[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.

Wyoming City Planning Commission Meeting September 15, 2026

Transcript