[0:07] g
[0:07] Commission for Tuesday,
[0:09] September 15th, 2026. Rose,
[0:12] would you please call the Roll
[0:14] Commissioner Watts, present.
[0:17] Hall here. Lamer. Here. Laplaca.
[0:20] Here. Randall. Here. Duchamp.
[0:23] Here. Weller here. Zapata. Here.
[0:26] Here. Approval of the minutes
[0:28] of August. Commissioners. Any
[0:29] questions, comments or concerns?
[0:32] Seeing none. The minutesill
[0:34] stand. Approval of the agenda,
[0:36] nor any changes tonight. There
[0:39] have been no changes to the
[0:40] agenda. Thank you. At this time,
[0:42] I'm going to open up public
[0:44] comment on non public hearing
[0:46] items. This public comment
[0:49] period is reserved for comment
[0:50] on non public items only. It's
[0:52] important to note that this is
[0:53] not an opportunity for dialog
[0:55] or debate, but an opportunity
[0:56] to provide comment to us. The
[0:58] Planning Commission upon
[0:59] approaching the podium, please
[1:00] begin by providing your name,
[1:04] your address and there's a
[1:06] three minute time limit. Seeing
[1:10] none, I will close. Rose, would
[1:15] you please read agenda item
[1:16] number one request for rezoning
[1:19] from e r estate residential and
[1:22] R-1 residential to PUD five
[1:24] plan to Golf Entertainment
[1:25] District at 5550 555. Ivan Rest
[1:30] of Southwest, section 32 and 33
[1:33] Steve Strzok, Maple Hill Golf
[1:35] Course. Colton. Good evening.
[1:37] Good evening commissioners. I'm
[1:38] here to present our first
[1:40] agenda item of the night, whi
[1:42] includes both a preliminary PUD
[1:44] approval as well as
[1:46] recommending the rezoning
[1:47] request at hand for this these
[1:49] two properties. So the request
[1:51] is for that PUD five
[1:53] designation. This ithe
[1:54] planned golf entertainment
[1:56] district. And the two parcels
[1:57] we're talking about, as Rose
[1:58] mentioned, is both 5550 555
[2:02] Iver Avenue southwest. So just
[2:05] to give some background. Many
[2:07] of you are familiar with PUD
[2:09] five, but generally speaking,
[2:10] this is a relatively new zoning
[2:13] district. This was actually
[2:14] established this past year. It
[2:16] came before this body in April
[2:18] was approved by City Council.
[2:20] In June of 2026. There were
[2:22] some primary factors that
[2:23] really drove this to be created
[2:26] in the first place. Unique
[2:27] zoning challenges that our
[2:28] current golf courses face,
[2:30] demand and economic benefits
[2:32] that come from some of those
[2:34] additional business recreation
[2:36] activities that a golf course
[2:37] could do. And doing this with
[2:39] the neighborhood in mind.
[2:41] Neighborhood sensitivity is one
[2:42] of those items that golf
[2:44] courses historically have been
[2:45] very good at, and ideally will
[2:47] continue under this type of
[2:48] zoning district. So due to some
[2:50] of those adjacent uses that are
[2:52] typically found next to golf
[2:55] courses, there have been a few
[2:56] things that were added as
[2:57] you're all aware. But just to
[2:58] make everyone aware into this
[3:01] PUD district, so that addresses
[3:03] lighting, setbacks, hours of
[3:05] operation and screening. Again,
[3:07] this district is meant for golf
[3:08] courses that wish to offer
[3:10] offer complimentary low volume
[3:13] business recreation activities
[3:14] to support that primary golf
[3:16] course. So just to go over the
[3:20] process as it is,ypically
[3:22] anytime someone would likto
[3:23] go for a PUDevelopment,
[3:25] there's a pre meeting. This is
[3:27] where staff actually meets with
[3:28] them, discusses the proposed
[3:30] project, what they would like
[3:31] to do and how it might align
[3:33] with with the city's goals and
[3:34] what those qualifying
[3:35] conditions are. Then the
[3:38] applicant would go for
[3:39] preliminary PUD and rezoning.
[3:41] So this consists of an
[3:43] application, a conceptual plan
[3:44] and a project narrative. This
[3:46] would ideally set that PUD in
[3:47] the framework of the district.
[3:49] And you can see here some of
[3:51] the the dates that are involved
[3:53] here today. Planning Commission
[3:55] reviews. It recommends approval
[3:57] denial to the City Council,
[3:59] which then reviews it on
[4:01] October 5th and November 2nd.
[4:03] The final step is for final PUD
[4:06] adoption, which runs
[4:08] concurrently with the site plan
[4:09] review. So this is just
[4:12] verifying that it's
[4:13] substantially consistent with
[4:13] that concept plan. But it
[4:15] drills much deeper into the
[4:17] specifics of site plan approval.
[4:19] If there's any special use
[4:21] requirements, all of those
[4:22] different factors and what the
[4:23] PUD district requires is
[4:26] verified and finalized at that
[4:28] point. So this i reviewed and
[4:29] apoved by Planning Commission.
[4:33] So generally speaking this is
[4:35] the PUD five concept plan that
[4:37] was submitted. I've added a
[4:39] legend just to help with some
[4:41] of the different featus that
[4:42] are on this site. There's a lot
[4:44] of different colors, so I just
[4:45] like to help break it down a
[4:47] little bit. Some of the
[4:48] existing buildings, which there
[4:49] are 11, are shown in orange. So
[4:51] you'll see a lot of it kind of
[4:54] congregating up. If I can get
[4:57] this feature to work. I'm
[5:00] having no luck. So I guess I'll
[5:02] just describe it. Everythg
[5:03] you see in orange, which is
[5:05] primarily focused on that
[5:06] existing golf course, our
[5:08] existing buildings. So a lot of
[5:10] this has to do with business
[5:11] recreation across the entire
[5:12] site. There's about 33,000ftS
[5:15] of existing buildings. What you
[5:17] see in red in that tannish
[5:19] color are proposed buildings,
[5:20] either through expansions of
[5:21] existing buildings or new
[5:24] buildings themselves. So you'll
[5:25] see some of these on the
[5:27] driving range parcel and some
[5:29] also on the golf course parcel.
[5:32] You'll see driveways, parking
[5:33] lots being proposed and then
[5:35] some additional business
[5:37] recreation features, mini golf,
[5:38] lawn seating and short game
[5:40] practice range. So some of
[5:42] those are focused on the
[5:44] driving range parcel.
[5:46] Considering that the majority
[5:48] of that Western parcel is
[5:50] dedicated to the golf course
[5:52] itself. Sgoing to our
[5:56] rezoning revw standards,
[5:57] there are five. They range from
[5:59] master plan consistency to uses
[6:02] within the proposed zoning. All
[6:04] of these were included within
[6:05] your pact. And so throughout
[6:07] this presentation, I'll really
[6:08] be summarizing and making sure
[6:09] that the most important
[6:11] information is delivered. But
[6:13] again, all of thiis
[6:14] information you've already
[6:14] received in your packets and
[6:15] have had the chance to review
[6:19] PUD five. Review standards are
[6:20] cluded here, again ranging
[6:21] from location all the way to
[6:23] achievement of zoning and
[6:24] economic harmony. All of these
[6:27] different review standards are
[6:28] are really the qualifying
[6:29] conditions on whether or not
[6:31] something would meet the
[6:32] qualifications for a PUD five.
[6:35] Those have been, again,
[6:36] included in your packets, and
[6:37] we'll go over some of them here
[6:39] as well. So to begin the futures
[6:43] are designated as suburban
[6:45] redential and neighborhood
[6:46] commercial center. So as you're
[6:49] all familiar with this future
[6:51] land use designation, Suburban
[6:52] Residential contemplates that
[6:54] residential development. It
[6:55] also encourages PUD development.
[6:58] Neighborhood Commercial center
[6:59] is really meant for placemaking
[7:01] local neighborhood businesses
[7:02] that that really serve that
[7:04] neighborhood. So the proposed
[7:05] PUD plan does achieve that
[7:07] preserved open space component
[7:10] that is really desired in
[7:11] suburban residential. It talks
[7:12] about low volume commercial
[7:14] offerings and and gathering
[7:15] spaces within the neighborhood.
[7:17] So this doesn't align with the
[7:19] intention of a few parcels in
[7:21] this case that have two
[7:22] different types of designations
[7:24] within the future land use. It
[7:26] also should be noted that that
[7:28] PUD five would achieve elements
[7:30] of the neighborhood commercial
[7:31] district that are fairly
[7:33] difficult, with a baseline
[7:35] business district that would
[7:37] offer a whole host of
[7:38] businesses that might not
[7:41] interact well with this type of
[7:42] future land use designation. So
[7:44] this is one way to achieve it.
[7:46] And according to the Future
[7:47] Land Use designation, this
[7:49] prosed project would align
[7:51] with it. Moving on to our
[7:54] zoning map, reference it here.
[7:55] But both of these parcels zoned
[7:58] residential, that's one of the
[7:59] key indicators that actually
[8:01] spurred on the designation of
[8:03] the PUD five district. It's the
[8:05] fact that under those E, R, R1,
[8:08] and R2 zoning districts, which
[8:10] all of the golf courses in
[8:11] Wyoming are in, there are
[8:13] severe limitations to what a
[8:14] golf course can do with regards
[8:16] to accessory structures, and
[8:17] I'll get into that more in just
[8:19] a moment. But you can see here
[8:21] we've got a variety of
[8:22] residential puds that are
[8:23] located nearby. Some mor
[8:25] recent developments that you're
[8:26] familiar with in the area. And
[8:28] you can see the current use
[8:29] again is that golf course use.
[8:32] So under current zoning, a
[8:33] state residential and R-1
[8:35] residential golf courses are
[8:36] permitted through special use
[8:38] approval. But as it stands
[8:39] right now, like I mentioned,
[8:41] expansion is not permitted.
[8:42] That's because the golf course
[8:44] in this case is playing by the
[8:46] same rules that the single
[8:47] family house is playing by with
[8:49] regards to accessory structures.
[8:50] So they would only get two
[8:51] accessory structures, and it
[8:52] would be based on the square
[8:54] footage with with a pretty hard
[8:55] limit. That's the rules that
[8:57] all of our golf courses have
[8:59] been playing by. And, and PUD
[9:01] five was a way to allowome
[9:02] expansion that's still
[9:03] sensitive to the neighborhood.
[9:05] So the PUD five here in this
[9:08] case allows golf courses to
[9:09] function, expand in a manner
[9:10] that is sensitive to those
[9:12] neighbhood properties. Again,
[9:13] the idea here is to continue
[9:15] that low volume recreational
[9:17] activity, preserving green
[9:18] space and offering some of that
[9:20] neighborhood commercial
[9:21] activity. The properties to be
[9:24] rezoned here total over 100
[9:26] acres. The minimum requirement
[9:27] for PUD fiv that contains an
[9:30] 18 hole golf course is 80cres,
[9:32] so that requirement is met. The
[9:33] current site is an 18 hole golf
[9:36] course, which would continue to
[9:37] be that primary use under the
[9:39] proposed PUD plan. All the
[9:41] activities that are being
[9:42] proposed here are merely to
[9:44] support that primary use. No
[9:46] housing is proposed in this PUD
[9:48] plan, which is one of the
[9:49] requirements, and the
[9:51] property's proposed to be
[9:53] rezoned, are currently served
[9:54] by public services and
[9:56] utilities. One thing that's
[9:57] noted as a condition is the
[9:58] requirement for that utility
[9:59] plan. Once site pn approval
[10:01] process comes through, as
[10:04] stated in section 9420 C, golf
[10:08] courses typically are found
[10:09] within those residentially
[10:10] zoned areas, which, as I've
[10:13] mentioned, can limit their
[10:14] ability to expand and adapt to
[10:15] the market needs in a creative
[10:17] manner. So PUD five seeks to
[10:20] resolve that, and in this case,
[10:22] the proposed PUD does involve a
[10:24] variety of different business
[10:25] recreation activities. As noted
[10:27] in your packet, this includes
[10:29] anything from mini golf to
[10:31] additional indoor space that
[10:32] could be dedicated toward
[10:34] business recreation, to fitting
[10:36] clubs or club fitting, as well
[10:38] as, you know, some event space
[10:41] for, you know, golf course,diffe
[10:45] through. So if it's an outing,
[10:46] thatavilion that was noted on
[10:48] the southern west portion of of
[10:50] the entire site would be
[10:52] dedicated towards that. So
[10:55] continued business recreation
[10:56] activity and open space in this
[10:58] case is suitable since it's
[10:59] adjacent to the intersections
[11:01] of 50. Excuse me, 56th and Ivan
[11:04] Rest. One thing to note here is
[11:06] that the location has
[11:07] functioned successfully for the
[11:09] past. I belve it's 58 years
[11:11] working well with the
[11:12] neighborhood. Finally, the
[11:14] applicant's plan does allow for
[11:15] that creativity while
[11:16] maintaining some of those
[11:17] community benefits that we
[11:18] talked about before. This
[11:19] includes green space
[11:21] preservation and recreational
[11:22] amenities. Now I'll talk about
[11:25] open space because when we look
[11:26] at all of our different zoning
[11:28] districts, specifically PUD
[11:30] five pertains to the most
[11:33] preservation. Probably the
[11:34] closest thing would be our PUD
[11:36] four, which would require at
[11:38] the most, 35% of the lot to be
[11:41] dedicated to open ace. In
[11:42] this case, we're seeing 98.25%
[11:45] of the lot dedicated towards
[11:47] open space. And this maintains
[11:49] that green space on the site
[11:51] and restricts buildings to
[11:54] 1.75% of the total land area.
[11:56] So of that total, 1.75% of the
[11:59] total land area PUD five allows
[12:02] for a breakdown of different
[12:04] percentages to different types
[12:06] of buildings. This seeks to
[12:08] provide that healthy balance of
[12:10] business, recreation,
[12:11] activities, things that are new
[12:12] and can support the golf course,
[12:14] as well as things that are
[12:15] necessary, like maintenance and
[12:16] storage buildings. It also
[12:18] factors in incidental
[12:19] structures. So you'll see the
[12:21] breakdown here business,
[12:23] recreation, storage and
[12:23] maintenance and incidental
[12:24] structures all have maximum
[12:26] builng counts as well as
[12:27] maximum square footages. All of
[12:29] this does fall within that
[12:31] 1.75% of total land area. In
[12:35] the case of Maple Hill, the
[12:37] applicant's only proposing to
[12:38] utilize 1.56% of that total
[12:41] land area for buildings.
[12:43] Currently, as I mentioned,
[12:44] there are 11 buildings on site.
[12:45] The applicants proposing to
[12:46] demolish two, construct three
[12:48] and expand two existing
[12:50] buildings. So you'll see the
[12:52] breakdown here. A total of 12
[12:54] structures totaling to around
[12:56] that 70,000 square foot mark.
[12:59] This is spread across the site
[13:00] and andoes fall within the
[13:02] requirements for building lot
[13:03] coverage and open space. One of
[13:07] the final few slides I'll cover
[13:09] is just the achievement of
[13:10] zoning and economic harmony.
[13:12] Three requirements actually
[13:13] must be met under the
[13:14] qualifying conditions and
[13:15] through a complementary mix of
[13:17] land uses, preservation of open
[13:19] space and green space, natural
[13:21] features included, and the
[13:22] creation of a community asset.
[13:23] All are found by staff to be
[13:25] some of those qualifying
[13:26] conditions that show the
[13:27] achievement of both zoning and
[13:28] economic harmony. Again
[13:30] achieving the overall purpose
[13:32] of PUD five. Finally, review
[13:36] considerations. This proposed
[13:37] PUD concept plan does does
[13:40] containhat required
[13:41] information to understand the
[13:43] project. For the purposes of
[13:45] rezoning and preliminary PUD
[13:47] consideration. So this is
[13:48] something that's typically done.
[13:49] That concept plais really
[13:50] just meant to give an
[13:52] understanding of what's being
[13:53] proposed. Generally speaking,
[13:55] it's not meant to substitute
[13:56] that site plan which will
[13:58] follow itngside with fin
[14:00] PUD approval. Site plan review
[14:03] is considered again, as I
[14:04] mentioned at a later stage.
[14:06] This ensures that the
[14:07] development meets all
[14:08] applicable site plan review
[14:10] requirements, things like
[14:11] stormwater and traffic. Those
[14:12] are not really considered at
[14:14] this stage. They're considered
[14:15] at that stage. Any buildings
[14:18] within that concept plan, if
[14:20] they are prosed to be changed,
[14:22] or if this concept plan were to
[14:23] change in the future, this
[14:24] would come back before planning
[14:26] commison for a PUD amendment,
[14:28] and we would follow the same
[14:29] notification process that we
[14:30] did before. One thing to note
[14:32] here is that within the PUD
[14:34] framework, there's the chance
[14:36] for the applicant to request
[14:38] deviations from what the
[14:39] requirements are, and in this
[14:40] case, the applicant is not
[14:41] requesting any of those and is
[14:43] and is wanting to follow all of
[14:44] the regulations set in PUD five
[14:47] and any conditions relating to
[14:48] that future site plan
[14:50] requirements. Those are noted
[14:51] as conditions. So you'll notice
[14:53] in your packets, condition two
[14:54] does just give the applicant a
[14:56] heads up of all the different
[14:57] requirements that will need to
[14:59] be met f site plan review.
[15:02] With that, the development
[15:03] Review team recommends Planning
[15:04] Commission grant the PUD five
[15:06] rezoning request at 5550 555
[15:09] Avenue Southwest, and recommend
[15:11] the same to City Council,
[15:13] subject to conditions one and
[15:14] two. I'm available if anyone
[15:16] has any questions. Thank you,
[15:17] thank you. Colton. At this time,
[15:20] I'm going to open up public
[15:22] comment period on agenda item
[15:24] number one. Again, it's
[15:25] important to note that this is
[15:27] not an opportunity for dialog
[15:29] or debate, but an opportunity
[15:31] provide comments to us. The
[15:33] Planning Commission can, upon
[15:35] approag the podium, please
[15:36] folks podium provide you
[15:38] provide your name, your address,
[15:41] and you have a three minute
[15:42] time limit. Anybody like to
[15:47] come up? And as you'll see, and
[16:00] I'll remind you too,here's
[16:02] three minutes. Yep. Thank you.
[16:04] So I don't want to be rude and
[16:05] say you got five. I'm watching
[16:07] it too, so I will, but inperiode
[16:10] welcome. Alright. My name is
[16:12] Jeff. I reside at 2972 South
[16:14] Horseshoe Drive, southwest
[16:17] 649418. Good evening, members
[16:19] of the Pnning Commission. I'm
[16:20] speaking on behalf of our
[16:22] neighborhood coalition. We
[16:23] strongly oppose rezoning Maple
[16:25] Hill Golf District from
[16:27] residential zoning to a PUD
[16:29] five planned golfntertainment
[16:30] district granting permanent
[16:32] commercial rezoning before true
[16:35] engineering and environmental
[16:35] due diligence is completed
[16:37] seems premature. Specifically,
[16:40] the proposed building
[16:41] footprints and impermeable
[16:43] paving encroach directly into
[16:45] vulnerable local floodplains,
[16:47] sensitive wetland areas, and
[16:49] natural drainage corridors tied
[16:50] to the hmful drain system.
[16:52] This reality is officially
[16:54] documented in Kent County Drain
[16:55] Commission records, the Buck
[16:56] Creek Watershed Management Plan
[16:58] and Municipal Planning reports
[17:00] under part 303 of the Michigan
[17:03] Natural Resources Environmental
[17:04] Protection Act. Excuse me.
[17:06] These vital environmental areas
[17:08] require strict prior statutory
[17:10] oversight from the Michigan
[17:12] Department of Environment,
[17:13] Great Lakes and Energy, or Ee.
[17:15] When you repce mature turf,
[17:17] absorbent topsoil and natural
[17:20] contours with massive
[17:21] commercial structures and
[17:22] asphalt, the land's natural
[17:24] infiltration capacity drops to
[17:25] near zero. This drastic
[17:27] reduction in permeability
[17:29] accelerates surface runoff
[17:30] directly toward neighboring
[17:32] residential yards, such as my
[17:34] own, worsening local water
[17:36] table imbalances and straining
[17:37] the existing ditches without
[17:40] rigorous state level guarantees
[17:41] and comprehensive stormwater
[17:43] drainage protection. Altering
[17:44] these natural drainage routes
[17:46] leaves adjacent homeowners to
[17:47] shoulder severe structural,
[17:49] foundational, and water damage
[17:51] risks. We cannot afford to
[17:53] gamble with our community's
[17:54] water management infrastructure
[17:55] for a commercial concept plan,
[17:58] we urge the commission to
[17:59] protect our watershed, uphold
[18:01] state environmental protections,
[18:02] and reject this PUD five
[18:04] rezoning. Thank you, thank you.
[18:11] My name is Greg Warson. 2977
[18:14] Florence Drive, southwest
[18:16] Wyoming. I'm also speaking on
[18:18] behalf of the Neighborhood
[18:19] Coalition, who opposes the
[18:20] Maple Hill proposal for
[18:22] rezoning. As noting, regarding
[18:24] the lack of engineering and due
[18:27] diligence, this proposal
[18:28] advances without complete
[18:30] independent studies required
[18:31] under the Wyoming Zoning Zoning
[18:33] Ordinance and Standard
[18:35] Municipal Municipal Site Plan
[18:37] review guidelines. Specifically,
[18:40] this application lacks
[18:42] comprehensive stormwater
[18:44] shifting data, detailed decibel
[18:46] noise projections, and
[18:49] certified heavy vehicle routing
[18:51] plans under municipal Planning
[18:53] criteria and standard site plan
[18:55] review requirements. Granting
[18:57] permanent zoning changes.
[18:59] Without these baseline
[19:00] technical reports violates
[19:03] standard municipal planning
[19:04] practices, practices, records
[19:06] from Egle and local planning
[19:08] standards dictate tha
[19:10] commercial expansions adjacent
[19:12] to residential zones must
[19:14] provide verifiable
[19:17] environmental and traffic
[19:17] pact data before any formal
[19:20] consideratio Approving the
[19:22] conditional zoning without this,
[19:24] mandatory documentation forces
[19:26] neighborhood residents to bear
[19:28] the full burden of uncertainty
[19:30] regarding structural, acoustic,
[19:33] and environmental disruptions.
[19:35] Commercial applicants in their
[19:37] engineering teams often expect
[19:38] residential opposition to focus
[19:40] solely on emotional or
[19:41] superficial complaints. But our
[19:43] neighborhoods data driven, data
[19:46] driven concerns focused
[19:47] directly on these missing
[19:49] technical studies. Without
[19:51] verified decibel modeling and
[19:53] traffic routing, we are left
[19:55] entirely in the dark regarding
[19:56] the operational noise and the
[19:58] transport risks that these
[20:00] commercial structures introduce.
[20:03] Thus, I urge the Commission and
[20:05] the City Council to protect our
[20:07] community safety and property
[20:09] values by denying this
[20:11] premature zoning. Please accept
[20:13] my thanks for your time and
[20:15] attention and your important
[20:16] work on this Planning
[20:17] Commission. Thank you. Sam.
[20:26] 2972 South Horseshoe Drive,
[20:27] southwest 49418. Hello, my name
[20:31] is Sam and I am speaking on
[20:32] behalf of our neighborhood
[20:34] alition, which opposes the
[20:35] Maple Hill rezoning request.
[20:37] While I recognize that the
[20:39] Maple Hill Golf Course has been
[20:41] a recreational part of this
[20:42] community for more than five
[20:44] decades, the proposed PUD five
[20:47] rezoning introduces a level of
[20:49] commercial activity that we
[20:50] believe is fundamentally
[20:53] incompatible with our
[20:54] established residentialneighbore
[20:58] concept plan includes a 300
[21:01] zero square foot commercial
[21:02] warehouse and loading dock on
[21:03] property that directly borders
[21:05] single family backyards,
[21:07] including my own, a warehouse
[21:09] and loading operation of this
[21:11] size brings commercial trucks,
[21:14] deliveries, loading and
[21:15] unloading, and backup alarms
[21:17] when those activities are
[21:18] taking place right behind
[21:20] people's homes, they ve the
[21:21] potential to significantly
[21:23] change theeaceful character
[21:25] of our neighborhood. The
[21:27] applicant's presentation and
[21:29] concept documents emphasize
[21:30] that the proposed buildings
[21:32] would cover just 1.56% of the
[21:35] overall property, sitting
[21:37] slightly below the 1.75 maximum,
[21:39] as we heard earlier. But that
[21:42] percentage does not tell the
[21:43] whole story. Having open space
[21:48] elsewhere on the property does
[21:49] not lessen the impact of
[21:51] placing a commercial warehouse
[21:52] and loading operation of this
[21:54] size directly alongside
[21:56] residential backyards. For
[21:59] families whose homes border
[22:00] this property, this isn't just
[22:03] about what percent of the land
[22:04] is being developed, it's about
[22:06] what will be right outside our
[22:08] backyards and how that will
[22:09] affect not only our property
[22:11] values, but the way we live in
[22:13] and enjoy our homes and
[22:15] communy. We believe the
[22:19] requested changes are simply
[22:20] not compatible with the
[22:22] residential neighborhood that
[22:23] is already here. For those
[22:25] reasons, we respectfully ask
[22:26] the Planning Commission not to
[22:29] recommend the approval of this
[22:31] rezoning. Thank you, thank you.
[22:40] Good evening. Members of the
[22:41] Planning Commission, neighbors
[22:44] and residents of Wyoming. My
[22:45] name is Lisa Homes, and I live
[22:48] at 2965 South Horseshoe Drive,
[22:50] southwest, a property that is
[22:52] within the 600ft of the
[22:54] proposed Maple Hills, PUD five
[22:57] rezoning. I have come re
[22:59] tonight to speak on behalf of
[23:00] our neighborhood coalition
[23:03] opposing this rezoning. The
[23:06] intensification of neighrhood.
[23:08] Excuse me. The intensification
[23:11] of commercial uses proposed,
[23:13] which includes a multi use
[23:15] miniature golf course, a retail
[23:18] ice cream operation and anindusc
[23:23] will place an excessive burden
[23:27] on the Avon Avenue and 56th
[23:30] Street corridor. Traffic and
[23:33] planning data show that this
[23:35] regional intersection is
[23:37] heavily congested during peak
[23:39] hours. These uses will increase
[23:43] the traffic, vehicle turnover,
[23:46] commeral deliveries and over
[23:49] activity in an areahat is
[23:51] already experiencing
[23:54] significant congestion.
[23:58] Introducing increased vehicle
[23:59] turnover, commercial delivery
[24:02] trucks and hh volume patrons
[24:05] will also directly compromise
[24:08] pedestrian safety. School
[24:10] traffic and area residents
[24:12] using the Kent Trails Network,
[24:15] while major streets are
[24:17] designed to handle the regional
[24:20] traffic better than local side
[24:21] streets, the specific influx of
[24:25] commercial delivery vehicles
[24:28] mixing with pedestrian traffic
[24:30] creates severe safety hazards.
[24:34] Approving a conditional
[24:36] rezoning without a
[24:38] comprehensive independent
[24:40] traffic impact study ignores
[24:42] the very real daily risks that
[24:46] are posed to our children, our
[24:49] bicyclists, and the families
[24:51] that navigate this corridor
[24:53] daily. We cannot, nor should we
[24:57] have to trade our local
[25:00] pedestrian safety and local
[25:04] non-motorized trail security
[25:06] for a unvetted commercial
[25:09] development on a corridor that
[25:11] is already stretched to its
[25:14] absolute limits. Therefore, we
[25:17] ask that a proper and
[25:19] comprehensive traff impact
[25:21] study be done before you before
[25:25] any rezoning decision is. Thank
[25:29] you, thank you. Hi, my name is
[25:37] Susan Morrison and I live at
[25:40] 2977 Florence Drive, southwest.
[25:43] I'm speaking tonight on behalf
[25:45] of our neighborhood coalition,
[25:47] which opposes the Maple Hill
[25:50] rezoning request. The applicant
[25:53] relies heavily on the newly
[25:55] established PUD five framework.
[25:58] True. That frameworkas
[26:00] created to allow things like
[26:02] small scale event spaces,
[26:05] restaurants, or club fitting
[26:08] things that naturally support a
[26:10] golf course. However, it was
[26:14] never meant to cover industrial
[26:18] warehouses, logistics centers,
[26:20] loading docks, or truck traffic
[26:22] around the perimeterf the
[26:24] property directl next to
[26:26] nearby homes. Trying to trying
[26:32] to build a 30,000 square foot
[26:36] distribution distribution
[26:37] facility and calling it a golf
[26:40] amenity that completely throws
[26:43] off the balance between
[26:45] neighborhood green space and
[26:47] residential property lines. We
[26:50] have to hold the applicant to
[26:52] what PUD five was actually
[26:54] written for, instead of letting
[26:57] it act as a back door for heavy
[26:59] commercial expansion. If a golf
[27:02] course is allowed to outline a
[27:05] large scale iustrial
[27:07] warehouse under the umbrella of
[27:09] golf course support, it
[27:13] completely breaks the point of
[27:14] having residential protections
[27:16] in our city in the first place.
[27:21] Zoning rules exist for a reason,
[27:24] and pushing PUD five way past
[27:28] its intended purpose sets a
[27:31] dangerous precedent for every
[27:33] single neighborhood in Wyoming.
[27:37] Thank you for listening. Thank
[27:39] you. Good evening. My name is
[27:49] Rob Bosher. I live at 2980
[27:53] Florence Drive, and that's
[27:55] immediately east of the Maple
[27:56] Hill driving range. I'm
[27:58] speaking on behalf of our
[28:00] neighborhood coalition, which
[28:03] opposes the Maple Hill rezoning.
[28:05] Request. An examination of the
[28:09] concept site map in this
[28:11] proposal reveals troubling
[28:14] deficiencies in buffer lines
[28:15] and setbacks, particularly
[28:18] along the Eastern residential
[28:20] Property line. Proposed
[28:24] landscap buffer lines appear
[28:26] compressed or route directly
[28:28] through existing structural
[28:31] areas. They fail to eliminate
[28:32] the physical, visual, and
[28:36] acoustic separation mandated by
[28:38] our local zoning ordinances.
[28:41] Accurate boundary mapping and
[28:42] strict adherence to setback
[28:45] requirements are the only
[28:47] barriers protecting adjacent
[28:49] homeowners from intrusive light
[28:51] and noise pollution. When the
[28:55] concept map shows margins that
[28:58] narrow near residential
[29:01] property lines, it demonstrates
[29:03] a mapping precision failure.
[29:06] This should be addressed by the
[29:08] Planning Commission before
[29:10] considering any rezoning
[29:11] approval. Residents residents
[29:14] should not have to guess
[29:17] whether visual and acoustic
[29:19] buffers will actually exist.
[29:21] Once heavy machinery delivery
[29:23] vehicles, commercial storage
[29:25] operations begin functioning
[29:27] right across their fences.
[29:32] Thank you for your time tonight
[29:35] for your careful review of the
[29:38] technical data thatmpends on
[29:40] our residential neighborhoods.
[29:43] We are grateful for your
[29:45] dedication to protecting the
[29:47] integrity and fabric of our
[29:50] residential communities. Thank
[29:54] you. Good evening. I am Richard
[30:08] Kitchen. I reside in Byron
[30:11] Center. You're the owner and
[30:12] will be the owner and developer
[30:14] of golf course. Yes, sir. I
[30:16] will open your opportunity up
[30:18] right after we close the public
[30:20] hearing. Okay. I justant to
[30:22] say a quick I came tonight,
[30:24] it's my anniversary, by the way.
[30:26] Yep. That's how dedicated I am.
[30:27] I came tonight to answer
[30:30] questions straight one on one.
[30:32] I've heard some things here
[30:35] that weren't exactly correct
[30:36] and I'd like these people to
[30:38] hear okay, but I okay, tell me
[30:40] what you need to do. Here's
[30:42] what I need to do, I. Duringour,
[30:49] that's the opportunity. Well,
[30:50] I'll be able to get the owner
[30:52] and the developer up. Okay.
[30:53] Give ten minutes of the time.
[30:56] My only because I can't explain
[30:58] it here, but my only
[31:00] recommendation to you, Mr.
[31:02] Kitchen, would be is after we
[31:05] get during this conversation.
[31:10] Give me a second. I'm following
[31:13] you trying to stay in th
[31:14] procedure lineup here. I when
[31:22] the developer comes up, once we
[31:24] call the vote, once weake a
[31:26] motion. Okay, then we as
[31:27] planning commissioners can talk.
[31:29] Okay, at that point, I can
[31:32] bring you or the developer up
[31:35] and ask you questions. And at
[31:36] that time, there could be a
[31:39] question from one of us to you,
[31:41] okay? To them, that's how we
[31:43] have to do this meeting tonight.
[31:45] Well, if you can give if you
[31:46] can, if you just let us follow
[31:48] that process, let's see how
[31:49] that goes. And if it if it
[31:52] doesn't go, then I'll have you
[31:54] get with the city at that point
[31:56] to help out what my goal s to
[32:00] be able to talk to these people.
[32:02] Yeah. No, no, let's respect
[32:04] everybody. Okay? But we're not
[32:07] here to yell at people or this
[32:09] and that. Well, we're all
[32:11] adults. We're all going to
[32:12] respect what this commission
[32:14] does, what the owner does, and
[32:15] what you people are presenting
[32:17] to us. So let's show some
[32:18] common courtesy and respect. So,
[32:20] Mr. Kitchen, if you would trust
[32:22] me and give me some time to get
[32:24] through this, let's do it that
[32:27] way. I can. I have a question.
[32:30] I just need to know. Well, I'll
[32:31] be able to talk to these peoe.
[32:33] Let me get to that. Once we get
[32:35] through this process, you'll
[32:36] see once we get through this
[32:38] process. So I need to know.
[32:39] Okay. Yes, done. So hang tight,
[32:41] I appreciate it. And again, we
[32:43] have a we have a full house. We
[32:45] have a lot of concerns. I
[32:47] appreciate erybody be here.
[32:48] But let's treat people with
[32:49] dignity and respect. I don't
[32:51] want to hear yelling sit down
[32:52] or this and that because we're
[32:53] not in grade school. Hi, my
[32:57] name is Brett Prince. I've
[32:58] lived at 3057 since 1994. I'm
[33:01] just a concerned neighbor. I've
[33:04] raised my daughter there, my
[33:07] grandson now currently raised
[33:08] at the same house across the
[33:11] street. My neighbor has a pizza
[33:12] oven that all the kids would
[33:14] sit arod while he made pizzas
[33:15] for them. It's right up to
[33:17] where this warehouse is
[33:18] intended to go. The drainage
[33:21] creek is right behind their.
[33:23] We've had this quaint nature.
[33:25] Deer go through the
[33:26] neighborhood, run right down
[33:27] where they plan to build the
[33:29] street. The warehouse. It's an
[33:32] areahere Hawks live. Right
[33:34] across from that is a swamp
[33:37] area where the deer lay down.
[33:38] This is stuff that we've had
[33:40] for me for 32 years, and I
[33:42] don't want to see what is my
[33:44] nderful neighborhood turn
[33:45] into an industrial complex. As
[33:48] it is. I leave to take my
[33:49] grandson to school each day.
[33:51] Can't turn out from Becky.
[33:53] Drive on to Ivan because
[33:54] there's so much traffic from
[33:56] the new apartment complexes,
[33:57] the new neighborhoods, and
[33:58] things that have been built in
[34:00] the area. So just to get an
[34:02] emotional side, instead of me
[34:04] reading all the different
[34:05] information that they spent a
[34:07] lot of time looking up, this is
[34:08] how a lot of people actually
[34:10] feel. They spent the time to
[34:11] look this all up, but the
[34:13] emotions in it and watching our
[34:14] kids and the danger to our kids,
[34:17] that's what we're all concerned
[34:18] about. Thanks. Thank you.
[34:28] Anybody else like to come up?
[34:31] Because once I close, the
[34:33] meeting is closed for public
[34:34] comment. I just want everybody
[34:36] to get their opportunity in
[34:39] seeing none. I will close the
[34:42] public comment. Would the
[34:45] developer owner like to come up?
[34:51] Now? Yeah, Iean. Yeah, I'll
[34:56] say a couple things, sir. You
[34:58] have you get ten minutes. Okay.
[35:03] The I know a lot of you are
[35:05] concerned about wt you're
[35:06] seeing up on the wall. And a
[35:09] lot of that drawing I did
[35:10] myself, the city asked me us my
[35:14] business when we discussed
[35:16] trying to. Build storage
[35:20] facilities and that kind of
[35:20] thing. And they said, anything
[35:22] you can think of that you might
[35:23] want to do down the road, put
[35:27] it on this map. So the map you
[35:29] saw earlier with red things and
[35:30] yellow things, I did most of
[35:32] the red ones myself. These were
[35:35] all possibilities. We just
[35:38] found out through my
[35:40] superintendent and my general
[35:41] manager there, that the
[35:43] wahouse in the back of the
[35:44] driving range can't happen, can
[35:47] not happen. So we've got a lot
[35:50] of people up in arms here about
[35:51] that happening. It doesn't mean
[35:53] it's not going to happen. It
[35:54] can't happen. So that's out and
[35:56] gone. There's a lot of
[35:58] possibilities that we look for.
[36:00] I've been there 51 years. I've
[36:01] been the owner since 1970. I've
[36:05] been there since 75, owner
[36:06] since 7 And all the additions
[36:09] and all the business things we
[36:11] did were result of my planning.
[36:14] I saw needs a we kept moving.
[36:17] We kept moving forward. And
[36:18] that's the way, as far as I'm
[36:20] concerned, any good business
[36:21] should do. It would look like.
[36:23] Now, if we're going to try to
[36:25] get a warehouse or storage
[36:27] facility, it will be on the
[36:28] golf course side and it will be
[36:31] in a spot where there's not a
[36:33] house in the neighborhood can
[36:35] see it. That would be that's
[36:37] our probably our main issue
[36:39] right there, this ice cream
[36:40] stuff and mini golf and all
[36:43] that. That's a long ways down
[36:46] the road, probably beyond my
[36:49] lifetime and my son's, I have
[36:53] two sons that run the business
[36:54] as well as myself. I was a main
[36:57] day to day operations until I
[36:58] got diagnosed seven years ago.
[37:00] And I'm kind of a part time
[37:01] come in, come out. But I still
[37:03] have a lot to say as far as the
[37:06] planning and the things we're
[37:07] trying to achieve there. A lot
[37:09] of you probably don't know much
[37:10] about golf or. But we are. I
[37:12] consider us a pillar of the
[37:14] community we employ. Employ 135
[37:17] people, and we've been faithful
[37:20] taxpayers since day one. And we
[37:24] are. In my opinion, the
[37:29] ultimate golf destination for
[37:32] all the different categories.
[37:33] We have kids programs, so fth
[37:35] and so on. We feel like we do a
[37:37] very good job there and we've
[37:39] won awards and that kind of
[37:40] stuff. We want to be. We have
[37:43] no intention o riling feathers
[37:45] here and whatever as far as we
[37:46] want to move on to maybe save
[37:50] ourselves some time and some
[37:51] money. We have two off site
[37:52] warehouses right now. We have
[37:54] one in division on division and
[37:56] one on 28th Street. And our
[37:58] main concern there is to get
[37:59] these close one of them down,
[38:01] the one on 28th Street, which
[38:03] would create. We'd have to
[38:05] create more space on our golf
[38:07] course site. That's basally
[38:10] that's basically what we're
[38:11] trying to do. And I've heard a
[38:12] lot of things. Your concerns
[38:14] and I understand concerns or
[38:16] traffic or this or that, things
[38:18] aren't going to stay the same
[38:20] forever. It'd be nice, but
[38:22] they're not. So as my sons get
[38:25] older and we they've got to get
[38:27] out from under this business,
[38:28] we've got to consider what
[38:32] fouls Maple Hill is. It's going
[38:34] to be a golf course in seven
[38:36] years, or it's going to be
[38:38] condos, homes or wtever. And
[38:40] we have to consider that also.
[38:42] So we'd like to stay around as
[38:43] long as possible. And some of
[38:45] these things will help us do
[38:47] at. And again, I'd like to
[38:52] when I'm when we're done here,
[38:54] if anybody would like to talk
[38:55] to me one on one, that's what I
[38:57] cameere basically for tonight.
[38:59] I don't know exactly how this
[39:00] how this meeting thing went,
[39:02] but I'd be glad to answer
[39:04] questions and do anything I can
[39:08] to maybe set your mind a little
[39:09] more at ease than you're
[39:11] already any. Sir. We don't we
[39:15] can't do questions right now.
[39:17] No. Gentlemen, just change the
[39:21] whole dynamic of the evening. I
[39:22] think we're entitled. Ask a
[39:24] question. No. Sir. We we you
[39:29] had an opportunity for change
[39:31] the dynamic. I understand, but
[39:33] you had an opportunity. He came
[39:36] up again. Mr. kitchen is is
[39:38] willing to do a one on one with
[39:40] you after we get done with the
[39:42] vote. So that's why don't you
[39:46] both. So there is sir. Yeah.
[39:49] I'm I'm sorry. He made under.
[39:54] No you're correct. He's he's
[39:58] considerate. He heard what yougs
[40:01] is not an opportunity to change
[40:03] things. At the moment. We have
[40:05] policies and procedures that
[40:06] run in government that we have
[40:08] to follow. It stings a little
[40:10] bit, but we. This is how we
[40:12] have to move forward with
[40:13] tonight. So I appreciate your
[40:16] comment and I appreciate your
[40:17] concern. I truly do. However, I
[40:20] can't change the structure of
[40:23] the meeting because what you
[40:25] heard from Mr. Kitchen changed
[40:27] a whole lot of things. And some
[40:29] people's mind, either the good
[40:30] or the bad. Let us finish the
[40:32] meeting out. Let us hear what
[40:33] we have to say. That's the
[40:36] proper way. Thank you. Thank
[40:42] you, M Kitchens. Okay, then.
[40:44] Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
[41:00] Commissioners in fro of us,
[41:01] we have one motion to grant the
[41:05] PUD five rezoning request at
[41:11] 50 555 Iron Avenue Southwest,
[41:14] and recommend the same to City
[41:16] Council, subject to conditions
[41:18] one and two. Commissioners I'm
[41:21] looking for a motion. Motion by
[41:25] Audrey, second by Robert.
[41:31] Commissioners. Questions,
[41:32] comments or concerns? Robert.
[41:34] Yeah, I got a list. Hopefully
[41:37] this will help get us some some
[41:39] clarity. Colton. Do you want to
[41:41] maybe or whomever from zoning
[41:42] staf maybe, you know, for the
[41:45] sake of, of all of us here,
[41:46] talk a little bit about the
[41:48] difference between a rezoning
[41:49] and site plan approval, maybe
[41:51] specifically bringing up the
[41:53] kind of revie that goes into
[41:56] to those distinctions, right?
[41:57] For site plan review, that's
[41:58] when we have engineering part
[42:00] 303. Love that. Shout out to
[42:02] some state codes. ose are
[42:03] really good things to know that
[42:04] all needs and is going to be
[42:06] important to any future
[42:07] development, but that might not
[42:09] be at this phase. Is that
[42:10] enough of a preamble? Yeah,
[42:11] that's that's perfect. Thank
[42:12] you. So the site plan review
[42:14] phase includes fully stamped
[42:18] drawings by an architect or an
[42:19] engineer This involves both an
[42:22] application that goes out to
[42:23] our development review team,
[42:24] which includes fire engineering,
[42:27] assessing building, police
[42:29] planning. All those bodies
[42:31] spend a few weeks actually
[42:32] reviewing the submitted plans,
[42:34] making sure that they align
[42:35] with all of the various code
[42:37] sections that all of us review
[42:38] and our expertise in. For us in
[42:41] planning staff, that would have
[42:43] to do with all of the PUD five
[42:45] plan requirements, as well as
[42:46] site plan approval. On top of
[42:48] that, if it's something that
[42:49] would require special use
[42:51] approval, there's an additional
[42:52] set of conditions that must be
[42:54] met for that as well. All ofthar
[42:58] consistent review standards.
[43:00] Al in all, I mean we're over
[43:01] 20 review standards just from
[43:02] planning side at this point. So
[43:04] engineering takes a look that
[43:06] includes all stormwar and and
[43:09] make sure that, you know, the
[43:10] structure itself is safe, but
[43:11] also that it's not going to
[43:13] create additional hazards to
[43:15] neighboring properties. Fire is
[43:17] making sure that it can access
[43:18] the site, assessing, making
[43:20] sure that, you know, there's no
[43:22] buildings over parcel lines,
[43:23] police building, everyone has
[43:24] their own types of reviews.
[43:26] That all gets presented
[43:28] depending on the size of the
[43:30] structure or the size of the
[43:31] parcel, either before planning
[43:33] commission or reviewed
[43:35] administratively. Any case
[43:36] where there's a special use
[43:37] approval that goes before
[43:38] Planning Commission, something
[43:40] like the, forxample, a small
[43:43] pavilion that's about 2000ftS
[43:45] might not trigger that public
[43:47] meeting. It's something that's
[43:48] small and simple and gets
[43:50] reviewed administratively.
[43:52] Anything that's larger scale or
[43:53] would require a public hearing
[43:55] comes back before planning
[43:56] commission. All of those
[43:57] reviews and conditions of
[43:59] approval are presented to the
[44:00] Planning Commission, and the
[44:01] Planni Commission reviews
[44:03] that and makes a decision. So
[44:06] briefly, I guess that's the
[44:07] process. I can always go into
[44:08] more detail. Yeah. So it's fair
[44:10] to say that before anything,
[44:11] like anything on that drawing
[44:13] would get built, the proper due
[44:15] diligence for the environmental
[44:17] impacts, the buffers and
[44:19] setbacks and impacts to drains,
[44:20] the impacts to, you know, for
[44:23] sound and acoustics. All those
[44:24] things would have documentation
[44:25] provided to the city for review.
[44:27] Anhen we would have that and
[44:29] that would be at that phase.
[44:31] Whereas as this phase, it's
[44:32] more just an opening of a door
[44:34] to any future work that relates
[44:36] to a golf course for this
[44:38] property. That's correct. Okay.
[44:40] Maybe that's worth bringing up,
[44:41] I guess, because what would the
[44:44] I guess what maybe help me
[44:46] understand what a pud is, right?
[44:48] For an example, planned unit
[44:50] development gives the city a
[44:51] certain amount of leverage to
[44:53] control how development happens
[44:54] on a parcel that maybe is not
[44:56] possible for just residentially
[44:58] platted property. Is that fair
[45:00] to say? Yes, yes. Often planned
[45:03] unit developments allow for a
[45:05] miure of of different things,
[45:07] you know, instead of just
[45:08] single family platted. A pud
[45:11] typically involves, you know, a
[45:12] variety of different housing
[45:13] types. In this case, it has to
[45:15] do to allow some of those uses
[45:17] that are deemed low volume
[45:20] recreational amenities that can
[45:22] be combined with the golf
[45:23] course in this case. So it
[45:24] allows for things that can't
[45:26] actually be accomplished under
[45:28] traditional zoning pn. Unit
[45:30] developments allow for
[45:31] something that's considered
[45:32] creative and and suitable for
[45:34] the area, including in actually
[45:36] an increase in available open
[45:38] space and unpaved or, you know,
[45:41] constructed land. Right? A
[45:42] single family housing plat
[45:44] might be more dee than what
[45:45] the future of the some of this
[45:46] area would be in terms of
[45:48] stormwater, right? Yes. Great.
[45:53] Hold there. Okay. Thanks for
[46:00] those questions. You covered a
[46:02] couple of my things on my list.
[46:04] I do have a follow up regarding
[46:07] PUD five specically. So
[46:09] during your presentation, you
[46:11] noted that no housing is
[46:13] permitted under PUD five. Could
[46:16] you talk about the. The reasons
[46:21] for this option for this
[46:25] property versus what we would
[46:27] have to review if there were a
[46:29] developer that would come
[46:30] forward and say, we want to
[46:31] take this property and build a
[46:36] residential development that
[46:37] would incorporate mixed use
[46:39] housing. Yes. So just to
[46:42] clarify, as far as like the
[46:43] difference between PUD five and
[46:46] potentially any other type of
[46:47] development. Yes. So under the
[46:50] current zoning district, if a
[46:52] developer came in and would
[46:53] like to plat it according to
[46:54] the subdivision regulations,
[46:56] and that would be permitted by
[46:57] right, they would be able to go
[46:59] through the proper channels,
[47:00] make sure everything was met,
[47:02] but largely developed a normal.
[47:05] The PUD five was designated to
[47:08] specifically allow for, you
[47:09] know, that open space to be
[47:11] maintained. It doesn't prohibit
[47:14] any future development down the
[47:15] line, but butt it does allow
[47:17] for the continuance of a golf
[47:19] course, which we understand to
[47:22] be an interesting and vital
[47:24] part of our community under
[47:26] that district, housing is not
[47:29] really cohesive and, and would
[47:31] in some ways, younow, just
[47:33] create aitional pieces that
[47:34] that weren't necessarily
[47:36] applicable single family
[47:38] housing, just a fact that most
[47:40] may not know. Single family
[47:42] housing actually hashe most
[47:43] amount of traffic. When we talk
[47:44] about traffic counts across
[47:46] different types of uses, that
[47:47] single family housing actually
[47:50] has sees the most amount of
[47:51] traffic. And so in this case,
[47:53] this was this was meant to
[47:54] really maintain what's existing
[47:55] within our community when it
[47:57] comes to golf courses and just
[47:58] allow those buildings to
[48:01] buildings and golf courses to
[48:03] continue in the in the region.
[48:05] Okay. So just to make sure I
[48:06] understood you correctly, I
[48:07] heard you correctly. If the if
[48:10] the property owner were to
[48:14] propose not this type of
[48:16] development, but were to come
[48:17] forward and say, we would like
[48:19] to convert this existing land
[48:22] to a residential community,
[48:25] they would not need zoning
[48:27] approval to do that. Is that
[48:28] correct? We would not need to
[48:30] review that from a zoning
[48:32] perspective. We would only look
[48:33] at it further down the road of
[48:35] the development. Is that
[48:36] correct? The the planning
[48:38] process and something like that
[48:40] comes through planning
[48:41] commission, but it's something
[48:43] that's permitted by. Right. And
[48:45] and typically, as long as you
[48:47] can meet the requirements,
[48:48] there wouldn'be any
[48:49] additional issues. It's, it's
[48:50] something that at that point,
[48:52] it's, it's a fairly sple
[48:54] process. And I can let Dylan
[48:55] jump in. Just, I was just going
[48:57] to say, no, it would not
[48:58] require rezoning. Okay. Your
[49:00] estion. Okay. So then to take
[49:03] it maybe in a slightly
[49:04] different direction, if this
[49:07] were if this PUD five were
[49:09] approved this evening or
[49:11] sometime in the future, knowing,
[49:12] of course, that it has to go to
[49:14] City council as well. But if
[49:16] that change were made, then to
[49:20] shift back to a residential
[49:23] development would require
[49:24] another rezoning, correct?
[49:26] That's correct. Yes. It would
[49:27] need to rezone to a different.
[49:30] Yes. Great. Thank you, I
[49:32] appreciate that. I'm sorry to
[49:33] have you reiterate in so many
[49:35] different ways, but I just want
[49:36] to make sure that I'm
[49:37] understanding the process and
[49:38] the different types of
[49:39] development appropriately. My
[49:42] next question is. Regarding the
[49:49] Ke Trails Network. I don't
[49:52] recall that being identied on
[49:54] the map. That's not something
[49:56] that intersects, intersects
[49:59] with or is directly adjacent to
[50:03] this property. Is that correct?
[50:05] Or is that an immediately
[50:08] adjacent trail? So that's a
[50:11] trail that's further to the
[50:13] east. It's between Byron Center
[50:15] and Ivan Rest. And this
[50:18] property ends about a quarter
[50:20] of the way through that block.
[50:22] So Kent Trails is halfway
[50:23] through the block. It's further
[50:25] to the east. It doesn't run
[50:26] adjacent to this property. Okay.
[50:28] Thank you. So there's there's a
[50:29] neighborod between this
[50:31] property and the trail. Correct.
[50:33] Great. Thank you. I think I'm
[50:35] good for now. Thank you, thank
[50:37] you. I have a question.
[50:38] Question. I just want to ensure
[50:40] that the proposed rezoning
[50:41] doesn't worsen the drainage
[50:44] conditions for the surrounding
[50:45] neighborhoods. And I know,
[50:46] Colton, that you tched on it
[50:47] somewhat, but based on the
[50:48] theme and all of the emails and
[50:51] whatnot that I've read, I guess
[50:53] my question is, can the project
[50:55] engineer or you explain how the
[50:58] proposed drainage plan prevents
[51:01] additional additional runoff or
[51:03] flooding to nearby residents?
[51:06] Yeah, I'm happy to answer that.
[51:07] I know in a case like this,
[51:09] anytim there's a floodplain,
[51:11] floodway, or wetland nearby,
[51:13] there needs to be a permit from
[51:15] Egle that's approved before it
[51:18] even comes back for site plan
[51:20] approval. So you'll note that
[51:21] one of the conditions was that
[51:23] our city engineer actually
[51:24] recommended that the applicant
[51:25] set up a meeting with Egle just
[51:27] to determine the feasibility of
[51:28] of anything in that area. Thank
[51:31] you. I guess I'll ju into
[51:33] because it's a little bit my my
[51:35] area of experti. I do
[51:39] stormwater design. I'm a site
[51:41] civil engineer, right? So the
[51:43] in general, you have to follow
[51:45] the standards that are written
[51:46] by your cit right? Our city
[51:48] of Wyoming has excellent
[51:48] standards that are put together
[51:50] in order to protect
[51:51] neighborhoods specifically from
[51:52] malicious redelopment,
[51:54] including standards around
[51:55] where stormwater can flow off
[51:56] of property that's been
[51:57] developed. Often the
[51:59] development of a property, even
[52:00] ough it's becoming more dense,
[52:02] gives us the opportunity to
[52:03] make sure that it's being
[52:05] controlled more consistentlyands
[52:08] opposed to existing conditions,
[52:09] which are currently maybe
[52:10] shedding water in certain
[52:11] directions. Right? A site
[52:12] that's been designed by an
[52:14] engineer and is approvable for
[52:16] a site plan of a planning
[52:18] commission, has to meet all
[52:19] these standards which limit the
[52:21] rate of water, leaving a
[52:22] property to existin conditions,
[52:25] usually by some metric, like an
[52:26] outlet control structure. Or
[52:27] you know what? This is a big I
[52:29] could talk for a long time, so
[52:31] I'll let it stand there and say
[52:33] that we have a really good
[52:34] gineering staff. That's. Mr.
[52:37] chairman, I have a question.
[52:37] Question. Thank you. Colton,
[52:41] how much of the property is
[52:42] zoned estate residential versus
[52:45] R-1 as it sits right now? It is
[52:47] roughly roughly. Yeah. Just
[52:50] roughly. We've got about 68
[52:52] acres. That would be estate
[52:54] residential. And theemaining
[52:57] 32 and some change would be R-1.
[53:00] So quick back of the napkin
[53:01] math. This owner could propose
[53:04] roughly 150 houses. Looking at
[53:06] our standards of R-1 at ten
[53:08] zero zero zero square feet and
[53:09] two and a half acres for state
[53:11] residential. Of course, there's
[53:12] wetlands and things to deal
[53:13] with, but somewhere between 120
[53:15] and 150 houses coulbe
[53:16] proposed here. And I just want
[53:18] to make the point to try to
[53:20] bring in what Commissioner and
[53:22] Commissioner Randall were
[53:23] pointing out, which is the
[53:24] developers actually trading in
[53:26] some ways, giving up a lot of
[53:28] economic activity that they
[53:29] could experience in return for
[53:31] an ongoing application, open,
[53:34] open application of open space,
[53:35] which would otherwise be
[53:37] impervious or impervious,
[53:38] impermeable material, and have
[53:40] all kinds of other issues. And
[53:42] so from that perspective, I'm
[53:43] very sensitive to the concerns
[53:44] that were raised tonight. But I
[53:46] actually think this is more
[53:47] open space and an upgrade. And
[53:49] I just want to defend I wasn't
[53:50] on the commission in April, but
[53:52] when this commission passed
[53:53] that PUD five, I think it was
[53:55] actually very visionary because
[53:56] we're trading literally dozens
[53:59] of acres of open space that
[54:00] would not otherwise exist under
[54:02] literally a use by. Right. So I
[54:04] want to say thank you to this
[54:05] commission for the work you did
[54:07] to come up with this, and I'm
[54:08] strongly in favor of granting
[54:10] the preliminary, preliminary
[54:13] rezoning with the idea that the
[54:15] developer will have to come
[54:15] back and there will be a series
[54:17] of standards, as laid out by
[54:19] other members of this
[54:20] commission, for us to review
[54:21] and make sure are being done
[54:22] correctly. Thank you, Mr.
[54:23] Chairman. Thank you. Anybody
[54:25] else? Commissioners. Any other
[54:26] questions? Well, I do I just
[54:27] some comments, maybe a couple
[54:29] questions. So yeah, back a few
[54:32] months ago, we approved the the
[54:33] new zoning to keep these golf
[54:36] courses from closing up and
[54:37] turning into residential. I
[54:39] think we almost lost one down a
[54:41] ways. And I would rather see
[54:44] golf courses. I think to make
[54:46] an ideal community, yo should
[54:47] have something green spaces
[54:49] like this, and I think you got
[54:50] to keep them viable. I think
[54:52] everybody here agrees with that.
[54:57] So in order to do that, yeah,
[54:58] he could develop it and get
[55:00] three 300 houses or units or
[55:02] whatever you want to call them.
[55:03] And they're a lot more traffic
[55:05] than the existing roads have.
[55:06] So I think this is less I do
[55:11] believe the roads do need to be
[55:12] improved there. That's not
[55:14] maybe our department, but
[55:16] somebody I think from the city
[55:18] line to 52nd is three lanes.
[55:20] And I at least think that 52nd
[55:22] 56 should be three lanes,
[55:24] especially with these new
[55:25] parking lots going in here,
[55:26] you're going to need turn lanes,
[55:28] so you might as well just make
[55:29] at least a so that people out
[55:31] of Becky Drive canet in and
[55:33] out. I went through there a few
[55:34] different times. It's very hard
[55:36] to turn out, especially left
[55:37] from the. Because there's no
[55:38] other way out except for going
[55:40] through the horseshoe. So Mr.
[55:43] Kitchen and the family has done
[55:44] a lot for this city w before
[55:45] any of these plants were there
[55:47] and have a nice operation, I
[55:49] think we should try to help
[55:51] them. He offered to move the
[55:54] wahouse away from the
[55:55] residential over to the other
[55:56] side of the road. I. I think
[55:59] that would be a good fit. Or it
[56:02] won't affect as many people.
[56:03] But again, the traffic is an
[56:04] issue. It's an ongoing issue. I
[56:08] even think 56 needs to be
[56:09] looked at just all the way down
[56:11] three lanes. Yeah. So let's see
[56:17] here. Question to staff. I just
[56:22] wrote notes everywhere
[56:24] listening to what everyone was
[56:25] saying. Yeah, I think that's
[56:32] probably. I just thinkt'de
[56:35] a lot less impact by keeping it
[56:37] and allowing him to do what he
[56:38] would like to do. So, but the
[56:41] warehouse, I didn't see howthatg
[56:44] it. But if the warehouse could
[56:45] be moved, I think that was most
[56:47] people's concern was the
[56:47] warehouse. So if. And I do
[56:49] believe. That could be somehow
[56:54] I don't think we're approving
[56:55] the warehouse where that goes
[56:57] tonight. Like he said, he just
[56:58] drew some things to get what
[57:00] he'd like. So it's just the
[57:02] zoning request. Yeah. But again,
[57:04] the road problem is a problem.
[57:06] And I, I, you could do a
[57:07] traffic stu, but I can tell
[57:08] you that I mean, it backs up
[57:10] all different directions. And I
[57:11] think that's. So that's all I
[57:15] got to say. Question for staff.
[57:17] The 52nd, I guess, is that a
[57:18] DOT road study? I don't believe
[57:21] so. No. Okay. Commissioners.
[57:26] Any other questions commes or
[57:27] concerns? Seeing none. Rules
[57:30] please call the vote.
[57:32] Commissioner. Gilreath. Yes.
[57:34] Yes. Yes. Laplaca. Yes. Randall.
[57:38] Yes. Yes. Weller. Yes. Zapata.
[57:42] Yes. Yes. Motion passes. Now,
[57:44] just a couple  things. It's
[57:47] passed. Just a suggestion that
[57:49] I might make to the developer
[57:50] and the owner based on the
[57:54] people, the residents that came
[57:56] in today, and how you are
[57:58] graciously want to help, you
[58:00] know, help them under help, you
[58:01] know, understand what you're
[58:03] trying to do. Just a suggestion.
[58:05] You might want to hold a
[58:06] charrette or a meeting and
[58:08] ing the whole neighborhood
[58:09] together sometime in the future
[58:12] so they know what's going on.
[58:13] Because I think you could have
[58:15] had hours and hours of
[58:17] questions, people asking you
[58:18] questions tonight. So I think
[58:20] that would be good. You know,
[58:21] just a suggestion for you too,
[58:24] now that we're done with agenda
[58:26] number one and it has passed,
[58:28] if you stay for the rest of the
[58:30] meeting tonight, that's great.
[58:31] If you're going to get up and
[58:32] leave when you go out into the
[58:34] atrium out there, it's like a
[58:38] microphone. We can hear
[58:39] whispers out tre. So just
[58:40] from a common courtesy
[58:42] standpoint, if you could take
[58:44] conversations outside, it's not
[58:46] raining. I would appreciate it.
[58:48] We would appreciate it here
[58:49] because we do have more meeting
[58:51] to go tonight. And I do
[58:53] appreciate appreciate everybody
[58:55] showing up tight for this.
[58:56] Thank you. Yeah. So so this was
[59:06] the site. So we have to site
[59:08] plan. And like he didn't have
[59:11] none of its design. So you have
[59:14] to get it. That's what I
[59:23] thought. 30 years. Which is
[59:31] like, you know, I'm trying to
[59:34] question how people understand
[59:35] what you're asking this
[59:36] question. I thought it was good,
[59:38] but you can't. Yeah. And you
[59:39] didn't even download. Okay. He
[59:48] didn't really get it at all.
[59:49] All right.ose, would you
[59:51] please read agenda item number
[59:53] 1 or 2. Request for special
[59:55] land use for two drive through
[59:57] restaurants at 744th Street
[59:59] West. Section 25 will bring
[1:00:02] construction LEW properties,
[1:00:04] LLC. Noah, welcome,
[1:00:08] commissioners. I'll be
[1:00:10] presenting agenda item number
[1:00:11] two here. So this is a request
[1:00:14] for special use for two drive
[1:00:16] through restaurants located at
[1:00:18] 744th Street Southwest. Up on
[1:00:21] the screen here you can see
[1:00:22] that this parcel is zoned as B2.
[1:00:25] It's located near that south
[1:00:28] southeast corner of 44th Street
[1:00:29] and Clyde Park, right next to
[1:00:32] that southbound ramp for us.
[1:00:35] 131 and then on the right hand,
[1:00:37] top right hand corner right
[1:00:38] there, there's a quick aerial
[1:00:40] view to kind of show where the
[1:00:42] the area around this parcel as
[1:00:44] well. So currently the
[1:00:47] applicant is proposing a retail
[1:00:49] and restaurant use at this
[1:00:50] location. And drive through
[1:00:51] restaurants are permitted as a
[1:00:53] special land use within this B2
[1:00:55] district. The site does
[1:00:56] currently contain an existing
[1:00:57] Pizza Hut building that would
[1:00:59] be proposed to be demolished
[1:01:01] for site redevelopment. The
[1:01:03] applicantoes propose to
[1:01:04] construct two freestanding
[1:01:06] commercial buildings outlined
[1:01:07] there in the blue, with the
[1:01:09] Pizza Hut to occupy the east
[1:01:10] end of the larger building
[1:01:12] outlined in the red,nd then
[1:01:13] the remaining tenant spaces are
[1:01:14] yet to be determined. So right
[1:01:16] now it's just that Pizza Hut
[1:01:19] and then both of these
[1:01:20] buildings are proposed to have
[1:01:21] drive thrus with dedicated
[1:01:22] drive thru lanes as well. For
[1:01:27] special use approval. Staff did
[1:01:28] review the seven standards that
[1:01:30] are outlined in section 9507,
[1:01:33] and we did provide those
[1:01:34] detailed responses as part of
[1:01:35] the staff report. On the next
[1:01:37] slide. Here we'll go over some
[1:01:39] of some of those details right
[1:01:41] here. So the planning staff did
[1:01:43] determine that the proposed use
[1:01:44] is consistent with the zoning
[1:01:46] ordinance. And then all other
[1:01:47] applicle provisions ofhe
[1:01:49] ordinance have been met. City
[1:01:51] staff did reviews the prosed
[1:01:53] use, and the development is not
[1:01:54] expected to have any adverse
[1:01:56] impas on the neighboring
[1:01:58] property traffic, public health,
[1:01:59] safety and welfare for persons
[1:02:01] and property. The use is
[1:02:04] expected to reduce blight at
[1:02:06] the property property. As I
[1:02:08] mentioned, by demolishing the
[1:02:09] existing building and then
[1:02:11] constructing the two new
[1:02:12] commercial buildings with drive
[1:02:13] thrus to ultimately modernize
[1:02:15] the property. The typical
[1:02:17] traffic generated by US one, 31
[1:02:20] and 44th Street, along with the
[1:02:22] visibility of this property,
[1:02:24] makes this project economically
[1:02:25] feasible. And then lastly, the
[1:02:28] drive through resurants must
[1:02:29] provide a minimum of five
[1:02:30] acking spaces for each pickup
[1:02:33] window, and the proposed use
[1:02:35] would allow for those minimum
[1:02:36] stacking spaces without
[1:02:37] interfering with the on site
[1:02:39] circulation. And then looking
[1:02:41] quickly here at the site plan
[1:02:43] approval again, staff did
[1:02:45] review the 13 standards that
[1:02:46] were outlined in section 9505,
[1:02:49] and we detailed those responses
[1:02:51] again in the staff report on
[1:02:52] the next slide. Here we'll go
[1:02:54] over some of those standards
[1:02:55] that are currently met. So the
[1:02:57] site plan does contain an
[1:02:59] appropriate amount of detail to
[1:03:00] understand the proposed use and
[1:03:02] development. The ingress and
[1:03:04] egress have been determined.
[1:03:05] Adequate and emergency vehicle
[1:03:07] access has been provided and
[1:03:09] appropriate. An appropriate
[1:03:10] amount of pedestrian
[1:03:12] circulation was provided on the
[1:03:13] site plans. It actually
[1:03:15] connects the se to the
[1:03:15] existing sidewalk along 44th
[1:03:17] Street, and then there are no
[1:03:20] areas that would require any
[1:03:21] screening beyond the dumpster
[1:03:22] enclosure that's proposed in
[1:03:24] the southwest corner of this
[1:03:25] parcel. And then the site is
[1:03:27] currently served by public
[1:03:28] utilities and services. Looking
[1:03:31] at some of the conditions of
[1:03:33] approval, direct directional
[1:03:36] signage should be provided to
[1:03:37] ensure appropriate vehicular
[1:03:38] circulation around the site,
[1:03:40] and the applint must work
[1:03:41] with the planning staff to
[1:03:42] preserve trees to the extent
[1:03:44] practicable or place trees
[1:03:45] where feasible. On the proposed
[1:03:48] stp, islands should be
[1:03:50] replaced withaised curb
[1:03:51] islands as well, and then the
[1:03:53] parking spaces kind of going
[1:03:54] along with the last bullet
[1:03:55] point, the parking spaces that
[1:03:57] are located in front of the
[1:03:58] proposed eastern building
[1:04:00] should be reconfigured to
[1:04:01] provide a raised curb island
[1:04:04] between the Ada unloading area
[1:04:05] and the drive through lane,
[1:04:06] just to kind of provide some
[1:04:08] sort obuffer there for that
[1:04:09] Ada unloading area. And then if
[1:04:12] the owner is plaing on usingsepe
[1:04:15] buildings, a land division
[1:04:17] application would be would need
[1:04:18] to be submitted to the city.
[1:04:20] All buildings and fire codes
[1:04:22] must be met. And then the
[1:04:25] addition of a new fire hydrant
[1:04:27] near 44th Street in front of
[1:04:28] the blding would be required.
[1:04:31] The other option uld be to
[1:04:32] relocate the existing hydrant
[1:04:34] to the west side of th
[1:04:35] property, near that curb the,
[1:04:37] and then a traffic impact
[1:04:39] analysis would be required for
[1:04:41] this site as well. And then
[1:04:42] finally, additional details
[1:04:44] regarding the stormwater water
[1:04:46] and sanitary and other
[1:04:47] applicable engineering
[1:04:49] requirements must be provided
[1:04:50] as well. Looking quickly at the
[1:04:53] alignment with th master plan,
[1:04:55] this parcel is designated as
[1:04:57] Corridor Commercial, which does
[1:04:59] call for large scale commercial,
[1:05:00] retail and services. The
[1:05:04] proposed use includes the
[1:05:05] typically expected commercial
[1:05:07] uses for corridor, commercial
[1:05:09] and, as I mentioned previously,
[1:05:11] while incorporating connection
[1:05:12] to the existing sidewalk
[1:05:14] network along 44th Street.
[1:05:16] Ultimately, this use does meet
[1:05:17] the vision of the master plan.
[1:05:21] For staff recommendation. The
[1:05:22] development review team
[1:05:24] recommends the Planning
[1:05:25] Commission grant special use
[1:05:26] approval for the two drive
[1:05:27] through restaurants located at
[1:05:29] 744th Street and in a separate
[1:05:31] motion grant site. Plan
[1:05:32] approv subject to conditions
[1:05:33] one through four in the staff
[1:05:35] report. I'll be available for
[1:05:37] any questions. Thank you Noel.
[1:05:40] All right. At this time, I'll
[1:05:41] open up public comment on
[1:05:43] agenda item number two. I will
[1:05:46] close public comment agenda
[1:05:48] item number two. Would the
[1:05:50] developer owner like to come up
[1:05:52] your name, your address, ten
[1:05:54] minutes if you choose. My me
[1:05:56] is Matt Cole. I'm with Rosina
[1:05:58] Associates. I'm the engineer
[1:05:59] for the project here
[1:06:01] representing the owner. I
[1:06:05] appreciate the city staff and
[1:06:06] the review on this. We're
[1:06:09] generally in agreement with all
[1:06:11] the requested changes. Really
[1:06:13] just have two. I guess that
[1:06:15] we'd ask that you at least
[1:06:17] think about. One is the traffic
[1:06:20] study. We reached out to
[1:06:23] engineering to find out, you
[1:06:24] know, if ty wanted counts.
[1:06:26] What's going on? I mean, we
[1:06:27] understand that they're
[1:06:28] recommending approval. So I
[1:06:30] think everyone knows and we're
[1:06:31] not planning on changing the
[1:06:32] driveway. So I think we all
[1:06:34] know that I'm interpreting it
[1:06:35] to mean that it's a check mark
[1:06:37] that we have to put on the
[1:06:38] checklist. We did get a price
[1:06:40] that's $8,000. I don't think
[1:06:41] it's going to show anything or
[1:06:44] recommend any changes. In fact,
[1:06:47] I believe the engineer said,
[1:06:48] you know, look at the driveways
[1:06:52] for the neighboring property
[1:06:54] where we might be tying in, and
[1:06:56] that's where we wanted to count.
[1:06:57] So I don't see a lot of value
[1:06:59] there. And it's an $8,000 cost.
[1:07:01] So I'd say if we could waive
[1:07:03] that, that'd be great. If we
[1:07:04] got to do it, we'll do it. We
[1:07:06] know that it's not really going
[1:07:08] to recommend any changes. I did
[1:07:09] want to clarify one other item
[1:07:11] to the Pizza Hut. It is a
[1:07:14] pickup window. It's not a drive
[1:07:17] thru per se, but we understand
[1:07:19] that the zoning ordinance
[1:07:20] doesn't really clarify that
[1:07:22] difference. But I just want to
[1:07:23] let you know that no one's
[1:07:24] going to be placing orders
[1:07:25] there or waiting for the food.
[1:07:27] It's all stuff that's already
[1:07:28] been called in. And so we know
[1:07:30] with Pizza Hut, the most they
[1:07:32] ever see in traffic backed up
[1:07:34] there is two. But we did show
[1:07:35] the five to to meet the
[1:07:37] ordinance. But I wanted to let
[1:07:38] you know that it's not going to
[1:07:40] be that high of an intensity
[1:07:42] use for the Pizza Hut. So
[1:07:43] there's that part. And then
[1:07:44] lastly, when planning staff
[1:07:47] recommended the raise Curve
[1:07:48] Islands, norlly I'm all for
[1:07:50] curve Islands and especially
[1:07:52] when you can have landscaping
[1:07:54] in there. This site, because we
[1:07:56] are jamming a lot onto it. We
[1:07:58] didn't propose the Curve
[1:08:00] Islands just because we're not
[1:08:01] going to be able to put any
[1:08:02] vegetation in there, it's not
[1:08:04] going to live. So the thought
[1:08:05] was, well, we just go with
[1:08:07] striped islands. It's easier to
[1:08:08] snowplow. It's not a trip
[1:08:10] hazard for anyonealking.
[1:08:12] Again. If you say you got to
[1:08:14] have them, we can put them in.
[1:08:15] The thought is we probably put
[1:08:17] in some four inch rule to curb
[1:08:19] just for it being a little bit
[1:08:20] more manageable. But we think
[1:08:22] in this situation, we'd
[1:08:24] recommend just having straight
[1:08:26] pavement. Again, if it was a
[1:08:29] bigger site, we'd have those
[1:08:30] islands, we'd have some
[1:08:31] vegetation in there, but
[1:08:33] without having the vegetation,
[1:08:34] we don't really see a lot of
[1:08:36] value to having the curve
[1:08:37] islands. So that's really all I
[1:08:39] have.nd I'm here to answer
[1:08:41] any questions that you might
[1:08:43] have for me. Thank you. Thank
[1:08:45] you. All right. Commissioners
[1:08:46] in front of us for agenda item
[1:08:48] number two. We have two motions,
[1:08:49] one to grant site plan motion
[1:08:51] to grant special use approval
[1:08:53] for the two drive through
[1:08:54] restaurants at 744th Street
[1:08:56] Southwest. Looking for motion
[1:08:57] from Weller. Second by Paul.
[1:09:01] Questions, comments or concerns?
[1:09:05] Seeing color. Can I make part
[1:09:07] of my motion to waive the. The
[1:09:10] two items that he talked about,
[1:09:12] the traffic study and the. Do
[1:09:15] stripe, curb and curb. Were
[1:09:17] those in the plan to be done?
[1:09:21] Are those subject. Are those
[1:09:23] conditions one through four?
[1:09:24] Yeah, yeah. Yes. I would make a
[1:09:26] motion to waive them two items.
[1:09:28] That's proper to do. Staff has
[1:09:34] a real concern with it. So
[1:09:37] that's a motion to amend the
[1:09:39] motion to amend the approval.
[1:09:41] The approval condition. Yes the
[1:09:46] conditn numbers. I don'tave
[1:09:47] that in front. I'll support
[1:09:48] that. Paul. Still second
[1:09:53] conditions there. Yeah. Do you
[1:09:55] have. Yeah. The actual printout
[1:09:57] of the of the motion the
[1:09:59] conditions one through four
[1:10:00] from the report. We do not it
[1:10:02] is in the agenda I don't think.
[1:10:07] Yeah I did not I do not have a
[1:10:09] printed copy. I have it, I have
[1:10:11] it here. I was you have it.
[1:10:12] Maybe I left my I have it as
[1:10:14] well. Print out it. Well
[1:10:17] discussion right as part of the
[1:10:18] motion. Yeah. Discussion. I
[1:10:21] would say. I think even though
[1:10:23] it's onerous, I'd rather leave
[1:10:26] that to our engineering
[1:10:28] dertment and our staff to, to
[1:10:29] coordinate that and not remove
[1:10:30] it ourselves just because we
[1:10:32] won't. You're making a motion.
[1:10:35] I'm discussing discussing Mr.
[1:10:38] Hall. Wendy. Yeah. I just have
[1:10:42] a comment on that as well. I am
[1:10:47] I would prefer to see the Curb
[1:10:50] Islands rather than the striped
[1:10:53] islands, primarily for safety
[1:10:57] for the a d, a pedestrian, a d
[1:11:01] a customers, as well as to more
[1:11:06] clearly delineate traffic flow
[1:11:09] directions between those two
[1:11:11] drive through areas. Any other
[1:11:17] questions? I agree with Wendy.
[1:11:19] I think the islands should be
[1:11:21] curved and a four inch road
[1:11:22] curb would be fine, but that's
[1:11:25] better than a painted line that
[1:11:27] wears off. Okay, so I got a
[1:11:31] little confused here. I think
[1:11:33] we lve it as it is and let
[1:11:35] staff take care of it. So so.
[1:11:47] Nobody happens to have that.
[1:11:48] Why not? I'm pulling it up
[1:11:50] right now. Mr. chairman, I
[1:11:53] think I'd also say that I
[1:11:54] wouldn't mind if the conditions,
[1:11:56] whener present, were part of
[1:11:57] this part of the slide. They
[1:12:00] don't have to be in the motion.
[1:12:02] That was just right there.
[1:12:05] We're happy to in the future,
[1:12:07] you want printed copies of
[1:12:08] the staff report, we can
[1:12:09] provide that for future
[1:12:11] meetings. I didn't bring it
[1:12:14] tonight. So let me pull it up
[1:12:16] because I don't have I thought
[1:12:17] I did and I don't. Okay, I've
[1:12:19] got 103 pages here. Hold on.
[1:12:21] That's why I didn't bring it up.
[1:12:27] Colton. You know exactly what
[1:12:28] page it's on right in here. 103
[1:12:31] pages you sent us. Where are we
[1:12:36] at here? I guess while they're
[1:12:38] looking at that, I can just
[1:12:40] give you my comment, I mean,
[1:12:41] this. Site existing building
[1:12:43] about the same size footprint,
[1:12:45] but I do think it's going to
[1:12:47] get tight with the curbs. And I
[1:12:48] see them. So. So I didn't mean
[1:12:51] to interrupt you. So the roll
[1:12:52] curve for the handicap, that is
[1:12:56] one of the items correct. Yeah.
[1:13:01] I have it here Mr. Chairman.
[1:13:05] Condition one is applicant. Oh
[1:13:08] there you go. You found it.
[1:13:09] Ner mind. Okay. It's on our
[1:13:12] screens. Right? Yeah. So as
[1:13:17] stated it's going to be work
[1:13:18] with Wyoming Engineeri Office.
[1:13:20] Right. So I think we leave
[1:13:22] moon as is and allow the you
[1:13:24] know, maybe we can suggest to
[1:13:25] or, or make comments of that.
[1:13:27] This is noted as our approval,
[1:13:29] but it's still something that
[1:13:30] you're going to have to work
[1:13:32] through with the engineer
[1:13:33] because it's, they're the ones
[1:13:34] that care about the traffic
[1:13:35] more than us and can regulate
[1:13:37] the traffic more than us. Right.
[1:13:49] But if to be clear, Mr.
[1:13:51] Chairman, if we reject the
[1:13:55] amendment, then this language
[1:13:57] is controlling and the staff
[1:13:59] cannot just unilaterally waive
[1:14:00] the traffic. Study requirement.
[1:14:03] Correct? That is correct. We
[1:14:04] would have to make the decision
[1:14:06] here. Mr. chairman, if I could
[1:14:09] chime in, please do. Traffic
[1:14:12] impact analysis is a code
[1:14:14] requirement, and we actually do
[1:14:17] have a specific criteria for
[1:14:19] waiving or making modifications
[1:14:20] to that requirement that I
[1:14:22] think the Planning Commission
[1:14:23] would need to consider for that
[1:14:24] specific element. But we're
[1:14:27] happy to work with you on that.
[1:14:28] If if you want to further
[1:14:29] discuss. So a new mion with
[1:14:38] all of the. With conditions one
[1:14:41] through four? Well, I think we
[1:14:44] need to either vote on this
[1:14:46] existing motion or the motion
[1:14:49] needs to be withdrawn. Yeah. So.
[1:14:55] Well, there was a talk about
[1:14:57] maybe a lower or. Roger being
[1:15:00] an engineer, a road curb, but I
[1:15:02] think that one curb their
[1:15:03] access drive is going to be
[1:15:05] you're going to be popular all
[1:15:06] the time. You could be hitting
[1:15:08] a lot of wheels. You could be
[1:15:09] knocked in the head off the
[1:15:11] curb with the snowplows. I just
[1:15:12] think it's kind of a tight
[1:15:14] sight to to do that. So that
[1:15:15] was my concern there. But the
[1:15:17] traffic study, I think it's for
[1:15:18] the access road going to the
[1:15:20] Fox Motors back there. So I
[1:15:22] don't again, they were asking
[1:15:24] that we waive them to. So I was
[1:15:26] hoping. But if if we can't
[1:15:28] waive it, then we'll let staff.
[1:15:31] If staff can't waive it without
[1:15:32] a whole big process, I just I
[1:15:36] could go with a road curb. I
[1:15:38] just think the or the, the
[1:15:40] painted curb, one or the other.
[1:15:41] But the tall curbs, this is
[1:15:44] where they're going to be,
[1:15:47] where you're going to be
[1:15:48] hitting that one, coming in
[1:15:49] there with garbage trucks and
[1:15:50] stuff. It's going to be, I just
[1:15:52] think you're going to be
[1:15:53] popping the curb all day long.
[1:15:55] So, so blindside when they pull
[1:15:56] out, I just think you're going
[1:15:58] to bend your wheels. I so
[1:16:00] that's all I was like, Mr.
[1:16:01] Weller, would you please
[1:16:03] restate your. Yeah. Your motio
[1:16:05] agn. Well, am I allowed to
[1:16:07] just the to drop. AM I allowed
[1:16:10] to do the traffic drop. Waive
[1:16:12] the traffic study. Yes or no?
[1:16:16] Can you waive the traffic study,
[1:16:18] the traffic impact analysis
[1:16:19] required by code. The only way
[1:16:21] you can waive it or modify is
[1:16:23] through specific criteria. But
[1:16:24] I believe you were also talking
[1:16:25] about and please correct me if
[1:16:27] I'm the raised curbs. The
[1:16:29] raised curb was that is a
[1:16:31] different conditionhat was
[1:16:33] provided by our department.
[1:16:35] Okay. So if you want to discuss
[1:16:36] that condition, that that is
[1:16:39] not referring to the same code
[1:16:40] section that I'm referring to.
[1:16:42] Okay. I wld make a motion to
[1:16:48] waive the traffic study and let
[1:16:50] staff work with, with the
[1:16:53] petitioner on a. A curb curb
[1:16:59] options. That's what I think.
[1:17:01] Is that easy one. Is that
[1:17:03] easier for everybody? They
[1:17:04] can't build the site without
[1:17:06] the traffic study. Yeah, they
[1:17:08] gotta have the traffic traffic,
[1:17:10] have the traffic study. Okay.
[1:17:11] Then we'll just drive. Then
[1:17:12] we're going to drop the drop
[1:17:14] the motion for the. So you're
[1:17:15] going to so you withdraw. Yeah.
[1:17:17] Withdraw. You draw. You're okay,
[1:17:19] Mr. Chairman, if I might, once
[1:17:21] the motion is made and second,
[1:17:22] it belongs to the body, I would
[1:17:24] move to amend the motion which
[1:17:27] I seconded, to remove the
[1:17:29] traffic study component from
[1:17:30] his motion. But leave the
[1:17:32] language that condition number.
[1:17:35] I'm sorry. Help me with the
[1:17:37] condition number. I think it's
[1:17:38] condition number four D that
[1:17:42] four D be modified to say. Mr.
[1:17:44] Well, I don't want to speak for
[1:17:46] you, but what was it you were
[1:17:48] trying to say there that they
[1:17:49] would be able to work with the
[1:17:51] staff to come up with an
[1:17:52] acceptable solution, a painted
[1:17:53] curbs or a or a curb curb? A as
[1:17:57] resolved by the staff and the
[1:17:58] developer. That was that's the
[1:17:59] word. So I would amend the
[1:18:02] amended motion to say that I
[1:18:04] like that. Do you amend the
[1:18:05] amended motion to say that I'm
[1:18:09] not making a motion again? Yeah,
[1:18:12] that's what commissioners do.
[1:18:13] You understand what's going on?
[1:18:15] Yes, y. Colton. Excuse me. If
[1:18:18] I could jump in really quickly,
[1:18:19] please do. I just like to
[1:18:21] clarify that that that
[1:18:23] amendment would read and we
[1:18:25] just need some specific
[1:18:26] language instead of the
[1:18:28] proposed stripe island shall be
[1:18:30] replaced with raised curb
[1:18:31] islands. The proposed. This is
[1:18:33] what would be proposed. The
[1:18:34] proposedtripe island shall be
[1:18:35] replaced with curbs either
[1:18:37] painted or rolled curbs correct.
[1:18:39] According to. After meeting
[1:18:41] with staff or correct
[1:18:43] sufficient to staff's
[1:18:44] satisfaction. Correct. Great.
[1:18:47] Any other comments or concerns?
[1:18:51] Oh no. No no. Nope. You had
[1:18:57] your time. Thank you. Roll call
[1:19:01] the vote. Commissioner.
[1:19:04] Gilreath. Watts. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[1:19:08] Yes. Randall. Yes. Yes. Weller.
[1:19:12] Yes. Zapata. Yes. Yes. Motion
[1:19:15] one passes. Motion two is to
[1:19:17] grant site plan approval for
[1:19:18] the project at 744th Street,
[1:19:21] subject to conditions one
[1:19:22] through four. Questions,
[1:19:25] comments or concerns? Roll.
[1:19:28] Call the vote, Commissioner
[1:19:30] Gilbreath. Oh, wait a minute,
[1:19:31] wait a minute. I need a motion.
[1:19:33] Yes, motion by Roger. Second by
[1:19:37] Robert. If I could jump in one
[1:19:41] more time, I apologize. Please
[1:19:43] do. Technically, the four
[1:19:45] conditions that you're
[1:19:45] approving are part of site plan
[1:19:47] approval, not special use
[1:19:48] approval. Yeah, okay. I said
[1:19:51] site plan, didn't I? Yes, but
[1:19:53] you just approved special use
[1:19:56] approval according to
[1:19:58] conditions, right? I'm on. I'm
[1:20:00] on the second motion. Right. We
[1:20:03] got ahead of ourselves. Yeah we
[1:20:04] did. We should have amended the
[1:20:06] second motion, but instead we
[1:20:07] amended the first motion. But
[1:20:08] we didn't need to amend. And it
[1:20:10] doesn't matter, because all we
[1:20:11] did was accept the amendment to
[1:20:13] the amendment. So we didn't
[1:20:14] actually take any final action.
[1:20:15] Yeah. That's it. Wendy. I
[1:20:21] believe at this time we need a
[1:20:23] site plan, a motion for site
[1:20:25] plan approval subject to
[1:20:28] conditions one through four,
[1:20:30] with any shift in for D. So
[1:20:39] what we could do is we could
[1:20:41] table. Mr. chairman, we could
[1:20:43] ble or we could table. Set
[1:20:45] aside. Sorry. We can set aside.
[1:20:47] We could just take a motion to
[1:20:49] grant the special use Kalene
[1:20:50] because we don't have that yet.
[1:20:52] Do that and then come back to
[1:20:53] the amended motion. We have on
[1:20:55] the site plan approval, whichwo.
[1:21:01] Yes, yes, yes. So you need to
[1:21:05] motion to site plan approval,
[1:21:10] special, special, scial use
[1:21:12] motion to motion to S. Oh you
[1:21:16] support all in. All call the
[1:21:22] vote Commissioner Geary. Yes.
[1:21:27] Yes. Yes. Laplaca. Yes. Randall.
[1:21:30] Yes. Yes. Weller. Yes. Zapata.
[1:21:34] Yes. Yes. Motion passe Sorry,
[1:21:36] I stepped out on the porch for
[1:21:38] a little while, so I'm back now.
[1:21:41] We need our site plans. So now
[1:21:43] I get that. Okay, well, we have
[1:21:45] an amended site plan approval
[1:21:47] motion. All we did was approve
[1:21:48] the amendment to the amendment.
[1:21:50] So we now have an amended site
[1:21:52] plan approval still before the
[1:21:53] body that needs to be approved.
[1:21:54] Yep. So the amended site plan
[1:21:58] need a motion motion by Paul.
[1:22:02] Second by Sherri. Questions,
[1:22:06] comments or concerns? Roll call
[1:22:09] vote. Commissioner Geary Watts.
[1:22:11] Yes. Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Randall.
[1:22:16] Yes. Yes. Weller. Yes. Zapata.
[1:22:19] Yes. Yes. Motion passes. Okay.
[1:22:32] Would you please read agenda
[1:22:33] item number three? Thank you.
[1:22:40] So we have set aside learning
[1:22:42] and growth for a few months
[1:22:45] because we had some special
[1:22:47] circumstances, a special
[1:22:49] meeting, some lengthy agendas.
[1:22:53] I'm happy to have learning and
[1:22:55] growth back on our agenda today.
[1:22:57] One of the requests in our list
[1:23:00] of subjects was to have an
[1:23:01] update from public safety. So
[1:23:04] we have with us tonight Chief
[1:23:07] Snyder and Captain Weiler, and
[1:23:09] they're going to share a
[1:23:10] presentation for us this
[1:23:11] evening. Good evening everybody.
[1:23:14] Interesting meeting so far. So
[1:23:17] we run a tight ship. I guess we
[1:23:20] do run a. Colton asked us to
[1:23:23] pop in today and talk a little
[1:23:25] bit about a little bit about
[1:23:26] the police department. Excuse
[1:23:28] me. So we thought, you know,
[1:23:31] what better to discuss tonight
[1:23:32] than flat camas, automated
[1:23:34] license plate readers, if you
[1:23:35] guys have been on social media
[1:23:37] latelyr watch the news, it's
[1:23:39] an extrely hot topic we
[1:23:41] presented to the council at the
[1:23:42] work session yesterday evening,
[1:23:46] and a lot of it was an active
[1:23:48] meeting, put it that way. So we
[1:23:50] just thoug maybe you'd all
[1:23:51] find it interesti. What we're
[1:23:52] going to abbreviate it a little
[1:23:54] bit. I think the presentation
[1:23:55] we did for council was about a
[1:23:57] half hour. And for the sake of
[1:23:58] time and, you know, lack of an
[1:24:00] audience really, we would just
[1:24:02] kind of give you a brief
[1:24:03] overview of it. From our
[1:24:04] standpoint. I'm an advocate of
[1:24:05] it. Are pretty much every local
[1:24:08] chief sheriff in the area is
[1:24:11] utilizing it and is in favor of
[1:24:12] it, but certainly strictly for
[1:24:14] law enforcement purposes,
[1:24:16] strictly for law enforcement
[1:24:17] purposes. It's been an amazing
[1:24:20] tool. My captain, police
[1:24:23] services captain Eric Weiler,
[1:24:24] is our resident expert in the
[1:24:27] in this area. We've had the
[1:24:29] cameras since 22, and he's been
[1:24:33] kind of involved in that
[1:24:35] project since then. And is it
[1:24:37] our our, our department
[1:24:39] administrator? So I will leave
[1:24:41] it up to him to kind of discuss
[1:24:43] the nuts and bolts of it. And
[1:24:45] if you have questions durg or
[1:24:47] at the end, please feel free to
[1:24:48] ask. And it's good seeing you
[1:24:50] all. Thank you, thank you,
[1:24:51] thank you, thank you for your
[1:24:53] service. Thank you. Thanks,
[1:24:54] chief. So I know we don't often
[1:24:55] get an opportunity to speak
[1:24:57] with this commission. So we
[1:24:58] really thank you for the
[1:24:59] invitation to be here tonight.
[1:25:01] I think it's great that we can
[1:25:02] just come and have a chat with
[1:25:04] you. Like chief said, you know,
[1:25:05] automatic license plate readers
[1:25:06] really have been a big concern
[1:25:08] lately, not only in our
[1:25:09] community but around the
[1:25:10] country. So just to give you a
[1:25:12] quick, quick brief tonight,
[1:25:13] because I know you guys have
[1:25:14] had a long night already and
[1:25:16] you guys probably ready to go
[1:25:17] home. So what I just want to
[1:25:19] talk about is some of the
[1:25:21] technology that we use, how
[1:25:22] it's used, how it works, our
[1:25:23] policies that we he in place
[1:25:25] for proper use of those systems.
[1:25:27] And then just kind of give you
[1:25:28] maybe some of the success
[1:25:29] stories that we've had in about
[1:25:31] the four and a half years that
[1:25:33] we've used the cameras. So
[1:25:34] chief mentioned we have Alpr
[1:25:36] cameras. We have 42 fixed
[1:25:38] cameras throughout the city.
[1:25:40] Now, that's not 42 dferent
[1:25:42] locations because it really it
[1:25:43] takes two cameras to capture
[1:25:45] each direction of a roadway,
[1:25:47] right? So there's about 20
[1:25:48] locations throughout the city
[1:25:50] that we have fixed cameras. We
[1:25:51] also have two portable cameras
[1:25:53] that we can put up at large
[1:25:54] ents. So like we have Metro
[1:25:56] cruise, Carnival anywhere where
[1:25:58] there's anywhere where there's
[1:25:59] large gatherings that we have a
[1:26:01] public safety concern, we can
[1:26:02] kind of put those portable
[1:26:04] cameras up. We also have Alpr
[1:26:06] technology through axon, which
[1:26:08] is integrated into the dash
[1:26:09] cameras of our patrol cars. So
[1:26:11] when officers are driving
[1:26:12] around, if a car is in front of
[1:26:14] them, it's reading those
[1:26:15] license plates that are in
[1:26:16] front of them as well. So one
[1:26:19] thing like I brought up with
[1:26:21] council last night too is, you
[1:26:22] know, flock is a tech company.
[1:26:24] They, you know, like a lot of
[1:26:25] tech companies, they started
[1:26:26] out with automated license
[1:26:28] plate readers, but they've
[1:26:29] expanded into many markets. So
[1:26:31] a lo of things you see on
[1:26:32] social media, they talk about
[1:26:33] these cameras can record audio
[1:26:35] and video and, you know, all
[1:26:36] these different things. Flock
[1:26:39] does have security, video
[1:26:40] cameras, security video
[1:26:42] trailers, gunshot detection
[1:26:44] devices, which have microphones
[1:26:45] that are out in the public. We
[1:26:47] don't have any of that
[1:26:48] technology in the city of
[1:26:49] Wyoming. The only thing that we
[1:26:51] use from flock is that
[1:26:52] automated license plateeader.
[1:26:53] And really that is just a
[1:26:55] digital camera kind of motion
[1:26:57] sensor on it. So a car drives
[1:26:59] by it. It takes a quick digital
[1:27:00] picture. So the only thing that
[1:27:02] it captures is just a still
[1:27:04] image as the vehicle passes it.
[1:27:07] So the way the system works,
[1:27:08] either the car will pass that
[1:27:10] fixed camera, or it will bin
[1:27:12] front of one of our patrol cars
[1:27:13] that have the mobile cameras in
[1:27:15] them. Again, it'll snap that
[1:27:16] picture of it. What it's
[1:27:18] looking at is the back of a
[1:27:20] vehicle. So as the car passes,
[1:27:21] it takes a picture of the back
[1:27:23] of the vehicle. The camera will
[1:27:25] read the alphanumerics on the
[1:27:26] plate, so the letters and
[1:27:28] numbers that are on there, it
[1:27:29] will then do a system check of
[1:27:31] those, which it compares that
[1:27:32] to list that is available from
[1:27:34] the National Crime Information
[1:27:36] Center or the state's law
[1:27:38] enforcement database, which is
[1:27:39] called Lee. An important
[1:27:41] distinction here is that flock
[1:27:43] does not run any personal
[1:27:45] information through any of
[1:27:46] those databases. It's simply a
[1:27:48] list that has a license plate
[1:27:50] number, a vehicle description,
[1:27:52] and a reason why this vehicle
[1:27:53] is wanted for law enforcement
[1:27:55] investigation. There's no names,
[1:27:57] there's no addresses, date of
[1:27:58] birth, phone numbers, none of
[1:28:00] that information is stored in
[1:28:01] the database. So there's no
[1:28:04] interface for flock to talk to
[1:28:06] to anything else. The only
[1:28:07] thing that gets kept in flock
[1:28:08] is simply that picture of the
[1:28:11] car. So if it reads that,ou
[1:28:14] know to that list, it compares
[1:28:15] it to that list. If there's a
[1:28:16] vehicle on that list that's
[1:28:18] wanted either a wanted person,
[1:28:19] a missing person, an Amber
[1:28:21] alert, anything like that. If
[1:28:23] it matches anything on that
[1:28:25] list, it putout what's called
[1:28:27] the Hot List alert. So any
[1:28:28] officers logged into it, it'll
[1:28:30] go out. Officers can then start
[1:28:32] to get to that area of where
[1:28:33] that camera is and start
[1:28:35] looking for that car. If it's
[1:28:37] not on that list, it just gets
[1:28:38] stored in a database and it's
[1:28:40] stored in that database for 30
[1:28:41] days for historical searches
[1:28:43] later. So again, I kind of
[1:28:45] mentioned it, but what's
[1:28:46] detected by these cameras, the
[1:28:48] only thing detected by these
[1:28:49] cameras is the license plate,
[1:28:51] the vehicle characteristics,
[1:28:53] the location of the camera, and
[1:28:55] the date and time of where that
[1:28:56] picture was taken, and just an
[1:28:58] aggregate traffic count data.
[1:28:59] So how many cars have passed
[1:29:01] this camera in this amount of
[1:29:03] time? It's not individualized
[1:29:04] any vehicle. It's just a raw
[1:29:06] ta count. So again what's not
[1:29:08] detected by this. There's no
[1:29:09] personally identifiable
[1:29:11] information. There's no speed.
[1:29:12] There's no aud, no video, no
[1:29:14] facial recognition or cell
[1:29:16] phone tracking. It generally
[1:29:17] doesn't capture race, gender,
[1:29:19] or the personal identity of
[1:29:20] cars. An exception to that may
[1:29:22] be, say, a convertible passes
[1:29:24] or a Jeep Wrangler that doesn
[1:29:26] have a top on it. Could the
[1:29:27] system then potentially see the
[1:29:29] race and gender of a person
[1:29:30] driving the car? Yes it could,
[1:29:32] but those are not searchable
[1:29:33] features in the system. There's
[1:29:36] nowhere to put it in, you know,
[1:29:38] a race or gender of a person to
[1:29:40] do a search. It also doesn't
[1:29:41] generally catch private
[1:29:42] property. So none of our
[1:29:44] cameras are pointed at property
[1:29:46] owned that are privately.
[1:29:48] They're all in positions
[1:29:49] throughout the city that theyarc
[1:29:53] roadways to only capture
[1:29:54] vehicles that are traveling on
[1:29:55] public roadways. So this is
[1:29:59] just a screenshot of what our
[1:30:01] officers see. And this is the
[1:30:02] information that is stored in
[1:30:03] the database. So there's a
[1:30:04] close up of the license plate
[1:30:06] general overview of the vehicle
[1:30:08] that as it passed the camera
[1:30:10] and again that location of
[1:30:11] where it was taken. So the city
[1:30:13] of Wyoming does own all of the
[1:30:15] data that is captured by these
[1:30:17] alpr networks. And it's oy
[1:30:19] stored on that network for 30
[1:30:21] days. After 30 days, it's hard
[1:30:22] deleted, which means we can't
[1:30:23] get it flat, can't get it. It's
[1:30:26] pretty much gone. So getting
[1:30:29] into our policy, we have a very
[1:30:32] extensive policy because we
[1:30:33] feel that it's very important
[1:30:35] that our systems are being used
[1:30:36] properly. Some of the purposes
[1:30:38] of our policy is to ensure that
[1:30:40] the system use respects
[1:30:42] individuals constitutional and
[1:30:43] statutory rights, including
[1:30:45] privacy, freedom of speech and
[1:30:47] association, freedom of
[1:30:48] religion and equal protection.
[1:30:50] It's also to provide governmt
[1:30:52] accountability, deter criminal
[1:30:53] behavior and, when appropriate,
[1:30:55] assist in criminal
[1:30:56] investigations and prosecutions
[1:30:57] and locate missing persons
[1:31:00] purpose. It also is to enhance
[1:31:01] the department's efficiency and
[1:31:03] effectiveness in providing
[1:31:03] officer and community safety.
[1:31:06] So again, since it's pretty
[1:31:07] extensive policy, we just
[1:31:08] pulled out some of the
[1:31:09] highlights for you out of it.
[1:31:13] Only the the Alpr system can
[1:31:15] only be used for conducting the
[1:31:16] department's official business
[1:31:18] and restricted to its public
[1:31:19] safety related mission.
[1:31:21] Immigration and reproductive
[1:31:22] health searches are prohibited
[1:31:23] and restricted from search
[1:31:25] entry. So if you put in or try
[1:31:27] to do a search for immigration
[1:31:28] or reproductive health, the
[1:31:29] system doesn't even allow you
[1:31:30] to conduct that search.
[1:31:33] Officers are prohibited from
[1:31:34] taking any enforcement action
[1:31:36] based solely on an Alpr alert.
[1:31:38] All information has to be
[1:31:39] verified. So what that means is
[1:31:41] that that camera reads a
[1:31:42] license plate as a BC1234. The
[1:31:45] officer gets behind the car,
[1:31:47] they have to verify. The plate
[1:31:48] on that car is a BC1234 before
[1:31:51] they can stop it. They also
[1:31:53] have to check either that Leon
[1:31:54] or NCIC to make sure that this
[1:31:56] vehicle is still wanted for any
[1:31:58] law enforcement purpose, before
[1:31:59] they can initiate that activity.
[1:32:01] Before any historical searches
[1:32:03] can be done of this system,
[1:32:04] officers must enter the offense,
[1:32:06] type a case number and a reason
[1:32:08] for the search. Without those,
[1:32:09] the search can't happen. This
[1:32:11] allows, you know, proper
[1:32:12] auditing of the system to make
[1:32:13] sure that they're being used
[1:32:15] for legitimate law enforcement
[1:32:16] purposes. In the Alpr system is
[1:32:19] considered criminal justice
[1:32:21] information, which is protected
[1:32:22] by federal law. So any
[1:32:24] violations of using this system,
[1:32:26] officers could be charged
[1:32:28] federally under those statutes.
[1:32:32] Our policy also lists a lot of
[1:32:34] prohibited uses recording
[1:32:35] license plates that are not
[1:32:36] exposed to public view, using
[1:32:38] the system to harass or
[1:32:40] intimidate any individual or
[1:32:41] grp using the system, or
[1:32:44] associated hotlist because of a
[1:32:45] person's or group's race,
[1:32:46] gender, religion, political
[1:32:48] affiliation, nationality,
[1:32:50] ethnicity, sexual orientation,
[1:32:51] disability, or other
[1:32:53] classification protected by law
[1:32:55] also prohibits using the Alpr
[1:32:56] system or associated hotlist or
[1:32:58] any personal purpo, or using
[1:33:00] the system or associated
[1:33:02] hotlist for the purpose of
[1:33:03] identifying any individual or
[1:33:04] group engaged in the exercise
[1:33:06] of First Amendment rights,
[1:33:08] unless used only for the
[1:33:09] protection of those persons.
[1:33:10] What that means is, if there's
[1:33:11] a lawful protest that's going
[1:33:13] on, counter protesters show up,
[1:33:15] they start harassing, they they
[1:33:16] start violating the law trying
[1:33:19] to intimidate those people who
[1:33:20] are lawfully protesting. We
[1:33:21] could use the alpr for those
[1:33:23] people who are violating the
[1:33:24] law. We also have
[1:33:27] accountability for misuse. Like
[1:33:29] the chief had mentioned last
[1:33:30] night in our in the City
[1:33:31] Council meeting, any misuse of
[1:33:34] our system will be dealt with
[1:33:35] swiftly and decisively. So we
[1:33:37] won't tolerate any of that. So
[1:33:39] our systems and our equipment
[1:33:41] and databases are authorized
[1:33:42] for public safety purpose only.
[1:33:44] And in accordance with the
[1:33:46] policy, any individuals
[1:33:47] misusing it and the associated
[1:33:50] databases will be subject to
[1:33:51] local, state and federal
[1:33:52] penalties, including criminal
[1:33:54] prosecution, civil liability
[1:33:55] and or administrative sanctions
[1:33:57] up to and including termination.
[1:34:00] Again, I kind of mentioned
[1:34:01] auditing earlier. The system
[1:34:03] has a very robust audit system
[1:34:05] to it. All searches are lged
[1:34:08] indefinitely. So like I said,
[1:34:09] we started using these cameras
[1:34:10] back in 2022. I can go back and
[1:34:13] audit logs back to 2022 to see
[1:34:14] what the officers were doing.
[1:34:16] And those audits are conducted
[1:34:17] by me as the Police Services
[1:34:19] Bureau captain. I conduct those
[1:34:20] audits. A few months ago,
[1:34:22] Pflock introduced what they
[1:34:23] call an audit assistant, which
[1:34:24] has helped immensely. What this
[1:34:27] does, it kind of looks for
[1:34:28] anomalies in searches, and then
[1:34:30] it will alert me if there's any
[1:34:32] unusual searcs that happen,
[1:34:34] such as an officer running a
[1:34:36] single plate multiple times or
[1:34:39] running a plate without or
[1:34:40] using different case numbers or
[1:34:43] running it in a narrow time
[1:34:44] frame. So it has all these
[1:34:46] different things that it looks
[1:34:47] for that could potentially be
[1:34:49] misuse that alerts me. I have
[1:34:51] the opportunity to go in and
[1:34:52] look at it verify that, yes,
[1:34:53] this was used for a criminal
[1:34:56] justice investigative purpose.
[1:34:58] To date, we have not had any
[1:35:01] misuses of our Alpr network
[1:35:03] identified during our audits,
[1:35:04] and we've not had any citiz
[1:35:06] complaints of alpr misuse by
[1:35:08] any of our officers. So just a
[1:35:11] quick overview of some of the
[1:35:13] success cases that we've had
[1:35:14] since having these cameras.
[1:35:16] About two months ago, we had a
[1:35:17] homicide where an 82 year old
[1:35:19] fele was found dead on her
[1:35:21] porch, and her vehicle was
[1:35:23] stolen within four hours. That
[1:35:24] vehicle and that suspect was
[1:35:25] capted out of state. Because
[1:35:27] of Alpr technology. We were
[1:35:29] able to call the agency down
[1:35:30] there. They located the vehicle,
[1:35:32] got in pursuit, tookim into
[1:35:34] custody. We had a carjacking in
[1:35:37] 2024 where a father was sitting
[1:35:38] in a car with his three year
[1:35:40] old out of business. He got
[1:35:41] pulled out of the car,
[1:35:43] violently assaulted. They stole
[1:35:44] the car, not realizing the
[1:35:45] ree year old was in the back
[1:35:47] seat. After pushing the three
[1:35:48] year old out onto Division
[1:35:49] Avenue. They then took off and
[1:35:51] we were able to locate that car,
[1:35:52] the suspects and all, and
[1:35:54] another car that was associated
[1:35:55] with it in Chicago. In less
[1:35:57] than 24 hours, we had an arson
[1:36:00] investigation where a car was
[1:36:02] parked at a local business. A
[1:36:04] car was set on fire through
[1:36:05] Alpr. We wereble to determine
[1:36:07] that was an ex-boyfriend that
[1:36:09] started that car on fire, and
[1:36:11] he's been charged with that.
[1:36:14] Just last month, we had two
[1:36:15] armed robberies within a couple
[1:36:16] hours or subject that was armed
[1:36:18] with a handgun. Using the Alpr,
[1:36:20] we were able to identify the
[1:36:22] suspect as vehicle, and he was
[1:36:24] taken into custody and charged
[1:36:25] with several felonies. In 2025,
[1:36:27] we had a shooting at an
[1:36:28] apartment complex where a
[1:36:30] victim was shot in the parking
[1:36:31] lot. The Alpr helped us
[1:36:33] identify auspect, a suspect
[1:36:35] vehicle, and during a search of
[1:36:36] that suspect's apartment, we
[1:36:39] located 1.1kg of heroin and
[1:36:41] carfentanil, which the lab had
[1:36:43] told us there was enough
[1:36:44] carfentanyl there to probably
[1:36:45] kill everybody in the state of
[1:36:47] Michigan. That was in there. In
[1:36:50] 2025, our Metro Pattern Crime
[1:36:51] team was investigating a series
[1:36:53] of larceny of semi tires. That
[1:36:55] was happening really in the
[1:36:56] three county area. There's
[1:36:57] about $100,000 worth of semi
[1:36:59] tires that were stole through
[1:37:01] the Alpr. We were able to
[1:37:03] charge several people with a
[1:37:04] continued criminal enterprise,
[1:37:06] and we're able to recover about
[1:37:08] $35,000 worth of those tires.
[1:37:10] So since we've had these
[1:37:12] cameras inlace, our motor
[1:37:13] vehicle thefts been down about
[1:37:15] is down 60% compared to what it
[1:37:17] was five years ago before the
[1:37:19] cameras, and 23% of the
[1:37:21] vehicles slen in Wyoming are
[1:37:22] recovered in Wyoming by the
[1:37:25] Alpr system. So again, this has
[1:37:29] been used in hundreds of
[1:37:30] investigations, and it's
[1:37:31] directly resulted in 115
[1:37:33] crimin arrest, 209 vehicles
[1:37:36] associated with cres have
[1:37:37] been identified. Over $1
[1:37:39] million in stolen property has
[1:37:40] been recovered, 115 stolen
[1:37:42] vehicles and other various
[1:37:43] properties. Included in that
[1:37:44] number, ten illegal firearms
[1:37:46] have been seized andhree
[1:37:48] missing persons have been
[1:37:49] located. Last week, we release
[1:37:53] what's called the Flock
[1:37:55] Transparency Portal. It's on
[1:37:56] the city's main website. So if
[1:37:58] you go rht to the main
[1:37:59] website, you go to the quick
[1:38:01] links. There's a little link on
[1:38:02] there that you can cli.
[1:38:03] They'll kind of cover a lot of
[1:38:05] the information. And even more
[1:38:06] than what I've covered tonight,
[1:38:08] there's also a QR code there
[1:38:09] that you can scan as well. So
[1:38:12] with that, thanks for your time
[1:38:13] tonight. Anybody have any
[1:38:15] questions or you want to go
[1:38:16] home? Great presentation. Great.
[1:38:17] Very good. What a great tool
[1:38:20] for you guys. It has been it's
[1:38:21] been it's been a great tool for
[1:38:23] us. And you know, just I know
[1:38:25] there's a lot of myth and
[1:38:26] misinformation that's out there
[1:38:27] awful. And every day we want to
[1:38:29] show what the system tually
[1:38:30] does. I have a qution. You
[1:38:32] spoke just a little bit about
[1:38:33] how you determine which
[1:38:35] neighborhoods to put the
[1:38:36] cameras in. Can you speak on
[1:38:37] that a little bit? Yeah. So our
[1:38:39] our crime analyst, we look at
[1:38:41] crime and traffic data. So we
[1:38:43] kind of use that crime and
[1:38:45] traffic data to determine where
[1:38:47] we put the cameras. Okay. Thank
[1:38:49] you. Go ahead. A couple
[1:38:53] questions. First of all, thank
[1:38:55] you very much. This is very
[1:38:56] informative. I really
[1:38:57] appreciate it. I wish I had
[1:38:58] tuned in last night, but I'll
[1:39:00] look it up online. I am curious
[1:39:04] about the development of the
[1:39:07] policies. So I recognize that
[1:39:10] as things shift not only from a
[1:39:12] technology standpoint, but from
[1:39:14] a community standards
[1:39:15] standpoint, you know,our
[1:39:17] department has to update
[1:39:18] policies to reflect those
[1:39:21] changes. Can you describe any
[1:39:23] community or advocate input
[1:39:25] that was involved in the
[1:39:26] development of these policies?
[1:39:27] If there was any, there was not
[1:39:30] any. Okay. Yeah. So we we first
[1:39:32] developed the policy again back
[1:39:34] in 2022. At that time that we
[1:39:36] got the cameras. It was kind of
[1:39:38] an emerging technology. Like I
[1:39:40] explained to council last night,
[1:39:42] we first purchased 12 cameras
[1:39:43] and we wanted to see, you know,
[1:39:44] what their effectiveness would
[1:39:46] be on helping us with our
[1:39:47] mission of community safety. I
[1:39:49] don't have the data in front of
[1:39:51] me right here, right now
[1:39:52] tonight. But I think in that
[1:39:54] first year, we had like 75
[1:39:55] suspects, identified 100 cars,
[1:39:57] recovered, 34 stolen vehicles,
[1:39:59] three firearms, a missing
[1:40:01] dementia patient. All of that
[1:40:03] was done in the first year, and
[1:40:04] that's when we expanded on it.
[1:40:06] I want to say we were probably
[1:40:08] the third or fourth city in the
[1:40:09] state to have the cameras. So
[1:40:11] our policy is pretty much been
[1:40:12] in place since then. Obviously,
[1:40:14] the last six, eight, ten months
[1:40:16] or so, a lot of things have
[1:40:17] come out and we have
[1:40:19] reevaluated that, and we
[1:40:21] republished the policy last
[1:40:23] week. I think it was. So if you
[1:40:25] go to that flock transparency
[1:40:26] portal, the entire policy is
[1:40:28] linked in there. So if you go
[1:40:30] to that transparency portal all
[1:40:31] the way down at the bottom,
[1:40:32] it's got another link to where
[1:40:34] you can read the entire policy.
[1:40:35] Great. Thank you. I appreciate
[1:40:37] that you you mentioned that the
[1:40:38] searches are logged
[1:40:40] indefinitely. Yeah. Can you
[1:40:43] describe the difference or at
[1:40:44] what point is something
[1:40:46] classified as a search versus
[1:40:48] something that's just compared
[1:40:50] to a list? Sure. So really the
[1:40:53] system has there's either an
[1:40:55] alert or a historical search.
[1:40:57] So that alert is when kind of
[1:40:59] on the back end, the camera
[1:41:01] takes the picture, it compares
[1:41:02] it to the list, it puts that
[1:41:04] alert out, that alert usually
[1:41:06] will go out in probably about
[1:41:08] ten to 20s of when that car
[1:41:11] passes the camera. So in that
[1:41:13] ten to 20s, it checks the list
[1:41:14] and then puts it out there. All
[1:41:17] images are stored on the
[1:41:18] database for 30 days. Officers
[1:41:21] then can log into the system.
[1:41:23] They have to attest that I'm
[1:41:24] logging into this for, you know,
[1:41:26] law enforcement purposes. And
[1:41:28] then there's several fields on
[1:41:29] there that they can search. You
[1:41:31] know, you can have that offense
[1:41:33] type, the complaint number and
[1:41:34] the reason for the search, you
[1:41:36] can put in the license plate if
[1:41:37] it's known the license plate is
[1:41:39] not known. Like example I used
[1:41:41] last night is we have an armed
[1:41:42] robbery of a liquor store. And
[1:41:44] a witness says the suspect left
[1:41:45] in a maroon minivan. And that's
[1:41:47] the only information we have.
[1:41:48] They can search for a time
[1:41:50] frame for the cameras in that
[1:41:51] location of that liquor store
[1:41:53] for a maroon minivan. And from
[1:41:55] there, they'll get some, you
[1:41:56] know, pictures. And from there,
[1:41:59] they can we start whittling it
[1:42:00] down and trying to find a
[1:42:02] suspect. Okay, so the search is
[1:42:04] the active part. It's an
[1:42:07] intentional correct observation
[1:42:10] or historical record, as
[1:42:12] opposed to a list comparison
[1:42:13] that is giving an alert if
[1:42:16] there's something to then look
[1:42:18] into more deeply. Yes. Okay.
[1:42:20] Great, great. Thank you. Sorry,
[1:42:22] I'm just making sure I don'thavI
[1:42:27] think I'm good. Thank you. Good
[1:42:30] questions. Call. Yeah. Thanks
[1:42:33] for your service. Is the data
[1:42:36] is it stored on city servers or
[1:42:38] on flock servers? Kind of
[1:42:41] neither. It's on flock uses.
[1:42:44] It's the AWS gov cloud is what
[1:42:46] that's called. So the
[1:42:48] information that's captured
[1:42:49] here gets stored on the AWS gov
[1:42:52] cloud. That is just compliant
[1:42:54] FBI see just compliant. There's
[1:42:57] numerous certifications and
[1:42:58] independent audits that flock
[1:43:00] has to ensure the safety of
[1:43:03] that data as it's being stored
[1:43:05] on there. It's encrypted in
[1:43:07] transit and at rest while it's
[1:43:08] there. And they also have the
[1:43:11] ability to audit that data is
[1:43:13] actually being deleted after
[1:43:15] those 30 days. So I'm not a
[1:43:17] cybersecurity expert. So I took
[1:43:19] all of these compliances and
[1:43:21] audits and certifications that
[1:43:24] flock has to our city's IT
[1:43:26] department. They were able to
[1:43:28] review all of those
[1:43:29] certifications, all of those
[1:43:30] audits. And they have said that
[1:43:32] that's exactly what they look
[1:43:33] for when they're looking for
[1:43:35] cybersecurity for government
[1:43:36] data systems. So our IT
[1:43:39] department does not have any
[1:43:41] concerns with the security of
[1:43:43] that data that's being stored
[1:43:45] in that government cloud. Is it
[1:43:47] shared with other jurisdictions?
[1:43:49] Yes, we do share with other
[1:43:51] jurisdictions. I think right
[1:43:52] now it's like a little over
[1:43:54] 1700 agencies throughout the
[1:43:56] country thate share with. We
[1:43:58] have several federal agencies
[1:44:00] that we share with being FBI,
[1:44:03] U.S. Postal Inspection Service,
[1:44:06] Natchez Trace National Park,
[1:44:09] Indiana Dunes National Park,
[1:44:11] Indiana, High Intensity Drug
[1:44:13] Trafficking Association,
[1:44:15] Tennessee Valley Police. And
[1:44:18] there's one more here I'm
[1:44:19] forgetting. Oh, it's
[1:44:23] Wright-Patterson Air Base in
[1:44:24] Ohio. So I know the big
[1:44:27] question a lot of people have
[1:44:28] is about i. Ice does not have
[1:44:30] a contract with flock. And the.
[1:44:34] We don't share information with
[1:44:35] ice from the system. Okay,
[1:44:38] thanks. Just a quick follow up
[1:44:41] to that. Is there a way that
[1:44:44] either flak or another entity
[1:44:47] is able to audit the searches
[1:44:48] that are done by those other
[1:44:50] jurisdictions? Yeah. So each
[1:44:52] agency, each person, each, I
[1:44:55] guess city that has a contract
[1:44:56] with flock. So I have two ways
[1:44:58] to do an audit. I can do what's
[1:45:00] called an organization audit,
[1:45:01] which is just an audit of our
[1:45:04] officers in our agency. Or I
[1:45:06] can do a network audit. A
[1:45:08] network audit shows me every
[1:45:10] activity thas been done on
[1:45:12] our network by any shared
[1:45:13] partner or anybody else. So
[1:45:15] it'll give me that. This agency
[1:45:17] ran a plate for this reason on
[1:45:19] this date and on this time. So
[1:45:20] we have audits for, for both,
[1:45:22] for our shared partnersnd us.
[1:45:24] Thankou. Any other questions,
[1:45:28] commissioners. Well done. Thank
[1:45:30] you guys. Thank you. Be safe.
[1:45:31] Thank you. Have a good night.
[1:45:32] Have a safe drive home. Thank
[1:45:34] you. Thanks. All right.
[1:45:37] Commissioners was a great
[1:45:38] meeting tonight. Any other
[1:45:39] questions, comments or concerns?
[1:45:42] Apologize for stepping outside
[1:45:43] on the deck. That last one I
[1:45:46] just I couldn't I couldn't
[1:45:47] collate it together. For some
[1:45:48] reason. I'm thinking I know
[1:45:49] what he said. Then you said
[1:45:51] something, and then Dave said
[1:45:53] something and I nearly went
[1:45:55] rogue on you. I looked at Wendy
[1:45:57] and I said, Wendy, what's going
[1:45:58] on? I just I apologize for that,
[1:46:01] but it was a great meeting.
[1:46:03] Great meeting. So Colton,
[1:46:05] anything building up good for
[1:46:07] October? I'm skipping Christmas.
[1:46:09] I believe we've got one
[1:46:11] completed application. Okay. So.
[1:46:14] Okay. Yes. Commissioner Hall,
[1:46:17] Mr. chair, maybe an idea for
[1:46:19] future learning and growth.Sure.
[1:46:24] Oh, you know what I thought of
[1:46:26] that when I was talking to the
[1:46:27] group out here? I really did.Mi,
[1:46:32] Robert's rules. But again, I
[1:46:33] think from a municipaly, I
[1:46:35] think the procedures for this
[1:46:38] would be good for all of us to
[1:46:40] have. That way, you know, the
[1:46:43] guy was gentleman really had
[1:46:47] his thought process had changed
[1:46:49] when Mr. Kitchen was talking
[1:46:52] and. Yeah. And I think Robert's
[1:46:56] rules are or how our policy
[1:46:57] works and how we run a meeting
[1:47:00] be very beneficial. For the
[1:47:02] record, I'll say, Dave, nice
[1:47:04] job. That was hard to keep
[1:47:05] everybody in line. Thank you. A
[1:47:07] lot of work I've been I, I go
[1:47:10] to these meetings usually from
[1:47:11] that side of the table and the
[1:47:14] I've seen some dissolve quite
[1:47:17] quickly. And this didn't. Nice
[1:47:20] job. Thank you. Have a quick
[1:47:21] question. It's been a while
[1:47:23] since I've looked at the
[1:47:25] handouts of the agenda or the
[1:47:27] minutes or whatever, or excuse
[1:47:29] me for the residents when ey
[1:47:30] take it.o we have something
[1:47:32] on the back of that that says,
[1:47:34] if you want to present a
[1:47:37] question or here's the protocol,
[1:47:39] is there something that we can
[1:47:41] put on that sheet so that when
[1:47:43] people take it, they know
[1:47:45] what's expected? You kno
[1:47:46] that's a that's a good thought
[1:47:47] that that maybe that's where a
[1:47:49] condense of Robert's rules and
[1:47:51] how the, how the meetings are
[1:47:52] run or even or how the right,
[1:47:54] but how the procedures run on
[1:47:56] the back of, of what? Of the
[1:47:57] agenda? Yes. I think that's a
[1:47:59] great idea. That's something
[1:48:00] that Wendy and I will get
[1:48:02] together with Colton and Noah
[1:48:03] and kind of brainstorm that and
[1:48:05] see how we can put that
[1:48:06] together. I think it's an
[1:48:07] excellent idea. Thank you.
[1:48:08] Absolutely. Sherry. That's
[1:48:09] great. Anything else?
[1:48:12] Commissioners. Great meeting.
[1:48:13] Good to see you. Adjourned.