's hidden. Um, we do anything from depending on picket fencing to CMU block to uh vinyl uh pretty fencing, but honestly the best thing is usually longevity. It's just our a normal picket fence. So yeah, the building itself will be stuckcoed um stuccoed. I don't know if the city code has uh any necess necessity for like stone mason coverings, but in our Cheyenne stores, they required stone on the front. So I mean this is a beautiful building that will look really good and right will just beautify third street. That's 15 1410 I think. Yeah. But

okay Stuckco's fine by me. I don't know about planning department but I like stuck. Yes sir. Awesome. Thank you very much. Yes sir. Thank you guys.

Uh is there anybody online who wishes to speak on this item? Any public comment from people who are here? Hearing none. Uh, what do you say, Donald? As a nice clean application, I move to approve a conditional use permit for the establishment of an automobile service station, minor repairs included on property zoned B2, business district located on 306 given based on findings effect and conclusions of law and subject to all staff recommended conditions.

Second. All those in favor? Do we need a roll call? It's a CU. I think we need a roll call. Clerk, you'd call a roll. Pacino absent. Bull absent. Eiser White. Moody. I Schneider is absent and Madammore I that

is four yeses, zero nos and three absent. That passes. Next we come to item 6B triple I A-26-00001 deanexation of the Angles Kirga tracks one and two of the West Slope subdivision. Philip, you got this one. All right. Good evening, chair, commissioners. The item before you tonight um is is project A26-1, a request for deanexation of approximately 80 acres of land located generally north of Laramie Ridge Estates and east of 30th Street, commonly known as the West Slope subdivision, which this body should know well um since it was just annexed. in two in 2023. So, it's that area there. Uh staff is recommending denial of the request to deanex and I'll walk you all through the key factors supporting that recommendation. Um, as I mentioned, um, first off, off this this body should be very familiar with this, uh, subdivision. Uh at the October 23rd, 2023 planning commission meeting, this body unanimously approved the annexation uh the future land use map and comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary plat that were all um uh applied for for this piece of land. And then it was subsequently approved by city council in December of 2023. that preliminary plat for 243 lots which

included a mix of single family and multifamily zoning districts and mixed densities. Um and we we really were excited about that project. Um since 2023, the applicant that brought forward that request sold the property to the applicant for this evening's request. So the I just want to make it clear that that applicant the Engleskers owned track two. I believe it is the smaller tract on the corner that was annexed along with the subdivision at the time of annexation but now they own the whole the both tracks all 80 acres. Um so um they attended those meetings they voiced their concerns. I believe uh chair you asked for the minutes and the recordings from that uh which I hope folks got a chance to go back and and uh listen to. Um but that's kind of the history there. Um so the current property owner is now requesting to reverse that action and return the property to Albany County jurisdiction. And so I just want to say from a statutory standpoint, uh, Wyoming state statute does have the procedural requirements uh, that are required to be considered to deanex and those have all been met by the applicant. Uh, but that just has to do with public notice, getting approval from the county, notifying or um, consent of the property owners themselves and so forth. Um so our primary consideration um from staff standpoint is the consider into the consistency with prior approvals which this board was a part of as well

as the adopted plans that supported it then and I think continue to support this recommendation of denial tonight. Um so in respect to the comprehensive plan and the Laramie growth area plan this property has been clearly identified as appropriate for higher density housing in in the city. Um, as mentioned, the future land use map and the comprehensive plan were also amended in 2023 at the time of annexation to support a mix of residential of higher density residential densities. And the growth area plan specifically identifies this lo location as a suitable um as suitable for urban expansion due to its proximity to existing development and infrastructure. I mean, right south of North View Street, you have a full city subdivision um running practically the whole length of of that uh proposed uh deanexation area. Um so approval of the DA approval or recommendation rather from this body to city council who has to ultimately make um a decision on this. But approval of the deanexation would remove this property from the city and revert it to county zoning which is which is recommended by the county already to be agricultural. revert back to agricultural ranchet much higher um much larger lot sizes as you can imagine. uh the the amount of regulation. I think I just want to recall another uh project that you guys were recently that this board was re

recently a part of the W Hill annexation of bringing that uh part of uh that 15 acres in North Laram essentially on 15th Street. Um, I want to bring that up because the same issue applies here. When you have county zoning or county property that's so close to existing subdivisions, you really have an area of potential friction because the county has far less regulation when it comes to development in general. They don't have 1514. uh they don't have residential design standards. So really uh you know we could really anticipate um county development of that nature up there. And I just want to uh recall that project as as something that really highlights that uh point um regarding housing and economic development policy. The housing study and action plan um identifies a need as we all know and we've heard this many times of approximately 4100 housing units over the next 15 years. Um actually this plan is running out. This is by 2030. Right? So we're still in dire need of the of of chipping away at this number of of units within the city that that um this plan describes. So, so the importance of developing land within city limits uh that is adjacent to existing infrastructure can't be stressed more. Uh similar the thrive Laram strategy identifies housing availability as a key component of economic development and supports incorporation of properties along the city boundary uh to allow for

efficient service extension. Uh this this property as mentioned before is adjacent to a city subdivision. Um it makes sense to extend services. Um and um and it it has made sense. The previous property owner preliminarily platted this piece of property uh with the 243 lots. So I want to I want to reemphasize that as well. uh can be done. So the subject property is contiguous as I've mentioned to existing development located within the logical service extension area. Um deanexation would disrupt that coordinated planning framework and create inconsistency in the city's growth pattern. Um, per the applicant's request, which is also included in the in in your materials, um, staff has found a lack of or or the petitioner cites a lack of perceived benefit from inclusion within the city. Um, and infrastructure concerns. Um, mainly I I I believe the cost of city development and developing that property has have been cited as a as why the applicant wants to deanex because county development it is a lot cheaper. I mean, we we can all agree on that. The cost, the development standards, the requirements are much less in the county than they are in the city. Um however for for the you know the reasons I mentioned earlier that friction between this area that is um it's zoned R3 LR and RR. So we're talking about a

very nice mix of housing multifamily housing um on a blank slate which really we don't have a lot of in the city of Laramie like that. So, um I I I think I I've made it clear a staff standpoint. Um but just to summarize again, the request is not consistent with plans we have in place, the comprehensive plan. Um and then the Larame area growth plan which uh this body was part of adopting uh the housing study and action plan. Um, and I just want to lastly say that nothing has substantially changed since 2023 in that area that would support this request from our standpoint as well. Um so in in conclusion just want to uh say that uh while the application is eligible for consideration for deanexation staff finds that the request conflicts with adopted plans prior approvals and city city's long-term growth strategy. Therefore we're uh recommending that you all recommend denial of this to city council. and the applicant is here and I I believe some other um some others that have signed in to give public comments. I'd welcome those and then questions from the commission as well.

Go ahead, Don. I wonder if there's some typos in this uh on page six uh maybe just under the annexation statutory required findings. Uh there's some language here I think can just be deleted because it doesn't make sense. Uh so and that's uh uh the governing body of any city or town shall I think that should be deleted. It just it makes the following nonsense. You understand why?

Yeah. And understood. Yeah. The other thing I think is a typo is this is on page seven under findings of fact. The third point that refers to 6.5 acres of land. I think we're dealing with more than 6.5 acres of land. That's correct. We're dealing with the 80 acres. Yes. So that should be changed. And so you get I have couple of couple of questions

chair. Generally it would be good to have the applicant come up here and then you can then you can ask question but if you that that's generally the procedure but I just want to get I just want to get them up here as well. I just would want to refresh my memory. Is the county signary to the urban area growth plan or remember they were reluctant to sign it originally. Have they signed it?

Yes, the county they the board of commissioners they did adopt the growth area plan. It was the intergovernmental agreement later which was a second step that has not yet been uh signed off of by the county board of commissioners. Yeah.

All right. Was the applicant present? would care to address us. Welcome. You state your name for the record. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Carson Inglesker and I'm the applicant for the uh petition to deanex these two parcels. Um yeah, we were here not too long ago. Um I had originally, this whole story kind of starts, um in 2021. We had bought two city lots on the north ridge there. and uh had wanted to build there. Uh subsequently behind it, we found a 5acre lot that was available in the county. Um so we purchased that one in 2022. We hired an architect. We paid for plans. We paid for design. We were getting uh quotes on wells and septics. We were going to build our dream house there on that 5 acres. Uh along those lines, while we were planning things, we got noticed that we were going to be force annexed uh with this subdivision that was coming in. So, um we kind of had to go along with that because we were landlocked. So, we were force annexed at that time. Um the developer who who originally designed the whole West Slope subdivision and worked with the city, it's been a a long process. um we were involved. We met with the engineering team that they had while while they were developing it and gave our input about our five acres and things like that. But um come to find out after they had designed the whole thing and worked us with the city um it really wasn't economically feasible to do the subdivision. Uh the cost on it was just a loser. So that developer sold it. We had already invested a large amount of money. So we decided we wanted to protect our investment up there. So, we bought this. Um, part of what we wanted to do was take a look at maybe there were some

changes that we could do uh or tweak things a little bit to um maybe rework the subdivision and make parts of it economically feasible at that time. Um, we met with the city a few times to go over some of these ideas. Um, it didn't seem like um there was a way to make that stuff work. Um, it was would take re-engineering, redesign, significant costs. Um, one of the other um, major hurdles with this issue is that um, I see through here that the city has said that there's services there. I think it's a little misleading. There are some services, but there is no sewer there. Um, some sewer can be dumped into Reynolds um, off the southwest corner, but the slope and the lay of the land requires lift station and the sewer plants close to four to four and a half miles away depending on how the how the pipe is run. So the services are a long way away from actually having anything happen there. So currently there's not going to be any development there uh anytime soon. Um and so for those reasons we were asking for deanexation. There's an egg well on there uh with the the conditions that we're experiencing this year. We were going to move some cows there potentially start grazing it. We were looking at some egg options down the road that are more suited to the county. Um and so for those reasons, um we just felt it was better to have it back into the county. Um in the future if things change, you know, we can go through all the process again. We're not opposed to that. Um we're not opposed to annexation or deanexation depending on the case. Just today, we're working on land that we're trying to bring into the county through annexation on another project that we're working on. this project to us is just not appropriate for it shouldn't have been annexed in the first place with the utilities or the services that far away, but it was. Um, and so if one of the biggest developers in the state or in this area

can't make it work, um, it's probably not going to work anytime soon. So, I I realize this the sewer is going to be a problem. I don't think I I thought that at the beginning. Also, I believe as part of the original uh preliminary plat city required a traffic light on Reynolds and 30th Street and um you do have water there that's that's uh runs right near there. So, that's about the only utility that's nearby. I I didn't know if that a well was still working. I saw I know where the little pump house is. If you're going to run cattle on there, I don't see why you want to be in the city. My biggest concern is that a preliminary plat all the work we did to get this thing approved for 243 lots and a competent rational businessman says it's too damn expensive to build in the city of Laram. I think the problem belongs to the city of Laram more than it does to the property owner. Uh I would be in favor of deanexing this. And if you want to run cattle, I don't care if you want to blade it down flat and put in a center pivot irrigation up there and grow wheat. But you know, I'd rather see a than see nothing, right? Cuz I think it is cost prohibitive to build that, you know, to build that subdivision. There may come a time when housing costs have risen to the point where it's economically feasible, but I understand the plight you're in and uh it could sit there barren, you know, or it could be sold off. I'd rather see something done with it and cows are better than nothing. I

would rather have houses, but I'll take cows. It's just too expensive. If I could jump in, chair. Yeah. Sorry. You can stay up here for questions as well, but that's all right. Yeah, feel it.

Um, so yeah, so there is a preliminary of plat approved, right? And and it's got its timeline of approval. However, that's not set in stone like that that the applicant could redesign a preliminary plat um of a much smaller area, right, of that. It doesn't need to be the whole 80 acres, but I just want to make it clear that just because and it just because it's not penciling out for 243 lots doesn't mean there's a not another strategy that could make it pencil out. So it's not I I don't want the fact that you know all this work was done because when you do look at the preliminary plat yes there are there there may be the roads may be overbuilt there may be certain things on there that could be cleaned up to make it more costeffective but I think just because one design is not penciling out doesn't mean that the whole thing is just doomed for fa financial failure all the way. I mean, there's R3 for a large portion of the western part of this property, which is multifamily, which is really, I mean, the sky is the limit for the amount of units that could be put in there. So, I mean, this is a tremendous opportunity for this piece of property that I think needs to be realized. And by deanexing it, we're really losing a large tract of infill development for the city of Laram.

Go ahead,

Mr. Chairman. If I could respond. Um, there are portions that could make sense. Um, you know, we've met with the city and tried to to talk about over the last year since we purchased this property. The result is, I mean, we've spent a ton of time on this. I when we bought the property, we inherited all the engineering plans, all design, all the design, all everything. It all got handed over, I'm willing to walk away from $300,000 of engineering on this because that's how much sense it doesn't make right now. So, at the end of the day, like there could be portions, but just because someone says my land suited for something else doesn't mean that it needs to be held there until that happens. So, that's kind of why we're here because we have other options that we want to explore with this. So,

okay. Any other questions, Donna?

Yeah, but there were I realize you're in a tough spot, but you wrote a letter uh to back in October 2023, and I want to read you a little bit from the letter. Uh having reviewed the proposed changes, this is the first annexation. I am in full agreement with the intentions and the benefit that these adjustments may bring. I appreciate the potential opportunities that our three zoning designations could provide to my property and I'm in favor of moving forward with the zoning designation and there's obviously hesitation here because you use you use the term I'm generally in support of proposed preliminary plat smoke subdivision. I believe these changes align with the evolving needs of an IR community and I'm hopeful they will be beneficial both to me as a property owner and the broader community. Please consider this letter as my formal support for the proposed changes in the comprehensive plan future land use designation and the OR3 zoning for my property.

Sure. Um correct. I did write that. um back up a few months. We were meeting with the city on when this whole proposal came up. I said I didn't want to be annexed. City's told me you will be annexed. You have no decision. Went to the meeting and if something's going to happen then I have to to get in this I have to get in with the flow to try to get the best opportunity given the situation that I had. And so what we tried to do was get an R3 because we were going to build a dream home and they were going to put high-rise R3 buildings next to us. So the best thing that I could have do was at least get an R3. That was a form letter that was given to me to sign. I changed it and I'm glad you picked up on the generally because I did tweak some things. And when I sent that letter back in the email body, I said just to be clear, this isn't what I want. So the letter was there for the process and it was formal if you will but at the same time I wanted to make sure that it was clear like this was not what I wanted and it was was not fun.

Sure.

Could I get some clarification either from the applicant or from Philip regarding this the sewer situation? Is it is it correct that this track can't piggy back on the sewer that's that's in the subdivision to the south? It has it's a separate line all the way to the water treatment plant that would be needed. So from what I can tell is part of it would flow down to Reynolds, but they were going to limit the amount that would be allocated that way based on capacity of the the current lines there. And the way that the the lot is pitched, it actually pitches back the other way. And so you it would be a lot of work and it would require a lift station to be put in there. And then you'd have to run all the line for the lift station to get it, I'm assuming, to the sewage plant. I guess the city can can comment on where they want that to go, but you'd have to put there was a lift station designed for it that was quite expensive to construct and operate. So that was a big part of making that whole subdivision work in there. So is there a a a portion of the 20 proposed 243 lots that like half of it would be able to go to Reynolds or was it a a quarter is which would sort of represent sort of easily more easily developed property of what can go to Reynolds without a pump station going to the

Yeah, I can jump in on that one. So there it we did see kind of a phasing plan right where the detention pond on the north side of the property as Mr. Engles Gurgers mentioned it slopes that way that would have had to been built um for storm water and that would have covered the whole uh preliminary or the whole area essentially. And then there were I can't I could get you that information but I almost certain that almost two blocks north of North View could be served. The amount of units that is I'm not I'm not sure. I mean, I'm guessing a third as as Mr. Engleser mentioned can run down to Reynolds. It still has existing capacity for that. Um, and you know, and and as the subdivision moves along, I mean, that's that was the whole idea. Then there would be um, you know, the economics would work to make the rest of it go, right? the lift station and and the rest of it

and a pipeline to the to the west.

Correct. As I recall, I broached this subject during the meeting that uh the original meeting in 23 that I didn't know if Reynolds had the capacity to handle the storm uh storm water and I was very dubious about Reynolds handling very much more sanitary. Uh then they city subsequently or partly constructed a lot of new lines down Reynolds so it might help and I think those were those were sanitary. I don't know if the city did that in anticipation of this subdivision but uh it was it was certainly needed. But I still see Reynolds flood. Not this year. Nothing floods this year. But uh we're talking we're talking sanitary sewer, not not storms.

Yeah, we're talking sanitary. I don't didn't think Reynolds had the capacity at the time. I don't know if downstream from where the uh SDR pipe stopped, which I believe was Ninth Street. if the capacity is there. I was worried that you get big pipes going into small pipes before they get to the uh to the treatment plant.

Well, and if I could just expand on Commissioner Moody's question, I think what you're getting at is is there develop are are there shovel ready lots essentially in this preliminary plat? I would say along north view largely and we have had conversations with the applicant and his representative uh about the about an alternative preliminary plat for just parcels along North View which would largely mirror the one south. I mean we're talking right across North View. Everything's in the road there, right? I mean that the tie in there. So there is undoubtedly a part of this uh property that could be developed and could tie in. Um and I think we're we're talking big picture for the whole lot which yes I mean it becomes expensive but we're talking about a large subdivision um really the the size of Coughlin all of Coughlin Pole Mountain essentially. Well, the other Well, I'll carry on with that thought. If he were to develop the uh south portion of that property, would it uh preclude you're using that a well that's there? Cuz it's fairly much on the south end, isn't it?

Well, we're considering doing more than just an egg grazing. You know, we were looking at some equin potentially building our house up there, some other things. Um, and ideally every time I put up a loafing shed or something, I don't want to come and have to get a permit, wait 90 days. Doing barb wire fence in the city is an issue. I've already tried to do it on that 5 acre lot because we have a lot of trespassers and I'm not even allowed to put barb wire there. I have to put a dowed fence. It's another $10,000. I mean, it just it just gets old after a while. And so for right now, we just want to go back to the county, do our thing, and then like I said, down the road when sewer lines or the utilities are improved or put in there, I mean, if that's the best use for us at the time, then, you know, that's something we would consider. But we would go through the necessary steps to get there at that point. But until then, like, I got a ton of money into this thing. If I can't use it in a way that I want, you know, it just it makes it tough to to operate, if that makes sense. So,

I understand. Chris, you had something. Thanks.

So, would would the city be um amendable to hope pwning up the the money to have the lift station and and and if if and take sanitary sewer to the to the west? I mean if if developing this is so this portion this whole area of tract one um for additional housing and this and the sanitary sewer in that let's say upper twothirds of it is is really a sticking point for for cost is is there an option of of the city doing that for uh putting in that sanitary stew pump pump station

um through you chair Um, yeah, Commissioner Moody, I mean, you bring up a good point. I mean, it would be unprecedented because the improvements to a development are the onus of the developer himself and then certainly, yeah, then the city takes it over and really incurs the real costs, which are the long-term maintenance, right? So, I don't want that to be lost on people. But, so it would be unprecedented for the city um to build something that would Yes. is checking off some boxes for us as far as getting more houses there. And I'm not and this is way above my pay grade as far as a public private um partnership which we're talking about but largely unprecedented for the city to pony up as you as you said to to that level of improvement because we take it over and we maintain it in perpetuity but it is the developer's responsibility to put it in the first place to make it developable. So, was the original applicant that proposed the the full buildout here were they were they were good with with getting that sanitary uh sewer in the in the upper part of the of the track to the city uh wastewater plant.

Well, obviously not because they ended up selling and bailing out of the subdivision. No, I that's I mean that that's my point. Was it an oversight that my god there was this huge cost associated with developing this that just had never been been penciled in to the to the cost?

Yeah, chair and and through you. I I think at the time yes I mean we um there's conditions to a preliminary plat um that need to be met. you know, conditions we write into the preliminary plat that need to be met by any fi final plat that's filed. And yeah, I mean, the applicant came and was it came to all the meetings and was in favor of those conditions which include all the public improvements that we're talking about needing to be in once everything gets developed. So, short answer, yes.

And and and and were you uh uh Mr. Indoskirder aware of of that those conditions that developing of full development of this project was going to have that associated with it.

Sure, we were aware. Um like I said, we wanted to protect our properties that we had up there already because we had already made some investment in some other lots that we wanted there and twofold. one. The other thing was to, you know, be able to take another look at this and come up with maybe some other solutions, you know, in in the short term that would make something go. Um, just having that with the cost was pretty significant. I mean, that was I mean, if if if he can't get that done, like nobody can get it done in that manner. And so, there's going to be a significant cost um to have all that happen. And not to mention the cost, but the timing, you know, I mean, we're a long way away from having anything up there. And so just to be able to sit on that land until you know maybe one day everything goes in is that's a big lift for us. So um yeah that was a cost.

Donald you so this is a question for the planning folks. Have we ever deanexed a property this large? I I've been on this uh planning commission for several years and we've never done I've never been involved in a uh uh deanexing a property. Uh have we ever deanexed property before? Certainly this big. Uh and is there a legal risk in not deanexing it? Honorable Chair through you to Commissioner Oul. Um in the last 10 years we've done one of these. We've done we've heard one deanexation request u which was denied ultimately. It was over on Pier or uh uh Pier Street for much smaller tract of land. Um further back than that I I would have to pull that information. Um, so I I want to I So I don't have that at hand. Have we ever deanexed a an 80 acre parcel?

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oul, uh, this isn't this is not unprecedented. I mean, it was done on the country club um because of sewage reasons out there. Uh, and that was over 200 acres on that piece of ground. are just just as a general statement to address an earlier point the staff made. uh even if it is unprecedented, my concern is that if we don't as a city start looking at radical changes to our policy, we're not going to get anything built. We got properties about that same year, we approved another 55 unit. We proved alto together over 300 lots and in preliminary plats not one house was built on them. And on this one I don't think any house is going to get built. I don't know. I'm of two minds whether to say go and sin no more. Go back to the county or or whether to enforce this. But in either case, what was originally envisioned is not going to happen. This is too expensive at the present time. I mean, if it can get into the county and you can put the property to good use and get some tax benefit out of it for the county, fine. But, you know, we my concern is the city really has to look seriously at making serious changes, even if they're radical to our policies. If we're going to get anything built, if we're going to get housing in this town, we can't do it the same way we've been doing it for 60 years. It's just not going to happen. So,

we're not going to get any houses that we deanex it. We're not going to get any if we leave it in if if the bottom part is developed. Yes. But is the applicant willing the owner willing to spend the money to do that? That's that that's his decision.

Guess I just have one. Yeah. The discussion is is are we basing this on the economics? Is that just to be clear, it sounds like it's an economic decision from the perspective of what has been talked about thus far? Just so I understand what the planning commission feels like the overarching considerations here. I'm not sure I think that, but I'm kind of making sure that we're framing our decision in the proper context of what major factors are that determine it. So,

honorable chair, sorry, Commissioner Oul, if I can just jump back in with the uh previous deanexation that that the applicant did bring up of Fox Run Golf Course. And he's absolutely correct. Right. And we're looking it up when that was. I think 15 years, give or take. So, the we're talking apples and oranges here. Fox Run is a mile and a half away from any established city subdivision. West Slope is adjacent to North View. So I just want I mean he's completely correct. Um there has been precedents for deanex deanexing but um nothing to the scale of this where you have city development across the street.

Mr. Chairman, can I can I add um

again but they didn't have sewer lines going out there. they didn't have the ability to provide services. Same in this case, inability to provide meaningful services. There's no sewer that's going to be up there. I guess the other thing to mention is no matter where you are, you or you will always have land that is adjacent to the city. I mean, that's just the reality of being on the edge. And so, because my property lies there, I mean, that is one of the realities of it. But, you know, down the road, like I said, when economics change in the future, you know, we can revisit things and we're more than happy to go through all the procedures again. Um, like we're annexing things right now. You know, we're met with the city today. For this, it's not going to go for us. So, I'd have to say it is pretty much about economics. Housing is about economics. You know, you want to build a house, somebody's got to buy it. Otherwise, you're just building a shack that'll rot away. So, it always comes down to economics. Uh, as I said, I'm in two minds. I got to think on this a minute.

Yeah. Is it it's it's it's difficult and and we're we're certainly agreeing that this developer that that was going to do the work that there was no way they could they could do it, but could another developer do it? What what were the what were the we don't know what the circumstances were truly why that developer didn't um didn't go for it

again let's talk economics on this how much would it cost to come up with a development plan file a new preliminary plat how long would it take how much money is involved you've got to get engineers you've got to redesign you've got to you can't just take that original plat that Samuelson had and cut it off halfway and say we'll build this and then we take another look at it on its own. We're looking at the economics of how much it would cost. Philip,

jump in just in case we have any public comment. I know we're kind of getting into the discussion part if you don't have any more questions for us, but I do want to invite anybody from the public to make comment before that discussion takes place. Are you pretty much made your case? Just want to make sure. Okay. I think I'm good. I'll answer. All right. All right. Anybody else wish to address the council on this? Come up and good to see you again. State your name for the record, please.

Jeff Van Fleet. I'm a local attorney. I represent a number of people who are developers. Uh, honorable chair, you hit the issue right on the head. the money. This comes down to money for this individual because I represent other clients who have tried to develop property adjacent to the city or even property within the city such as West Laram. The city's position is the developer, the onus of improvements is entirely on the developer. Even when the lot is entirely surrounded by city streets, they still require the developer to improve everything when they never have done it. Um, I have a a client who has a West Laramie project where it's going to cost a million dollars over any foreseeable budget um because they have to pave and do the work that the city never did. I have several clients including in the same situation as this individual. If you want to develop 80 acres, right? It's going to cost you between$1 and $2 million depending on how wide the roads are for the infrastructure, right? Then you have to remember you got to do a bond. So if I want to build, I've got to plan up $2 million for my infrastructure. Then I have to put up a bond of $3 million, right? Because you got to have 150% of your bond, which over time you can actually have drawn down. But still, before I even begin to think of the housing for somebody, I've got $5 million into it, right? And this is after I've spent $300,000 on an engineer. That is the cost time and time again. I can give you a list of people who have done plats for property. they cons considered buying and we went

through the whole process and they spent $300,000 and then we go to see what um it's going to cost and it's too much money, right? If we were to build this development like the last plat has, then this develop this person who becomes a developer is going to lose 20 to $30,000 a lot. Right now, none of you are paying the city to come to work, right? or paying your employer to come to work. If you were told you had to pay somebody to come to work, you would say that's insanity. But that's the exact thing that these policies do to the developers. I cannot and I'm talking about developers who build developments around the country, right? In Cheyenne even. It makes sense in Cheyenne, but it doesn't here. And Cheyenne has the UDC as well, but they're able to make it work. So,

Mr. Chair, it's been three minutes. Just so you know, we don't have a timer, but it's been

want to finish my thought. If you're not going to use the land for development because it's impossible for anyone to do it right now, prices have skyrocketed in buildings since 2019. Co raised the price from a 2x4 from $2 to $12 and it's come back down to maybe four or five, but it's not back to the two it was before. We've all seen it. Then you got to use some you got to allow the land to be used until the market changes, right? And this applicant's asking to use it for agriculture. It's returning it to the historic use of the property. There's no reason not to do it. If later on in time the city actually makes the improvements, well then maybe the county will sign the intergovernmental plan. They didn't sign it according to them because there's no support. You don't have the infrastructure in the areas you want to grow. And so why would they sign on? And for the same reason, you should approve this person's application. Allow him to use the land in the best way it can. Don't ask developers again and again to spend more money than you would spend on a lot. You're not going to spend twice as much on a house just because it's a new development. And don't ask these people to do that either.

All right. Thank you. Does anyone else care to address the commission on this? Look, if you got any online Sharon was here, she's got a brain to see through things. Fred, you wanted to speak. State your name for the record, please. Thank you, chair and commission. I am Fred Schmeckel, and I get to speak to you tonight in my new role as the executive director of the Alb County Housing and Land Trust. I want to say that I very much appreciate the private property rights that we're discussing here this evening and I will go to bat for any entrepreneur that is trying to make a better living in Laramie, let alone one that's going to sink $300,000 into a project. But I am going to ask that we we either hold off or we decline this request tonight uh simply because the the nature of things are changing in Laramie and Cherry you are absolutely correct that we have to have a fundamental sea change in how this community develops housing. One thing that is changing is the development of the housing trust. We're organized underneath the chamber of uh business alliance. We are effectively the business community coming together with their common frustrations to say we have to change the relationship. So if it's been developer versus city for a while, we now have the third party in the middle to try and change some of the equations and to bring everyone to the same table where we can bring some stuff together. I'm 44 days into the gig. Uh, so we don't have a whole lot behind us, but I can tell you that we have applied to the state for the unmet housing needs grant for a property at Flint and Hodgman that we were hoping to develop. That would have cost $10.5 million to develop simply because we'd have to replace a 6-in water line with an 8 in water line by state fire marshall rules. nothing that the city has to do with this property where a sizable developer cannot come in and make the numbers work

is equally disturbing that we have these situations going on here. We have to have those changes. The city has started to make some of those changes by putting together a fund. I would call on our friends over in the planning commission to help make sure that there are rules established for how that funding is given out and that it's available to all the developers in town that can utilize it. Uh but we have to have some change at the state level before the city can do things. I can tell you that there is an beginning of an effort that has multiple communities including Upton, Rollins, and Laramie coming together amongst others. We have legislative support to help us get it going. The the problem is that as a community, we we're being told to use the tools in the toolbox. Uh we're trying to pound nails with screwdrivers. Actually, we're trying to turn screws with six-foot pipe wrenches that have been rusting in grandpa's basement for 60 years. We have to get the state to make those changes so that the city can make changes and we we can't put these extra costs on to developers. I think that when we look at three minutes again,

I'll wrap when we look at the land to the north and to the east, I think it's pretty obvious that we could extend 30th and 45th and have more housing up there as well. I don't want to, you know, start a fight tonight or end a fight tonight for the sake of starting it here later on. I would hope that we would not move this property forward here so that we could use that as a uh example and make things stronger. Thank you. I believe we vacated 45th Street, Henry, Derek, that portion of 45th north of Northridge chair. No, that's that's never been platted or anything north of 45th. Yeah, it kind of stops to set the city limits there at the northeast corner of the city. Is that what you were talking about?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else care to address commission on this? Donald, I I still haven't heard from planning whether this being a strong property rights state. Uh whether if we decide not to deanex whether that brings the city into a potential legal situation.

Chair through you. Glad to answer that. Um to Commissioner Oul. So Wyoming state statute does regulate the petition, the procedure to deanexation, but it leaves it discretionary to plans we have in place to previous approvals as to how we arrive at that decision. So we do have the comprehensive plan. We got the the house plan, the Larmy area growth plan, the ones I mentioned in my staff report supporting this uh recommendation we're making. But Wyoming state statute does not have a list of five key findings that have to be met to deanex. That's up to us as a city and plans that we've adopted.

Chris, you got something on your mind you make? I don't know what I don't know what I'm sitting there thinking for a while.

I don't know what's on on my mind. I mean, as I see the city um does, you know, has this block of land and it's contiguous to to existing high density uh development and you don't want to let that you don't want to let that go. Um it's you know part of all these you know two three four plans that say we want to uh uh have the option of of expanding city boundaries and and do half that's good stuff but if it I mean does does the city staff does the city recognize or or believe with the applicant that this property is undevelopable for for economic reasons at this time or for quite a ways in the foreseeable future. I mean, are we just is this just a hope and a prayer that that it will become a for uh possible to do uh in Larammy conditions to develop the the property as sort of originally put out there? Philip, is that I mean is does the city really feel that that the economics are still viable to do this?

Honorable Chair, through you um to Commissioner Moody, I would say You know, we're not here to argue the point of a specific preliminary plat penciling out after all the work's been done and approved. Um, on the engineering side, right? Like we have 243 lots that the existing the the applicant went through with and went through all the meetings with with his engineer and our engineering team to understand what you know what a lot was going to cost right so I'm not here to argue that if that's not going to work though at this point if the market's changed we are here to state that there's procedures in place to do an alternative preliminary plan, right? An R3 and multif family development. I want to bring that up again. That's not what was proposed in the original preliminary plan. A much larger R3 project that's multif family residential project could be proposed. So I can't really answer your question as far as but I can support our procedure of allowing other preliminary plots to come forward and look at those and maybe something will work right but I can't say that it's a hope and a prayer. I I think that you have a whole side of a city street that's developed curb and gutter that is an empty field now. So I mean to me there's development very feasible at least there. So, so

can I go ahead? Yeah. Uh, we have another member of the public who wishes to address us. Councilman, I'm Danielle Inglesker and I apologize. I don't know all the legal. I heard the city say we have land and telling me how to use it. Do you have legal right? I I'm just trying to figure out can you legally tell you? I believe that was a comment that Commissioner Oul just made or Commissioner Moody where So that was is there legal I'm I'm just asking can somebody Nobody could tell you what to do with you link okay they can't make us develop they can't say we're holding this plat okay I just had my question

no they could make you stay in the city but that's about all we could do and therefore we can't tell you spend money you haven't got or okay thank you that was my question on just legal what they can do with our land. I apologize if I a little loose with my

It's construed. I would like if I may ask the applicant a question if you care to come back up. Would you be willing to at this point if we were to postpone this to sit down with planning staff and work out a framework for before you spend a whole bunch of money on engineering and stuff, work out a framework on something you feel you could make a buck on and develop part of that property because you're not constrained by the original preliminary plat because it's already expired, hasn't it? Not yet. But if you were to just abandon that and sit down with staff and see if there's something you could work out with them before you go do all your engineering and expensive stuff and see if there's some way you feel you can develop a portion of this. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, um you know, we weren't opposed to that when we bought this. That was the whole intent was to go down and sit down with them and and talk through some logistics and options uh several meetings of that and on top of all the meetings that the original developers had. You know, for us right now it doesn't make sense. And uh and this is not to say that in the future this won't be back in a plan like if things change and infrastructure gets put in in 10 15 years, who knows? But at the current state, you know, this isn't working and I'd rather just move forward with our land if if that's all right.

All right. Well, thank you. Thanks.

I mean, is it a case where where they purchased the property knowing that it was now in the city? No. With with without a a use that how they want to put it to use allowable in in that district.

Well, no. The way I understand it, they purchased the property when it was in the county. The uh their original par, their original parcel was in the county when they purchased it. Then Samuelson came along and basically boxed them in on their original parcel and sought annexation. He was then forced into a seeding to the annexation because he would have been landlocked

and he had basically no choice. The city would have had whether he wanted it or not. So they went along with the Samusen development and he was willing to throw his in with the rest and zone it. I think it's zoned R3. The smaller section is or R3 or R2. I'm not sure. No, the whole western side is R3. Yeah. Okay. Pretty much. So it's all R3 on the western side including his original purchase. So when Samson ab abandoned the project, the applicant basically bought Samson out.

Okay. But but so he bought it out knowing what the status was. Then he went to look and see if he could carry through the development. Correct me if I'm wrong. And can't make it work. It's just too expensive. Donald, am I does that pretty much sum it up? Let me read you something that's in the in the uh in the document. In January 2026, Engel Land uh LLC associated with the petitioners acquired tract one following annexation and approval of the subdivision framework. Mhm. That's true.

I mean that the that the person petitioning the family petitioning today bought it when it was already annexed. Yes. bought the rest of it. They already owned the original portion. Well, just that small thing,

but they bought it knowing it was inside the city. And that's in a situation that is a difficult vote for us. It's kind of a 5149 kind of vote. The fact that a there's a need, which I hear being shouted, if not screamed by people in the community, that we need more housing. And this seems like a site that would be attractive maybe not right now, but down the road it seems like they bought the property knowing it was already annexed. And that's consideration for me in my vote.

Uh, as it sits now, is there anything prevent him from pumping water and running a herd of cows out there? I was Yeah, I was asking Philillip,

is there any way they could, you know, other than the fencing? There's no reason they can't just go run cows on it right now. I would have to relook at our livestock ordinance, but I do believe the tract is large enough for a certain amount of livestock and but I don't have that off the top of my head, right? I mean, it's obviously over 16,000 square feet. We're talk that's our regulation, right? you got have that that much um for for horses and other stuff. But um if for those online I mean if if you are going to make a a comment I would invite you to make it into the microphone so everybody can hear it can be documented. But I think the the applicant makes a good point as well is the fencing would be um tremendously more expensive in the city than it would if we deanexed um for for that purpose. Right. I mean, barb wire um within the city um you know and the visibility of having that so close um is why we have that ordinance is why we have that code.

Well, I'm tapped out. What do you guys think? My I'm leaning towards denial as recommended by staff. Oh, somebody care to make a motion. I'll make a motion.

I have moved to recommend denial uh to the city council the dean annexation of approximately 80 acres of property owned by Carson uh Englesker and Carson Engleser and Daniellesker. Sorry, that's hard for an Irish person. uh located generally north of Laram Ridge Estates 8th edition and east of 30th Street based based on findings of fact and conclusions of law. Second. I have a motion in a second. Would the clerk call the role, please?

Pacino absent. Bull absent. Eiser White Moody I Oul I Schneider absent Madamore nay. That is three yeses, one no and three absent. All right. Thank you very much. Uh, it being five minutes to six and I recently celebrated my 76th birthday. I would like to take a five minute break. Well, city council

German say I I All right. postpone to a date. Okay. All right. Our chair will entertain a motion to postpone. Go ahead. Uh, I move that we postpone the decision on the uh uh manufactured units um until the first meeting in May. Is there a date? Uh I don't know what's the second I would like to do it on the second because I want to screw it up just to be your thumb.

Second meeting in May. Would the applicant be a Oh, that one's canceled. Well, you're going to have to do it without me. You'll miss me, but I'll I'll be here in spirit. We might manage. Got a second for May 11th. Yeah. All right. All those in favor say I. I.

I. The eyes have it. And everybody who wants to adjurnn say I and leave. Oh. Just really quick, I was just going to mention just something just since we are nearing the end of the the meeting, but just when we think about our meeting organization, I guess I would just recommend to the chair and to the commission, thinking about allowing staff to present, ask questions of staff that are more pertinent to staff, allowing the applicant to get up and present their case, asking them questions and then opening up for public hearing then beginning your discussion is traditionally kind of how a public meeting is seems to operate the best and really what I want to make sure for the commission is one you hear from staff which is our perspective right it's our recommendation and stuff and those reports but I want you to hear from the applicant and all of their points and then I want you to hear from the public and all their points before you get too deep into the weeds leads on discussion. I think it just is helpful and it allows for you to hear all the points that everybody's bringing to the meeting so that you all can make good decisions. And so, chair, I would ask you, you don't have to do what I say, but I would I think it's uh I think it's it's it's good practice and I think it just helps meetings run a little bit smoother. That way, you're not having to jump around to different people. Obviously, once your discussion comes, it's up to the chair and the commission whether they want to ask follow-up questions and things like that. It just seems to help meetings run a little bit smoother. And so, I just wanted to put that out as a recommendation. Feel free to adjourn now. So, anyway,

I agree and I apologize. No apology needed. It's just we trying to help you guys out. That's what our job is. It's okay. Well, thank you, Derek. Absolutely. All right. Do I need to sign anything? Yes. You need to adjourn still. Haven't done that yet. I was entertaining a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. We are ajourned. Secrets. Oh, I got some of those, Steve. Yeah.