Committee declines to recommend 2-0-1 exception for High Plains Road parcel amid annexation and utility concerns

The Cheyenne Public Services Committee voted to withhold a recommendation on a resolution that would grant an exception to the city’s 2-0-1 agreement for a light-industrial parcel south of High Plains Road and west of South Greeley Highway between Robert Avenue and Deshaya Lane. The committee recorded three votes against recommending approval and will not forward a positive recommendation to City Council.

Brandon Gilchrist of Planning and Development said staff had no new update from the applicant and reviewed the project as an independent proposal, noting the applicant cannot be guaranteed access to benefits from adjacent projects. Developer representatives and a broker said multiple buyers had withdrawn because of uncertainty related to the utility situation. Tanya Keller, the broker for Jamie and Steve Winchell, said the seller "has now lost our third buyer" and that recent potential buyers "walked shortly after that meeting just afraid of the process and the expense".

Keller told the committee the cost to tie into city sewer for the parcel was $461,000, which the applicant said is not cost-appropriate for this property; she asked the committee for the 2-0-1 exception to allow a conventional septic system and make the property viable for a small business buyer. Planning and BOPU (Board of Public Utilities) staff described a prior outside-user agreement that included a condition requiring annexation within 180 days; BOPU staff said that 180-day period has passed and that the prior agreement is effectively expired. Bryce Doerr (BOPU) discussed longer-term sewer options that would use a lift station flowing to a proposed Bison Business Park lift station and advised that the scale of the parcel did not lend itself to a wheeling agreement through the South Shore and Sewer District.

Committee members pressed staff on whether an outside-user agreement could be required or conditioned; Planning staff (Counter White) said outside-user agreements do not automatically require annexation unless the council places that condition in the agreement. Some committee members said they were uncomfortable approving the 2-0-1 exception without knowing the future use of the property or securing an outside-user agreement for water. After discussion, a committee member moved to adopt the resolution and a second was recorded, but three committee members voted "no," and the chair said there would be no recommendation for Monday night.

Because the committee chose not to recommend the exception, the applicant will need to pursue additional permitting or reapply with clarified agreements if it wishes to seek Council approval in the future.