Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs assigned city zoning for county pockets and asks council to re‑evaluate one parcel after landowner objections
Summary
The commission recommended assigned city zoning (AG, MR, CB, LI) for multiple county‑pocket parcels and asked council to re‑evaluate one contested parcel after landowner objections about late notice, livestock protection and zoning clarity. The recommendation passed with one no vote.
The Cheyenne Planning Commission on Feb. 2 recommended that the governing body approve assigned city zoning for a set of county‑pocket parcels (AG, MR, CB and LI as proposed) but asked council to re‑evaluate one parcel where the current recommendation may not be the most appropriate assigned zoning.
Staff presented PUDC‑25‑278, a multipart assigned‑zoning package that accompanies city‑initiated annexations. Planner Morgan Dennis and staff walked commissioners through parcel‑by‑parcel recommendations and noted one complex parcel north of Fox Farm with existing industrial use; staff recommended LI for that parcel as the closest match to current county use.
Several members of the public addressed the commission. Resident Chelsea McCort urged the city to clarify the A zoning designation and to consider specific rules for urban farming, calling the current A classification "very open‑ended" and warning it could leave operational gaps for producers. Landowner David Nicely said he received certified notice only a week earlier and asked the commission to postpone action so he could seek legal advice and understand impacts such as livestock protection and firearms restrictions. "We didn't receive notice. Please postpone," Nicely said.
Staff and Director Charles Bloom told the commission the planning department had held an open house on Dec. 16 and sent certified notices; staff provided estimates for likely administrative effects (a small stormwater fee, potential licensing requirements) and explained that city discharge‑of‑firearm rules would limit on‑site firearm use inside city limits while the Right‑to‑Farm Act provides separate statutory protections for certain customary agricultural activities.
Commissioners debated options including postponement. Staff and the city attorney advised that assigned‑zoning recommendations are structured to move with annexation ordinances and that splitting or postponing portions would complicate the process; as a compromise the commission voted to forward the package while explicitly asking council to re‑evaluate "parcel 4" for a more appropriate assigned zoning before final action. The motion passed with one commissioner (Bob Matia) recorded as voting no. The annexation and zoning ordinances will proceed to city council with first readings scheduled next week.
