Skip to content
After five-and-a-half hours of discussion at the June 15 city planning and zoning board hearing on the proposed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints temple to be located off Skyline Drive, the board only gave approval of the conditional use permit, allowing a temple to be constructed in a rural residential zone.
The church did not, however, get approval for the temple site plan, which was tabled to be discussed at a later date.
And the church did not get approval for the temple spire, as the board did not give approval of City Planner Todd Stowell’s height interpretation, which said the spire was under 30 feet. The special exemption request to allow for the spire’s height was not approved either as it was tabled.
The church did get approval for a fence height waiver, allowing them to increase the height of the front yard fence from 4 feet to 6 feet.
The public hearing, held in the Cody Auditorium, was packed with hundreds of community members.
Those in favor of the temple and those in opposition of the temple were given an hour and a half each to express their opinions.
30 people signed up to speak for the temple while 23 spoke against it.
Before the public hearing got underway, City attorney Scott Kolpitcke addressed concerns that some city staff and planning and zoning board members had conflicts of interests due to their Mormon faith.
“That’s not a conflict,” Kolpitcke said. “Simply being a member of the church that submitted the application does not qualify as a conflict or as a personal or private interest under the [state] statute.”
City Planner Todd Stowell added to that, telling the audience, “while I have received several personal attacks, every decision in this process has involved at least one other senior staff member of the city … no decision was made by me independently.”
Ahead of the public hearing, board chair Carson Rowley told the audience, “Most of us here are Cody-ites. We live, we work, we worship, we play here together,” he continued. “We’re going to have to go back to our neighbors, to our employees, our bosses, our shopkeepers and our customers at the end of this debate.”
City Planner presents height interpretation
Stowell first explained his interpretation of the temple’s height.
First, he said, the temple was only one story. City code allows a maximum of two stories in the rural residential zone, he said.
And, according to the definition of “building” in the city code, the temple spire measures at 25 or 26 feet rather than the total 101 feet. Based on this, Stowell said there was no need for a special exemption request.
Board member Scott Richard questioned “would we not be setting a new precedent for all future applications?”
Stowell said ‘no’ since he was strictly going by what the code said.
Board member Dan Schein also expressed concern with Stowell’s height interpretation.
“Most of the common men and women on the street would not interpret the roof height that way you have,” Schein said. “I question whether moving forward with this board approving your height interpretation … is the best move for our city.”
Board Chair Carson Rowley expressed concern the temple would be in the Park County airport overlay zone.
“I don’t know if we have enough information to feel comfortable about the proposed height in relation to that,” he said.
Stowell said the temple would enter “a few feet” into the FAA threshold.
Richard asked Stowell if the board should fall back on the Cody Master Plan, but Stowell said it was not adopted by ordinance.
Schein made a motion to table the item, but the motion died due to lack of votes. The item ultimately failed “for lack of motion,” Rowley said.
Board discusses special exemption request and applicant presents
Without an approval of Stowell’s height interpretation of the temple spire, the special exemption request to allow for the spire’s height was ultimately tabled to be discussed later.
Stowell told the board there were no safety issues related to the height of the steeple, that no lighting impact had been identified and that “there is a reason why the steeple is as high as it is.”
“I would say perception is a big issue,” Stowell said. “In everybody’s view, the temple is taller. Actually, it’s not. It’s wider.”
The applicant presented as well, saying they had provided a 270 foot setback from neighbors when only 35 feet had been required. They said lighting would only be at 50% when the building closed and would only be triggered by movement while shutters would help block some of the light at night also.
The applicant said they concurred with Stowell’s height interpretation, and that their traffic, lighting and other studies resolved the concerns of the opposition.
“The personal preferences of a few … do not trump the law,” said Kendal Hoopes, an attorney representing the church. “Both our state and federal constitutions protect freedom of religion.”
He added the church had worked with the city, making “three pages worth of changes and recommendations” from city staff.
“The church wants to be a good neighbor and wants to fit inside your community and be a benefit to the community,” Hoopes said.
Board member Kim Borer questioned why the temple had to be 101 feet and asked the applicant if the building could be “westernized” in any way to fit in more with Cody.
Lead architect Jeremy Bastow responded, “if that’s the desire of the City of Cody to have that be the style of all their buildings, that can be put in the code.”
Board discusses the site plan application
Stowell told the board that the applicant had met all of the site plan requirements.
Rowley spoke about the size of the parking lot, saying 140 parking stalls was enough for a 420 person building.
Richard complimented the design of the temple saying it was “well laid out and very thoughtful.”
Richard made a motion to approve the site plan, but Kim Borer voted no and Schein abstained. The motion died due to a lack of affirmative votes. A subsequent motion to table the item was approved.
Board discusses the conditional use permit
Stowell said the project complied with all development regulations, zoning setbacks and other requirements.
He said that any views impacted by the temple site do not impact property rights, and that the lighting is contained within the property boundaries.
Stowell added that the Cody Master plan wasn’t law but was “guidance” rather than “hard and fast regulations.”
Schein, however, said concerns still remained in the community.
“Based on the number of phone calls and letters published in the paper, expressed on the radio and sent via email … it’s obvious there are concerns about this request,” Schein said. “All those factors represent an unwanted change to the character of the neighborhood. Many in favor of the temple mentioned how welcome temples are in other communities and how they have been beneficial … I do wonder if that could ever occur when the temple’s neighbors have made their position clear. They are against building the temple at this location.”
Borer agreed saying the 24 hour lighting system needs to be reevaluated.
Rowley said the road’s design could accommodate the increased traffic coming to the temple.
Board member Matthew Moss made a motion to approve the CUP saying “I believe that prohibiting the church from having a house of worship there … we’re discriminating against the church.”
After a failed motion to table the item, the board finally approved the CUP.
Those in favor of the temple spoke first.
President of the Cody stake Andy Jacobsen said the temple would be small compared to existing churches in Cody and that large groups would not be visiting at one time.
Local Luke Hopkin said a temple would increase property values in the area.
LDS member Jimmy Edwards said, “denying places of worship for our faith in a given location would be going against already established precedent committed to other faiths” adding that having a temple in Cody would remove many of the obstacles of traveling to the Billings temple.
Skyline Drive resident Norma Walton said, “were the proposed property not to be used for the temple, I have it on good authority that it will likely become a new subdivision that will create comparable if nor more traffic than a temple would.”
Glenn Nielson, who gifted the property that the temple will be built on to the church, added that “the real question before us is if the proposal complies with all city codes and requirements.”
“Landowners have the right to pursue development of their properties so far as it falls within the local regulations,” he continued. “Developers should be considerate of their neighbors, but not dependent on their approval.”
He said, “there is not a comparable site in the community with proper amenities and with as much buffer as this site.”
Chris Taggart said the Cody temple would draw 8,300 LDS members who are “coming to Cody to spend their money instead of Billings.”
A few said the temple is a religious freedom issue, that most of Cody’s churches are in residential areas already and that property owners were never guaranteed views when buying their homes.
Those in opposition speak
Brandi Nelson was the first to speak against the temple. She is a property owner near the temple site, she said.
She said 962 neighbors had signed a petition and they do “support the LDS temple … [but] we are simply asking that it not be located in a rural residential zone.”
Others argued the temple was too tall, blocked the view and was not in keeping with the Cody Master Plan.
“It’s an overpowering footprint to shoehorn into a quiet subdivision,” Terry Skinner said.
Patrick Pitet, whose property will abut the temple, said “That temple shouldn’t be in my yard, and that’s where it’s gonna be essentially.”
“The neighbors’ valid concerns have been cavalierly dismissed,” Pitet added. “My life has been looked at as merely collateral damage.”
Other residents said the church had not made an effort to communicate with its neighbors.
Attorney with Wendtland & Wendtland, Debra Wendtland, said “We’re here because an organization has chosen to ask permission to put a building in a place for which it was not designated,” she said. “There are three other zones for which they can put their building and they should.”
“There is no legal, rational way you can look at this picture [of the temple design] and say that temple conforms, that temple looks like Cody,” she continued. “There is no legal, rational way you can look at this picture and say that’s reasonable … you have a 101 foot tall tower in a rural residential area.”
Another meeting has not yet been set to discuss the items the board tabled.
