Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the August 27th meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission. I'd like to call us to order and go over a few housekeeping items. If you have a cell phone with you, please silence or turn it off. If you've never been to one of our meetings before, here's what you can expect. We'll begin with some administrative items including minutes and continuances. Then we move to cases on the consent docket that are items that are pretty straightforward and can be approved as a group. Then we move to cases that are going to be heard individually. So we'll hear the item, discuss and determine if a recommendation decision can be made or if more time and a continuance is necessary. There are certain cases where the body makes the final decision, but in most items you'll hear today are applications where we provide a recommendation to city council and we are not the final decision. For these, no matter the decision, you'll have another opportunity to share your concerns again when those are heard at city council approximately six to eight weeks from our recommendation. There are certain items such as HOA CCRs and agreements between private parties that are outside the purview of this commission and are not factors in our considerations. And for the sake of time, we ask that you refrain from using those in your justifications for your case. If you're here to speak on an item and are not the applicant, please fill out one of the forms available outside on the table and provide it to the staff here below. When that item's heard, you'll be called upon and come up to the podium. You'll have up to five minutes to speak. Please give your name and address for the record. If you're here to speak on an item with a large group of people, we encourage you to elect a representative to share your group's concerns. In those instances, some additional time will be considered. where several speakers on the same item are heard. We just ask that you do your best to limit your comments to concerns that we haven't heard yet. We're trying to keep the extensive and repetitious comments to a minimum. Please direct all your comments and your questions to the commission. If needed, we'll ask the applicant or staff to respond. Finally, we appreciate everyone's presence here today and the obligations that you took away from to be here. and we ask for your cooperation upholding the quorum of the meeting and that you do your best to keep interactions respectful and calm and that you don't speak from the audience. So thank you for your attendance, attention, and assistance. With that, we'll move to item two, which is receipt of the minutes.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes of the August 13th, 2026 meeting.

We have a motion from Commissioner Noble to receive the minutes. We're waiting on our system. Okay. All right, and the minutes are received. Next, we have continuous requests, and we'll start with uncontested requests.

Item 21, case C7761, request to defer to September 10th. Item 22, case SPUD 1857, defer to September 10th. Item 23, SPUD 1858, defer to September 24th. Item 24, case SPUD 1861, deferred to September 24th. Item 25, SPUD 1827, deferred to October 8th. Item 26, SPUD 1835, deferred to October 8th. Item 27, PUD 2153 has been withdrawn. And item 28, SPUD 1830 has been withdrawn.

Okay, I'll just ask if there's anyone here to be heard on any of those items. Seeing none, we're ready for a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the uncontested continuous request as read.

A motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the uncontested continuous request. Seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. And those uncontested requests are approved.

New requests. Item 10, SPUD 1834, request to defer to September 10th. Item 16, PUD 2156, defer to September 10th. 17, case CE 1158, defer to September 24th. Item 18, case SPUD 1854, defer to September 24th. Item 19, CPA 2611, defer to September 24th. And item 20, case PUD 2152, defer to September 24th. Anyone here to be heard on any of those items?

All right, we're ready for a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the new continuous request as read.

Motion to approve the new request as read. Seconded by Commissioner Meek, please cast your votes. And those new requests are approved. Item 4A, consent docket.

Item one is KC 7835, final plat of The Curve, located north of West Memorial Road and west of North County Line Road. Item two is KC 7836, final plat of Knox Farm Addition, section four, located south of Northwest 178th Street and west of North Portland Avenue. And item three, KC 7833, final plat of Knox Farm Addition, section five, located south of Northwest 178th Street and west of North Portland Avenue.

Okay, I don't have anyone signed up, but just confirm there's no one here to be heard on any of those items. I see none, so we're ready for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent docket.

A motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the consent docket. It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. And the consent docket is approved. All right, now we move on to items requiring separate vote and to be heard individually, and we start with item four.

This is KC7834, final plat of Buddies, located north of Northwest 16th Street and east of North MacArthur Boulevard.

Hi, I'm Brady Ghanibadi on behalf of the applicant. So this is a final plat application. We came forth last year with the preliminary plat. The only changes that were made were some drainage easements that engineering wanted to see. But basically, it's going to be commercial. There's an existing commercial center on the front that's still zoned, C3, and then the duplex slots in the rear.

Okay. Commissioner Powers, this is Ward 2, if you want to lead our discussion.

Is there anybody signed up to speak on this item?

I do have one signed up to speak. Let's hear from them. Okay. Mr. Junior Hefner?

J.R.?

J.R.?

Yes.

Hi.

I'm J.R. Hefner, 3441 West Memorial, 73134. My father owns the lot directly north of this plat, and it was built as the Pabst Blue Ribbon Bottling Plant in the 50s. It's approximately... at least six foot higher on the north side. I'm not sure how the south side is. I do know that in 2023 they started depositing a substantial amount of fill when my father was in the ICU. They were bringing two trucks a day, or two trucks at a time, all day long. And that was the first time that the people north of me that were lower complained of flooding. It wasn't until this year that They complained again, and I realized that they had buried all the culverts on the south of my father's property. So the property directly north, built by Pabst, has all these culverts running under it. Buddy's addition damned them all. It caused our parking lot to fall in, insubstantial damage north. So it's my understanding they didn't have a permit to even do fill until 2026. So I'm confused as to what the starting point even was. Because I know they brought in a lot starting in 2023. Moreover, the calls that we've made have not been returned. So there's existing drainage. It's been there since the 1800s. And I don't see that it's accounted for. You can see on the picture that they have, where the natural drainage is, and it's red dirt, but they just keep filling you in month after month after month.

Okay. Anything else? Nothing else. All right. We'll possibly have...

I believe you've got an attorney here also.

Okay.

From McAfee Town.

All right. Are you signed up to speak, sir? Yes. Okay. I didn't have... I didn't see that sheet, but I'll try and look for it. Oh, you have it there. Okay.

My name is James Porter. I own the property just south of this property. Can I have your address, please? Oh, yes. 5725 Northwest, 16th Street. Thank you. I own the property just south of this application. This property floods, and they have made some changes in it, but it almost floods almost every time it rains. The drainage on the... Westside Which is a vacant lot had the creek has been filled in and so it doesn't drain properly it just floods there So I would like to make sure that there's some type of drainage provision on this on this property Thank you.

All right. Thank you. You can leave that sheet with one of these folks down here Sure Thank you Mr. Powers

I've asked Mr. Lodge to come speak on this issue. I mean, it seems like the drainage is the problem. I thought I had read somewhere in the staff report that there were fill permits, or at least a fill permit issued, but maybe we can speak to that too. Tell us what you know, Barry.

very large public works uh... short with addressing some of the fields in place i don't know if they stormwater quality permit had been obtained for that it and look into that part of it they can start doing dirt work and moving dirt without plans being completed if they do get stormwater quality permit if they had if they haven't done that then we will get involved in an issue notices violation to to put that to a halt as far as the the drainage I did go out to the site. I've looked at the plat, looked at the plans, went out to the site to see what was going on with that. There are three pipes that come out from under the parking lot to the north. I didn't measure them. They're 8 or 10 inch. When I look at the plans, those pipes are not shown on the plans. And that's a significant amount of drainage that's going to be coming across that site. They have gone in and graded a new channel from where those pipes are located across the property. That's going to be a temporary solution because it's going across at least two or three of the lots. I have instructed technical review staff to get a comment out to the engineer that there's going to have to be a storm sewer system put in to pick that water up at the north property line that will convey it all the way across the site. They are looking to provide detention on the south. It goes pretty much along all the south lots on the south side of it. I think all of those calculations and plans are in for review. We did have a check print that was ready to be sent out to the engineer to correct some other issues. items that were on there but Commented our question that came up in in the pre-meeting We will review those plans and the plans will not be approved Until we have that storm sewer on there and we and we won't be issuing any work orders for that project Until that is done

Thank you. There was some mention made of drainage easements by the applicant. Are you familiar?

The only drainage easement that I saw on the plat, and I'm not familiar with the request for drainage easements that were put in by the engineering staff. There is one shown, but it's over on the east side of the property, and I think there's a natural drain that comes through there as well. That one is shown on the plat. I don't think the engineering staff made any comments about where these pipes come through because they're not shown on the plans. Without those being shown on the plans, we don't really have any indication that there's anything there. We can see contours that indicate water's flowing north to south across the property, but there's no indication. It looks like that could just be rainfall and not the pipes that were coming out from under the other property. So that'll be one of the comments that's on that going to be requested from the engineer as well is to get that shown on the plan so that we know what those are, what elevation they are. We're going to have to have all the proper sizing calculations and have the plans for the construction of that storm sewer.

So would we consider that the final plan is not quite ready to be voted on yet?

That will be up to you guys to decide if you want to vote on it. It's not unusual for the plat to come through and be approved by this commission while the plans are still in review and approval. That's really pretty much the standard procedure. This body will almost always approve that plat before we have the plans approved.

I'm a little less comfortable with that standard procedure where we are aware that there are existing problems, issues that may or may not have been created by the applicant on the site and we're not yet in receipt of a full explanation of how that's gonna be

dealt with? It's probably a less than perfect system, but it's the one that's been in place as long as I've been doing engineering and development work in the city of Oklahoma City. In general, it does work. Do we miss some things from time to time? Yeah, we do, but We see these things and we will go out and take a look at them and take measures to get the proper documentation and calculations in.

So if we were to approve the plot today, you feel confident that these issues will be resolved through the regular process?

Yes, ma'am, I do.

Okay. Thank you.

Janice, I want to say something about that same thing, though, is that this being a small development and knowing that they're probably going to have to do a drainage easement through the middle of the property, I think the lot reduction is going to come into play on that. I think it's going to change. And I think it's going to change. And you also have the fire control and the suppression issues. And so you have two things at work that might not, that one's going to affect the other one, and so they might not come together. And I think before we just approve the final plat, and you have to make changes to it anyway, that we should just hold that one off as the final say on that.

Thanks for that input.

Well, the problem is that we have not been able to get a work order unless we get the easements that technical review is requesting. approved through this process because they, even if we get all the, the plans are pretty much done. The detention's actually routed for final, but they will not give us a final work order to improve the property for drainage purposes without the final plat application being approved by this body. So that's been the main thing, and like Barry said, technical review's gonna hold up our work order until we get all those items addressed. So the main thing, the reason why we're here today is to get the drainage easement on the south for the proposed detention pond approved. That way when technical review says, okay, we're good with these minor things that you need to correct, where's the easement that they can actually issue the work order for us? Because that's been the main holdup on this is that for the past six months, they've been saying we cannot issue a detention work order to improve the site without the easement being approved. So that's been the main issue. Now, when it comes to the drainage easements, if you go- Let's pause right there.

Does that make sense to you?

In general, yes. However, if they were wanting to move forward with construction of the detention pond, if those had been approved, we will hold approval of the detention plans and calculations for the easement. If that's the route that they're wanting to go, I would disagree that the plans are ready to be approved because they're not on the paving and drainage. The detention may be. They can record a separate instrument final easement for that detention that would then be noted on the final plat when it goes through also. And so that... From from our standpoint. That's not a holdup that that's there's different routes that they can go to obtain that easement It doesn't have to be a final plat that said if this body chooses to Defer this final plat application. They can still move forward with the construction of their attention plan by filing a drainage easement attention easement by a separate instrument I

My understanding, too, is that if we were to do it by separate instrument, we'd still have to come in front of this body to get approval of that. Is that right?

That easement does not come before this body. That is strictly through engineering. It does have to be recorded. It's a private drainage easement, so it's not anything that's dedicated to the city. That is strictly by the owner, and even on the final plot, when that common area is noted on there for detention purposes, it's still noted as everything is private, and it's the property owner's responsibility for all the maintenance of that. And so there's not going to be anything different with that, but that easement does not come before Planning Commission for approval.

Okay. So I have one more thing to bring up. I know you're talking about the fire suppression. If we go back to the original, to the final plot document. So if you see on the east side, there is a 16-foot private drainage easement. We don't have the plans here because that's going to be through technical review, but there's a 15-foot concrete drainage channel that is conveying everything from the north through that drainage channel, through our road, and down into the detention pond and controlling it toward two existing conditions. When it comes to the fire suppression, we're planning on, since there's not enough room, I was actually gonna ask for a variance on this, but it's actually through the fire marshal. What we're planning on doing is we're gonna do a curb cut on the right-of-way, which would be a right-of-way permit, to the existing commercial. So we have two entrances basically off MacArthur to kind of get around that. But that would be a right away permit at that point. And then once we have that curb cut, then we can ask the fire marshal. That would be basically a building permit issue at that point if they would request fire suppression or not. So the final plat, I agree that the final plat You know, there's still some outstanding items, but the final, the reason for this application is more so to show that it's complying with subdivision regulations, not necessarily technical review, because they're gonna hold up our work order, either, you know, when it comes to detention, they're gonna hold it up there, or if it comes to building permit, they'll hold it up at building permit, so.

Well, I'm not comfortable with the idea of we'll decide on the curb cuts later and this is a final plot. Also, if we think that there's a real likelihood or at least possibility that the configuration of this plot is going to change once all these things are sorted out, I'm not comfortable just signing a blank check here. I don't think this is ready to be heard, my opinion. Other people have an opinion about that?

That's kind of what it seems like to me.

So I'm going to suggest that we table this or defer it for how long are we going to need to do these things?

I mean.

A month? Two weeks? Jump in real quick. Per statute, we have, or the Planning Commission has 30 days to accept or deny the final plat once submitted unless it's deemed, or then otherwise it is deemed accepted. So you're on a timeline of 30 days from today.

30 days from today.

It can be by mutual agreement extended further.

If you need more time, we can do that.

Well, I mean, the main issue, and I know Barry's not involved with the full communication, but on the detention, they have said that they have finished the review and that they're going to approve it, and they want to give us a work order until we get that easement. So for me, I mean, if we defer it, we're basically— You know, I don't know really if we're going to get much out of a deferral. I'm not anticipating the lot configuration to change really at all.

I don't have your drainage plans, so I can't tell. Right. Are you saying that you have a drainage channel through the middle of this property already in easement?

It's shown on the east side, on the 16-foot private drainage easement on the east side. On the very east side of the property? Uh-huh. But that's not where the drainage is coming off site? That is, yeah.

You're talking about on the north of the cul-de-sac between the last and the second-to-last lot?

Correct, yeah. I'll go out there and look at the 12-inch culverts and see where those are located, but right now on the plans, the grading is matching existing, so we're not pooling up water on the north side. So if there is culverts, it should be naturally flooded.

It really does sound like you're holding water to the north side because the protesters are saying they're flooding.

Well, it's holding it now because I guess they have put in fill, but we can't. They have put in fill or you have put in fill? The client has. Yeah, but we also have an earth change permit. We have a stormwater quality permit for that. So they were well within their right to put in dirt.

But you can't dam up water onto someone else's property. Correct. Yes. So I need to know that that's all solved. It's solved in the plans. Lock configuration is going to stay the same. Yes. And then we can move forward.

Because I agree that there is a natural, and technical review caught it, and I did as well on my plans, that there is a natural drainage from offsite coming from the north along there, and so on the proposed plans, I have it cut down to where they can actually drain onto us, but contractors they're not when they're filling dirt in they're bringing in fill they're not thinking about that and so it's hard for me to go out there and say hey this is where you need to put it at all times and so on the proposed plans it's fixed but they can't fix it until we have the plans approved so the three pipes that come in from the north come in a

Approximately about the second lot from the west about the middle of it is where those three pipes come off of that parking lot to the north Okay, and so they are there and one other point of correction. We don't issue work orders for detention ponds There is a grading permit that's issued at Earth change stormwater quality. We do approve the plans we withhold the plan approval until The easement has been filed of record, and we get a copy of that. But there's not any work orders that are issued for detention ponds. But that is where the storm sewer comes in. So the channel that's over on the east side does nothing for the storm sewer that's coming in from that property on the north. And that will have to be a closed system. It cannot be an open channel.

And it could possibly even affect the retention. I mean, I don't know. But anyways, I just think we should defer it.

I assume they want it to drain into that detention.

So again, two weeks, a month, what's your preference?

I mean, this has been going on for a while. I mean, two weeks or a month, I mean, We're going to need a month with how long technical review's been going. It's been going on for almost a year now, and we've been trying to get this approved, and they keep on saying it's that detention pond easement. So that's why we're here. 9-24. I feel like this is just going to keep it going longer, personally.

Well, that ball will be in your court to get it resolved between now and the next time it's brought to us.

9-24. Anything else?

What is that date?

Yeah. 24th, I think.

September 24th.

So I'll move that this matter be continued until September 24th.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Powers to continue the item to the September 24th meeting. It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner.

Hold on one moment. Can we make clear, is this by mutual agreement? With the applicant? Do we need to? You said we had 30 days. 30 days, so that would be 14. Thank you for the math. Apologize. I'm sorry? That's in two weeks. I thought we were doing the four weeks. I apologize.

We are doing the four weeks. 30 days? Yeah. You said if it was more than that, it would have to be by agreement.

Let me double check the statute to make sure it's not automatic on day 30. That's 31. Give me a hot second. Sure.

Right, was Brady still in here?

24th would be less than 30.

That'd be 28.

No concern then. Thank you for keeping us honest.

J.R. Hefner again. I just wanted to clear up real quick. There's three drainage paths that come from the north to the south. And he's been filling up the culverts since 2023. So we don't even know where grade was in 2023. So you'd have to ask my dad and he's not here. So I foresee it being a lot more than a month because he refuses to speak to us about it.

That's problematic.

It is. So for instance, there's six culverts, not three, all kinds of things. But it's just going to take a lot of working together to get it done.

Well, we'll be back here in 30 days.

I hope you can join us. Thank you, Janice. I appreciate it, Madam Commissioner.

All right, so motion was from Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. That item is continued.

Item five. Item five is PUD 1426, SP 02, application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 1426, located at 629 Northwest 59th Street.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. This is a specific plan under what is kind of an older PUD that was done originally for Chesapeake Energy. Jared Field, we're going to go to an aerial. This is, if you're familiar with the site, it's that kind of eastern portion that's tucked up against the rail. You don't have it? Okay, well if you can visualize the site, it's behind all the buildings that exist. There's some fields there and it's up against the railroad tracks to the east. So what this application represents is an expansion of the central plant as well as some components of data center. Staff notes that it's in compliance with the PUD and also notes some provisions that came from the moratorium that exists that we are in agreement with. So with that, happy to answer any questions.

Okay, Commissioner Powers, this is your ward. If you wanna lead our discussion, I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Is there anyone signed up to speak on this? I do not have anyone signed up to speak. I'm sorry, you just said that. You know, in all honesty, after reviewing the documentation that we have, I don't really have any questions about this approval. So unless somebody else does, I'm gonna move approval.

All right, I think we're ready for a motion.

I move approval, item number five, PUD 1426. I want to say site plan, but that's not right.

Specific plan. Specific plan. O2.

All right.

So we have a motion from Commissioner Powers to approve the specific plan. For the record, staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with PUD 1426 Master Design Statement and the Master Development Plan as amended, provided that potable water is not used for domestic consumption, irrigation, fire protection purposes.

Correct. And I want to thank staff for putting this on the regular agenda for us, so.

On the what?

Regular agenda, rather than under consent.

I would prefer the consent.

I don't like to see specific plans on the consent docket, so.

So we had a second from Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

Thank you. That item is approved. and six and six is as beauty eighteen twenty six application rezone thirty five twenty two westmont street from our one

Good afternoon, JJ Gritz with ZJ Holdings, 8051 North Classen. We're here after appearing for you guys before with plans for this lot to construct a triplex on it. much feedback from our neighbors there and numerous discussions with Sarah and Commissioner Powers we changed our Description basically to go back to two single-family Houses, which is what was on this lot originally before they were Taken out by the previous property owner And I think there were a couple of staff recommendations of things we need to change in there Probably number one would be At my error. I didn't take out the three and four family residential description and the multi-family residential description for the Use permits And then Commissioner Powers, I think you had a request to strike just the language of which may be detached because they're going to be detached. That's correct.

Are you in agreement with us to additional TEs?

Yes, we are.

Okay. Commissioner Powers, I have two folks signed up to speak. You want to hear from them?

Of course, yes. Okay.

I wasn't sure if you were ready yet.

I am ready.

All right. We'll start with Kate McCaleb-Turner.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name's Kate McCaleb-Turner, and I'm the trustee of the trust that owns the properties immediately south of Northwest 110th Street. that currently rely on the access both north and south has of the right of way. As proposed. So this is not on this item.

Excuse me, I'm sorry. Is this on number seven? No.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I didn't hear seven. I'm sorry. They were handed to me. No, you're good. I will sit down here and wait.

I'm like. I was ready, though.

You're on deck. All right. I don't have anyone sign up for item six.

And I think that is really kind of because there has been so much discussion and the application has been sort of radically altered in keeping with those discussions. So I'm not surprised that there's not anybody signed up to speak. Do other commissioners have comments or questions? Or if not, I'm going to move approval subject to the TE that the staff has written and the two TEs that I would propose, one of which is to remove the three and four family and multifamily use units so that there's really only the single family uses that are permitted. And to remove the language may be detached, which for some reason I can't seem to find at the moment, but we know it's in there.

It's number four on the design statement.

Thank you. Which may be detached.

That's right.

There it is.

So just to be clear for the minutes, I believe we're accepting staff's TE1 and then adding a TE2, which would be to strike the words which may be detached from item 4 in the SPUD. Does that sound right?

Well, I think we want to specifically add another TE that removes those uses.

Okay. I understand.

Okay.

I have a point.

Is there, do we have a height limit on these? I'm sorry?

The height limit, am I just not seeing that? I'm sorry.

Well, R1 would allow, it's actually 30 feet per the SCE itself.

Oh, it's 30 feet, okay, on this one. Right when you said it.

So it's slightly under what R1 would allow. Number two.

Thanks.

Anybody else? I'm going to move approval of item number six, SPD 1826, subject to the TE, as read.

All right. A motion from Commissioner Powers subject to technical evaluations. Second by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your vote. And that item is recommended for approval.

Thank you.

Okay. Now item seven.

Item seven is KCE 1166, application to close portions of street and alley rights-of-way within the College Park addition, generally located north of West Hefner Road and west of Broadway Extension.

Pat Garrett with Garrett and Company, 9701 North Broadway Extension, Oklahoma City. We are closing these streets that have never been They're on the plat, but they've never been built. We're asking to remove the two TEs. The first TE is for, we want to vacate the north half of 110th, which adjoins block 11 and 22. And the alley or Harvey Street that goes north from 110th to the alley there on block 23 and 22. The east half of the Harvey Avenue has been closed since 2008 and vacated. All the property to the south has access. 110th Street is 75 feet platted. We'd be closing half of it or 37 and a half feet leaving, 37 and a half feet of right of way for the property owners to have access to their property. We're not denying anyone access to their property. The second TE is to have a topographic survey showing all the improvements on the property. I'm asking that we will be filing a district court case to vacate this streets and those will be addressed in that lawsuit.

Okay.

Is that it for your intro? Is that all you have? That's all I have. Okay. All right. Commissioner Harrison, this is Ward 7. And spoiler alert, there are two folks signed up to speak. Well, we're here from the first one. All right. Ms. Turner, now we can.

All right.

Okay, so my name's Kate McCaleb-Turner, and I'm the trustee of the trust that owns the properties immediately south of his properties. And closing the, right now we have access to both the north and south halves of the right-of-way, and as proposed, the closure would cut off the north half and leave only 37 and a half feet on the south side. That change would materially affect how I and the surrounding area access and circulate through this block. I propose the application is submitted, I oppose the application as submitted for the following reasons. Closing the north half would reduce local street connectivity, concentrate traffic to the south side, and limit options for drivers, pedestrians, and service vehicles in this area. Number two, a single-sided access corridor increases risk for emergency response, utilities, and maintenance, particularly if the remaining route is blocked or under construction. Number three, preserving both halves of the right-of-way maintains options for orderly development on both sides of Northwest 110th Street and supports consistent block and lock patterns. Number four, I'm concerned about potential impacts on access rights and would like to avoid disputes by addressing access now through clear conditions and alternatives that maintain functional access to my properties. Number five, while the lots are presently zoned R1, they are surrounded on all four sides by I2 zoning, making industrial zoning a natural progression that conforms to the established land use pattern. My long-term plan is to seek an industrial zoning classification such as I1 or I2 for my properties. Industrial operations inherently require robust two-sided street circulation and wider turn radio for service vehicles, freight, and heavy equipment, access that would be severely compromised by closing the north half of the northwest 110th. and therefore this would affect the value of our properties. Given these concerns, I respectfully request that the Commission defer action until we have time to perform due diligence for the trust to see what we can come up with.

Okay, and I don't think I caught your address for the record if you could state that please my address personally Yeah, 20 not 2900 South Broken Bow Road, Edmond, Oklahoma Okay, and were you aware that the there was a te on here that staff has suggested that the Northwest 10th East of Hudson and the Half Street portion of Harvey Avenue be removed from this application and I was gonna ask if you were aware of that and if that changes any of your

It's really just the access, because it's only going to be 37 and a half feet wide that we'll have access to on the north. Okay.

So staff is recommending that they don't allow the half. Don't what? That they don't allow the half to be taken.

Don't allow, okay.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. So they're seeking full width staff to leave it for them.

It's hard to hear you guys.

We might have some audio issues that's happened in the past.

Okay.

Okay, next I have Mr. Caleb McCaleb.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Caleb. I'm a builder and developer in North Oklahoma City in Edmond. This is my sister, Katie. Our parents just recently passed away. Our mom passed away three months ago. So what we'd like to do is have some time. We've just taken over this trust. And Mr. Garrett has been very friendly with us about offering to buy our property, but we would just like a little more time. We're not saying no, we're just saying, can we just please wait, give us a little time to look at things. And my address is 2208 Summer Haven Way in Edmond, Oklahoma.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. McCaleb. Mr. Garrett, I mean given the circumstances are you under any? Urgency to move forward with this could you would you be willing to take a continuance to give them a little bit more time to? Get up to speed on this.

I would like a continuance Okay We spent 20 years trying to get this accumulated and closed, and a few more weeks won't upset my plans.

Would 30 days or two meetings, would that be agreeable? Which day? 30 days. It would be, we just did this, I think it was September 24th.

That'd be good.

Okay. Do you think that gives you sufficient time? Okay. Thank you. All right. Mr. Harrison, if you'd like to, is there any further discussion from us? I'm just going to ask a question.

If you had any, if not, I move we defer to the September 24th meeting.

Okay. A motion from Commissioner Harrison to defer the item to the September 24th meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your vote. And that is approved. Thank you so much for your consideration. item eight.

Item eight is case PC11014, application to rezone 2209 Northeast 100th Street from R1 to AA.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. The applicant's also here with us. So this is a case that has a bit of a history that I think is probably worth going into a little bit. When the applicant first came to us, he was operating on site a series of events. He would have weddings. He would have corporate events. community yoga events. But the basis for this property has always been a community farm. And that is really, at this point, all we're seeking. When we first set out to try to get his operation approved, we filed a PUD. The goal of the PUD was to continue to allow the events, but to try to find a way to work a scenario where the neighbors who were upset with the disruption of their lives with the events could find a way to, I guess, accept what we had, try to limit it. It became clear that the PUD would have no way forward in terms of neighborhood support. So after that, we let the client know that the idea of having an event center It's just not something that's going to be possible at this time. And so we asked them, what is the most important thing for you on this property? And the answer was the farming piece of it. For whatever reason, this site is currently zoned R1 single family. The R1 single family zoning designation does not allow the two use units we need to be able to continue the farming operation. Those two use units are 8150.8 row and field crops and 8150.9 urban farm. My client sells the crops on property, but he also takes them to various farmer markets across the city. And if you look at what is allowed under the AA zoning, which is what we seek now, it's only a 200 square foot in area farm stand. So we're going from R1 to AA. AA, as you all know, is the least intensive zoning district that we have in the city. It's zoned R1, presumably. If water and sewer ever got there, what you'd see is somebody try to carve this up into a plot with 6,000 square foot lots. We think that, frankly, would be incompatible with the surrounding area. This farming operation we believe to be compatible with the surrounding area. In fact, one of the protesters operates just off screen to the south of 96 on Eastern, an almost identical farming operation. So going to the AA zoning district is the path that we see to one, satisfy the neighbors that we will not have events, and two, allow I think what's a very important community asset in the farming operation to continue. I don't see another path that would allow us to continue to operate this farming operation. I think it would be an absolute sad day if this case were denied and the only thing that could happen there would be some form of single family development under the R1 regulations. Now undoubtedly what you're going to hear is that they don't trust my client, they don't like my client, they don't believe my client that he's going to stop with the events. And all I can tell you is he is well aware now that he cannot do it. The zoning, if approved as AA, would absolutely not allow it. The city is well aware of the previous issues on site. perhaps there's a target on his back. And so there's just not a path forward for him to try to find a way, if this were approved, to have those events. But what it would allow is for him to continue to grow his crops, to sell it in a very tiny area as defined under the ordinance, and continue to offer those to the various farmer markets across the city. And so for those reasons, we're asking you to vote based on the merits of this case, Not based upon past actions of my client and let us go to the least intensive zoning district that this city has and allow him to continue his farming operation. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Harrison, this is your award if you want to lead our discussion. I have 13 signed up to speak. You just want to get it going? All right, we'll start with Kelly Work.

And if you could call the name following who's coming next so they can be compared.

Excellent plan. Rose Bonillo would be next.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Kelly Work. My address is 105 North Hudson, Suite 304, Oklahoma City. I do have a handout before I begin that I would like to provide and ask. I'm representing a group of homeowners in this residential neighborhood who are opposing this application to rezone this property from R1 single family to AA agricultural. And there are a number of them, I'm sure, that will be planning to speak. to you today, but I'd like to just ask them to just by a show of hands just let you know they're here in opposition to this application if they would do that now. Northeast 100th Street in this area is a local neighborhood residential street. It is not improved to city standards. It doesn't have curb and gutter. It's narrow, and it is lined with single-family residential homes. What I provided to you is a list of the uses that are authorized in the AA Agricultural District. This is a list that's published by the planning department and it shows all of the uses that are permitted uses, conditional uses, special exception uses and special permit uses within the AA Agricultural District. And many of those would have a significant adverse impact on this single family residential use if AA zoning were to be allowed on this property. The staff report recommends denial of this application. This neighborhood has been engaged in responding to this and the previous rezoning application for many, many months now. The previous PUD 2110 was withdrawn by the applicant without a hearing after many months of continuances, and this application followed shortly after the withdrawal of the PUD. This rezoning request, as was the previous one, is an attempt to legitimize the commercial activities and uses on this subject property by this applicant that have been ongoing now for years. This has been this property has been and is being operated as a commercial outdoor event center. They are also advertising for short-term Vacation rentals without having been granted a special exception from the Board of Adjustment they advertise and use the property as a tourism advertising on agro-tourism sites, and they're also conducting retail sales. None of those uses are allowed in the R1 single-family district, and those activities that have been going on now for years have been very disruptive for this neighborhood, including noise that includes late-night amplified music, traffic including tour buses, having the street lined with cars parked while persons are attending events. There have been multiple complaints from residents of the neighborhood to Oklahoma City code enforcement for the zoning violations over these years and to the police department for complaints about noise. The commercial events and activities have continued unabated and Through the process, including in as recent as May and June this year, just two months ago, there were events on May 2nd, May 4th, May 7th, May 23rd, May 30th, June 6th, june ninth june seventeenth june eighteen all those involved events at the property some of which included uh... tour buses and uh... live bands uh... with this What this applicant has demonstrated is that he has not felt constrained to abide by the ordinances even after the enforcement actions. What the applicant now seeks is to remove the R1 restrictions and to have the much broader range of uses that would be allowed in AA. Also, AA would provide greater leniency as there is no regulation in AA for things like high weeds and grass. There is much more leniency on storage of materials. AA agricultural zoning is not appropriate for this residential neighborhood. The operation, let me say in conclusion, this operation is definitely a problem for the neighborhood that needs to be addressed, but rezoning to AA Agricultural is certainly not the solution. We ask you to deny this application. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions for Mr. Work?

Okay, thank you. I do have one quick question on those who have been signed up to speak. How many of these individuals who have been signed up to speak are you representing today?

Well, this is not a formal association. It's an informal association, this group of neighbors that had responded. And so I can't give you an exact number, but it's several of the residents of the area, and a number of them are here today. Okay. They include Jim Burns, who is here, Jonathan Majeed, who is here, Carolyn Majeed, who is here.

Peter Schaefer who is not here, I believe but Among others and just the reason for the question is just to make sure that he wasn't serving as the proxy And then listen to it. I'm sure just want to be clear Thank you.

All right. All right So now we have Rose Bonilla and then next will be Rachel Smith. I

My handwriting is so poor, I want you to know my name is Rose Beemo. My apologies. I apologize. My address is 2600 Northeast 100th Street. My family strongly opposes PC11014, and I thank you for listening to my concerns. um to avoid repeating what was already said about our opposition that takes me to the statements that been made on a recent post on social media he stated that he never had an end goal for this property but ralph ralphsranch.com tells the story of his plans from the moment he found 2209 northeast 100th street You've already heard about the private events, the farm stands, retail products, alcohol served in 2022. None of those activities are consistent with expectations for residential zoning or codes and it was zoned and coded as R1 when he purchased the property. I'm truly afraid of the carte blanche permission of AA zoning it provides. This is a direct quote from Ralph's Ranch homepage. It says, why do it when you can overdo it? And that says a lot to me as what's happened in the past. Ben admitted he's made mistakes on that recent post that I was talking about. Law enforcement has been called many times since 2022. Despite handshake agreements made with Ben, the neighbors directly adjacent to his property can cite several times when the trust was broken by loud late night noise at his place. There was one incident where there was a real and serious safety threat created by illegal fireworks display at the ranch during a burn ban. Road congestion along 100th Street could realistically delay or block emergency service vehicles. 100th Street is a very narrow road, not even the width of a two-lane city street. Um, residents are regularly forced to drive onto each other's easements to avoid colliding with other vehicles that are driving in the opposite direction. Um, forget it. Big trash day, Amazon packages, it just, it clogs up everything. Um, 100th Street has never been compatible or safe thoroughfare, especially with any kind of increased commercial traffic, um, or farming equipment for that matter. Um... referencing his business of serving his marginalized community. Ben stated that Oklahoma is worth it and that it deserves the space, it deserves spaces that are welcoming. I respect that statement and I agree with him. I also support the LGBTQ community in my own personal way. His call for petition signatures was well received. But this isn't a popularity contest between Ben and me or my neighborhood. The majority of the people who signed his petition don't live in our neighborhood or pay taxes for their homes on 100th Street. As property owners, I ask that our voices matter as much, if not more, than a fan club. As a neighbor on 100th Street, I invested in the peace, safety, and the community of our unique and special neighborhood. We relish and support the abundant native wildlife, and I vowed to the people I bought my house from that I would protect it. A zoning change from R1 to AA could jeopardize the future and financial security for those who, in good faith, bought their family homes on 100th Street. So if Ben wants to be a farmer and earn the farm tax exemption that I see he filed for earlier this year, he should buy some proper agricultural farmland and continue his mission. I respectfully request the denial of this zoning request, PC11014. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Ms. BMO. Any questions? Okay. All right, now we have Ms. Rachel Smith, and that will be followed by Jonathan Mahid.

Hi, my name is Rachel Smith, and I live at 2200 Northeast 100th Street, 73131. I've lived across the street from this property for eight years. When the previous owner of the property in question died of COVID in 2021, my husband and I were deeply worried about the kind of neighbors we might get. For decades, this property had been a horse stable and a boarding facility, even a horse hotel for people traveling with animals. We were worried that someone would come in and build a housing addition because that would be fully within their rights under the R1 zoning. It would ruin the reasons that we originally moved into this neighborhood. So we were admittedly skeptical when Ben Birdwell bought the property, especially because he was a city guy with, from what I could tell, absolutely no agricultural experience on a property that had been used for agriculture for decades. However, from the very first moment, Ben has been an excellent neighbor. He has significantly improved the property from its previous state. It was frankly a little rundown. I get to see beautiful flowers and people working in the beds. I'm able to walk across the street and take my son to see the goats or pick up eggs from the chickens. I could even get a cup of coffee. I really can't speak to these disagreements that are apparently part of this discussion because it simply has not been my experience. We have not had noise loud enough to keep our eight-year-old son awake and we live directly across the street. When a social media video Ben did to promote his then fledgling farm day went viral, there were traffic issues that were one Saturday a month. Ben was careful to make sure that no one parked on our grass or interrupted our Saturdays. He came over multiple times during the event to check on us. When a wedding guest at the previously disclosed event set off fireworks without permission, Ben immediately called to make sure that we were OK and to apologize for any inconvenience. We have found him to be proactive and to be an excellent and caring neighbor. When our workshop caught fire a little over a year ago and we were not at home, Ben was the only one of our neighbors who came running. He called the fire department, he rushed to move a vehicle so that it did not catch on fire, and he took our son without us asking and fed him pizza at his house so we could deal with an emergency and still know he was safe. When a man this summer tried to break into our house while we were on vacation, Ben noticed that there was something strange going on across the street, and a man who didn't belong in our neighborhood was there, and he confronted him. And two weeks ago, I had a friend in the hospital, and I wanted to take some flowers. I was able to support the farm across the street. It's a farm that is creating local jobs and local culture. I didn't give the money to Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. I was able to keep it in the community where I live. I don't have to worry that the vegetables I get from Ben's farm have parasites or E. coli that are going to make my family sick. Again, I cannot speak to other people's concerns. I can only speak from my own life experience. And I have found Ben to be an excellent neighbor, and I value having Ralph's Ranch across the street. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Jonathan Maheed, and then Christy Marshall.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Jonathan Majid and I live at 10501 Joshua Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I've lived there for 36 years. I built my home there. I'm a retired architect and my wife is a retired RN, pediatric RN, and a case manager. So we've worked hard all our lives. Anyway, getting to the point. I'm here with my wife Carolyn to oppose the PC11014. Our neighborhood has been affected by traffic congestion, noise pollution due to loud amplified music from events at 2209 NE 100. My house is 360 feet away, and his club barn faces north, and I'm north of him. So he has had several vendettas, weddings, et cetera, where loud music has been played. And it's like an echo chamber. And we can hear it inside our living room while we are watching TV. And it's very disconcerting. I mean, we are older people. I'm 76, and I won't tell you how old my wife is. I better not, or I'll get slapped. So we go to bed 9.30 or 10. I believe 10 to 7 is quiet hours. We've called the police several times. The music had gone beyond 10. And just for record, our attorney has mentioned all the events. At the last event that was happening, I was told that his attorney had told our attorney that there won't be any events. But that following weekend, There was music that started out at 830 or 9 low. It went up and up and up. And by the time we wanted it to go down, it was so loud we could hear it inside the house. So we had to call the police once. He defied it. You know, young people drink a little bit, they get a little belligerent. But we called the police. 11.21 p.m. Sorry, 10.20 p.m. Because 10 o'clock is the quiet hours. Police was notified. At 11.21, the music was still going on loud and loud. Audible inside our home, making it impossible to enjoy and find rest. Police were again notified, and the music stopped at 1135. And that's the basic premises of why I am protesting. Even after he was told not to play loud music, that following weekend, this happened. Before that, there was a wedding. May 30th wedding event with noise permit for amplified music till 11 p.m. for 100 guests. On this day, because the noise permit was granted and because of our previous experiences with loud, amplified, audible inside, we were compelled to book a hotel to simply find quiet and peace. We were so... So we've been traumatized, to be honest. I mean, you know, every time I see some kind of big truck close to his wedding venue, we get anxious, oh, gosh, we're going to have another sleepless night. So it's been going on, and that's just this year's experience. This has been going over three years. We've called the police several times. I don't want to take too much time. Please deny... this horrible experience that we've been experiencing. It'll continue on, I can tell you, because this is so vast that the previous PUD was better than this. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

Thank you, Mr. Majeed. Christy Marshall and then Becca Nelson.

Hello, Christy Marshall, 2201 Northeast 98th Street. And I am here to speak in opposition to the request. And so I'm going to try to dance around things people have already covered and just try to work outside of that. There's a couple of things that I think are important to say. One being that I think Ben's a good guy. And I think Ben's doing a lot of really good things. And I think Ben's heart is in the right place. And I think a lot of the neighbors agree with that. And Ben has expressed concern that he feels like the neighborhood is against him based on differences of philosophy and lifestyle choices. I've not found that to be the case at all. People aren't, generally speaking, people are not against the things that Ben wants to do. It's that he's wanting to do them in a neighborhood that is not equipped for it. It doesn't mean they're bad ideas. It means this is not the place to operate those ideas. We felt like... I'll speak for my husband and I and our son. We felt like the PUD 2110 was working in a direction that we could find sort of a middle ground. Because I do support some of what Ben does. And I felt like we could find a space to where he's doing a lot of those great things, but finding that spot where it doesn't then impede with the rest of the neighbors. And I thought that was making progress, but then it was withdrawn and then this one was put in its place. The nice thing about the other one was we had a voice. We had a means of having our thoughts heard. If this new rezoning is approved, we have no voice from that point on, if I understand it correctly. It's in there and we have no means of no means of having a voice in things that happen within our neighborhood from there on out. And I'm not I'm not being I'm not being. mean about Ben. He has stepped over the line so many times. And if he's given a broader scope to work within, there's just no telling where it can go from there. And once it's changed, it's that way for decades and decades and decades. And these are people who have bought these homes, and they're multi-generational. They're second and third and fourth generations that are living there. That's our intention as well. But with no control over what happens to that piece, that can significantly alter the neighborhood. But I mainly just want to stress that we're not opposed to Ben's ideas and what he wants to do. They're good things. But in the neighborhood, this is not suitable for those activities. And in his public statement that he made the other day, He said, he talked about they've had hundreds of people come to his place. It's wonderful. It's doing great things. Hundreds in cars by the busload into this neighborhood with little skinny streets. It's not made for that. He chose the neighborhood to live in with full knowledge of how it was equipped and what it's suitable for. and then wanted to change it. The rest of us chose the neighborhood because of what it is, and we love what it is, and that's what we want it to be. So it's not against Penn, and it's not against Penn's ideas. It's against getting to a point where it's disruptive to the other people who that's where they've made their home. 30 seconds. So I'm done. Thank you so much for hearing what we had to say. We really appreciate your support and would ask that this be denied.

Thank you, Ms. Marshall. Becca Nelson and then Jason Marshall.

Hi, I'm Becca Nelson. My address is 2760 Northeast 100th Street. My son Cade is going to share time with me. He would like to speak first.

Hello, I'm Kate, Ben's neighbor. We like to walk up to Ben's farm, stand and buy things there, and play on the farm. I like seeing all the beautiful animals and flowers and eating all the yummy veggies and treats. Ben is a very nice neighbor, and I'm happy we have such a cool farm close by our house.

You can go.

You can sit. I already said my name's Becca Nelson. I'm here with my three boys. We actively walk and bike 100th Street and the adjoining roads. I met Ben after he bought the farm while we were out walking. He welcomed us to come walk around his farm, showed the boys all around to see the animals, and we talked and visited. I was impressed by his genuine friendship and his desire to make very needed improvements to the land there and to invest in the area. As one of the other neighbors mentioned, it was quite shabby before Ben took ownership of it. It has been so inspiring and awesome to see him put so much work and care into transforming his space into the welcoming and communal place it is. I truly feel grateful every time I drive by and see all the blooming flowers and veggies and see the natural processes and the workers tending to the land. I'm grateful that my kids get to know the people there and they see and experience the hard work and the land that goes into growing food and flowers and taking care of the land that cares for us. The farm is undoubtedly better and has improved the neighborhood just in aesthetics alone since he purchased it. It continues to evolve in really beautiful and sustainable ways, making the area a desirable place to live and also bettering the greater Oklahoma City area. As a mother and neighbor, I am vigilant for the safety of my family and I'm aware of the comings and goings here. I drive 100th Street multiple times a day. I walk and bike with my family probably more than almost any other resident. I can honestly say that we have never felt any negative result or have any complaints from visiting, the visiting traffic or the activities on the farm. Any activities are very isolated events and there's a lot of parking To some of the other neighbors points of it being narrow streets It is a narrower road if you look up here on the map though, you'll see Eastern which is a very busy road It's like 50 mile per hour road You just turn right right onto a hundredth Street and Ben's property is right there So you don't have to access all of a hundredth Street to access Ben's place We love walking up there and enjoy the family-friendly environment and supporting the growth there. In my opinion, there's more than adequate parking and signage at the farm for any goers to properly and safely visit and do business without blocking the road or causing obstructions. If you physically went there, you would see this. He has put an abundant amount of resources and care into making sure. I know that he actually cares about some of the issues the neighbors have brought up. He has made significant changes and is always doing so. And it's been, I know that he cares about this. Also, I wanted to bring attention that upon moving into the neighborhood, Ben was the one that noticed how fast most of the local residents go on that street. Often people are flying 40, 45 on said narrow roads, it's true. And Ben is the one that called the city and asked them to put up a 25 mile per hour speed limit. He is considerate about for the people there and their safety. This alone is strong evidence for the conscious and considerate person a neighbor Ben is. He sees that something needs improved and he does it. Ben is a person with strong moral character who is here to better the world by providing beauty, community, and nourishment. He's a friend to all and I wholeheartedly support his endeavors at the farm and I look forward to the application being approved. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Nelson. Jason Marshall and then Molly Hill.

Hi, my name is Jason Marshall. I am heir to one of the properties that this is speaking on. I live at 9201 Weeping Willow Way, Edmond, Oklahoma. I will keep this brief. I don't know Ben. He seems like a pretty good guy to me. He has made huge improvements to the place. It looks 10 times better than it did before he got there. But I oppose because the broad scope that this new zoning gives basically just allows him to do whatever he wants. And this is a person who has continually not followed the zoning that he bought the property under. And that is why I oppose this. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Molly Hill and then Brad Nelson. If you could come to the mic, please.

Molly Hill, 2200 Northeast 96th Street. I was going to pass because all of my concerns regarding my opposition to this application have been voiced. So I don't want to take any more of your time. So thank you.

Thank you. Brad Nelson and then Steve Wilson.

Hi, I'm Brad Nelson, also live at 2760 Northeast 100th Street, just down the road from this. My wife and son already said everything better than I can, but just a couple points. Before Ben was there, there was lights and stadium seating for some kind of horse operation, like someone else mentioned, and things were... you know, generally in disrepair. And so I'm assuming there was other non-R1 activities happening there for a long time. Everything Ben's done there is very, you know, connected to the aesthetic of the area. You know, the barns are beautiful. Our kids love going there. We've met new people there. And just from a character standpoint, Ben's always out on the road welcoming people, chatting people on walks, and talked a lot with him about his process on hearing the concerns and adapting his plans for this. So I'm just voicing my support for Ben's endeavor here.

I just want to stay. Hello, my name is Isaac Nelson. I'm Ben's neighbor. Ben's farm is a happy and wonderful place where the community can come together. There are lots of cool things to see and explore there. His place used to be just a normal house and property. Over time, You can see how much he's contributed, and I like watching it evolve and transform into a beautiful, thriving land and place. Ben has made the neighborhood a better place and works hard to contribute to the community. Ben is very kind, loving, and helpful and always makes me and my family feel welcome. He is a great friend and neighbor to all.

Thanks. Thank you both. Steve Wilson, and then... J. Thitson? Trutzen? Sorry, I'm having a hard time reading that.

I'm Steve and I oppose this. Basically, what you have is a nice guy who has ignored the rules. And you can be a nice guy and you can still ignore the rules. So if you buy something under the residential laws, then you're expected to abide by the residential laws. And what I've seen is fireworks in a burn ban. I've seen cars lining the streets. I got out of my car and took lots of pictures. because I had time to do so because I couldn't get out of the neighborhood. I've seen muddy streets from people coming in and out. They're pulling into his deal with Going to the wedding or whatever making it a wedding venue other among other events and so what you have is a really nice guy who's done a little bit of work on his property, but he's ignoring all the the laws of the R1 residential laws and he's broken the trust of a lot of the neighbors in the process and And this is what we've seen. And when you have fireworks going off at 10, 11 o'clock at night in a residential neighborhood, and we were at a meeting, and he said, well, that was a mistake. That shouldn't have happened. So what you have is somebody who himself is ignoring the laws of R1 residential hosting someone who is ignoring his rules, and the neighbors are the one who gets to put up with it. And so this is why I oppose. And that's all I'm going to say. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Jay? Ms. Hill, if you, after Jay speaks, I'll let you come back up if you've decided you want something to add. Jay, is it Jansen? Thitson? Are you at 9608 Henley Avenue? Okay, you're up. Oh, you're not speaking. Okay. All right. Ms. Hill, if you want to.

I just want to comment on the numerous comments that have been made regarding how shabby the property was. The previous owner, Dee Corley, lived there for many, many years. She was my farrier. She died of COVID. And yes, it took her partner a while to sell the property. She was out of state. So I do think there should be some allowance rather than denigrating the appearance of this property because it was for sale. This... I believe in the late 80s, there was a change in Oklahoma City zoning where they made everything R1 in that neighborhood. And the history is on the internet as to The purpose was to maintain these one plus acre plots for neighborhoods like our neighborhood, which is Bartlett neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Melissa Thomas and then Karen Jansen.

Good afternoon. My name is Melissa Thomas and I'm here in support of Ben and his request to rezone the property. My address is 2627 Northeast 100th Street. I live in the same neighborhood and on the same street as Ben's property. I drive by it every day and you can't not notice the amount of time and effort that goes into running a place like his. I've had the opportunity to see it firsthand and what he's trying to create And in my experience, it has only been a positive addition to our community. I have attended several of the farm days, and I've been amazed by the event and the support from the local community. It's fun, well-organized, intentional, and it's free. It also provides opportunity for connection, not only to our food, but to each other as well, which is something I believe we are all longing for and in need of. I understand that there has been a lot of opposition, mostly based on traffic and noise. I haven't experienced either of those, and Ben has made a lot of efforts since these complaints. He has added a large parking area, so as the neighbors have said, Northeast 100th is a narrow street, but there's off-street parking, so since he's added that, I've Haven't seen any street parking and one thing I did want to note you can see from this plot up here that It's a pretty rural area. We're located close to the city, but I've noticed this myself from just having a few friends over noise tends to travel through here and so I think that that's been one of the major complaints and to be fair I mean How do they know that that's coming from Ben's property? I've had the police call on me for having a Bluetooth speaker. So I was shocked when the police showed up. And so just wanted to say that that was a personal experience of mine. So they're claiming live bands and a big bus. I've never seen anything like that. So what I have seen is someone who cares deeply about his property, his neighbors, and our community. He's invested significant time, energy, and money to make Rolf's Ranch what it is today. I know Ben to be a person of good character who genuinely wants to create something positive and welcoming, a small farm and farmer's market that can be enjoyed by everyone, as he claims it's a place for y'all. In a world that seems to be constantly trying to divide us, I can't understand why anyone would be in opposition to such a place. From my point of view, this has been an asset to our community and I hope you'll support his request. I stand in strong support of Ben and his efforts to provide such a space in our charming little neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Ms. Jansen. Last one I have is Karen Jansen. Okay. All right, so there's no one signed up to speak. All right. All right, well, that'll conclude the... Oh, we have one more?

Hey, all. My name is Chris Patton. I live at 11508 Bel Air Place, just a couple miles over. I have focused on farming and regenerative agriculture for the last few years after graduating from OSU OKC studying horticulture. I actually worked at a farm that is not pictured. It's just south of this picture. And I had a great time there running their greenhouse at a R1 residential lot. That was a couple years ago, still our one. And then fast forward a couple years, I've also worked on this farm doing some landscaping work just on the side. What I've seen from this property and some of the things that have been brought up, the mud on the small street, was rectified with a parking lot. The parking lot is not a actual asphalt parking lot. It's just a chat or a crushed stone that over our wet seasons over the last two years, you know, you do see mud sometimes. And Ben has always been super up front and quick to bring more of material when he notices a problem. So I don't have a whole lot more to say, but I stand in strong support. And I want to see more of these third spaces and green spaces available to people. uh... if if row cropping is not if that is the end all be all issue with the r one i think that there are uh... changes coming in in zoning and uh... the the new kind of holistic look at at uh... the new uh... districts uh... i think that they're there's a strong uh... opportunity for this small urban farm to stay with us thank you you can get to see in that uh... elena there thank you

Mr. Box?

Yeah, very briefly. So a lot of what you heard from the people complaining was about the past actions. Understand their concern. Understand the impact that those events had on their life. But nothing about this application would in any way allow that. My client understands that. My client wants to simply continue to do the thing that is most important to him and hopefully what you heard from others, and that is the farm. I don't know that I've ever stood at this podium with anyone signed up to support something I'm trying to get done at this podium. So that's certainly a unique treat for me to have the folks most impacted on 100th Street agree with the position that I have. Contrary to what you heard from the people in opposition, this is absolutely a down zone. Frankly, if I came here and it was zoned AA and I tried to zone at R1 without water and sewer, you would probably say no. I don't know that I've seen an R1 case approved in my time without public sewer. So typically, the agricultural zoning use is what would be appropriate when you don't have the public infrastructure. And that's what we're seeking here today. So we would ask that you approve the application.

We know I can't I can't I'm sorry we've we've had plenty of time to hear and now it's time for the Commission to discuss I Mr. Harrison, this is your ward if you want to lead our discussion.

Sure, not a problem. Of course, this has been a spirited debate for quite some time regarding this, and there has been a shift. I've had an opportunity to confer with both councils, but I do want to get the commission's positioning on this from a more seasoned standpoint if there's anyone else that would like to contribute.

I'll jump in. I understand the previous application was seeking to continue the events, and this one does not. I do agree that this is a down zone. But more than anything, I agree that it's been agricultural for decades. That's my position.

Yeah, I mean, my theory, and it's just that, that the R1 zoning, when land is annexed into the city, it defaults into R1 typically. And so I'm, pardon? Used to, oh, used to. Right, but back when this was, it was very likely that. So the fact that this is R1, I can't say for sure, but it was probably always envisioned as agricultural. annexed in came in as our one when you look at the surrounding land use you know our one is you know anywhere from 4400 you know 9,000 square foot lots and I don't see any of those in here these are all you know quarter acre half acre plus so Yeah, I understand. When I just look at the character of the neighborhood, it feels rural agricultural.

I actually live on AA, and I have an organic farm across the street. When I look at this, it kind of reminds me of that. That being said, I keep hearing a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with AA or the neighborhood that I live in. that I wouldn't be happy about. I struggle with this.

I'll just say that for me it's the land use, the existing property, the land use, and we're not here really to legislate who owns it, what they operate it on, and how they operate it. They're supposed to comply by the existing ordinances and laws. When I look at it, in agreement with you, Nate, it's a rural agricultural situation. To rezone this back to AA, to get it to start over, maybe it comes back later with an SPUD or anything else, that's on them. But I have no problem going back to AA on this.

Yeah, I mean, when I hear the issues the neighbors are facing, I mean, those all feel like those are... Those aren't related to land use. Whether this was single family or agriculture or spud, the things that the adjacent neighbor are unhappy about are code enforcement issues, noise ordinance, things like that. If those keep happening, which I truly hope they do not, it doesn't matter what the use is zoned. That's going to be an issue in any neighborhood, any zoning. The thing that I find is interesting is with a spud, we look at spuds all the time and we tell neighbors, Those are what have the ability to put guardrails on a project, on a development to protect the surrounding neighborhood. And the fact that that was considered at one time and it didn't sound like it was gonna go any place for whatever reason, so now we're back to here. And this is, I mean, that's what's before us. So we don't really have any ability to put any teeth on this.

That was one of my thoughts. I would much rather be less apprehensive about this if it was a spud and we had the ability to put guardrails on it. But again, to your point, a lot of the issues that it sounds like they've had are enforcement more than actual zoning itself.

Can we revisit that? I'm sorry. And I think you said at the beginning. Sure.

So we had a PUD. And the purpose of the PUD was to allow a form of the events to continue to go there. The two people that spoke that we thought we were getting down the path, boy, that is news to us. There was never any indication from anyone, the neighbors, the neighbors' council, that there was any path forward whatsoever that would allow events. And I can feel somebody walking behind me, presumably it's Mr. Work, to say something to the contrary. Sure, it would have been nice for them to tell us that, but that's just absolutely a statement that has no factual basis. In every way possible, they made it clear that there was no path forward if we wanted to have events, okay? Well, then what's the next logical conclusion? Let's go to the least intensive zoning district we have. We want to continue to be able to farm, and that's it. Well, that's AA. The idea that now AA is somehow opening the gates to this massive amount of things we could do is simply not factual. It's just not. AA would allow us to continue the farm. The idea that we would have a PUD would then further restrict down what AA allows. Never seen it. I don't know what sense that would make. So no, there was never any indication that they would accept a PUD. The only reason we would do a PUD is if we wanted to have the events. We've abandoned that idea. We want to continue to operate the farm.

Mr. Chairman, can I respond? Sure. There's a podium up there. Sure. Again, Commissioners Kelley work on behalf of the neighbor who is responding in opposition. We had been actively engaged with the applicant on negotiation of a proposed PUD. It's true that we did not want event centers as a use permitted within the PUD. But this property just screams out for being done in a planned unit development in terms of the nature of the activities that are going on, the types of uses. The direction that we were going in our discussions with them on the PUD, which is what they told us they wanted, was to allow an urban farm with a farm stand These other activities, that's what they expressed to us that they wanted. Yes, we wanted the events, still want the events to be discontinued and not to go on, but it really, it requires, it needs a planned unit development where the uses can be spelled out, hours of operation, things like parking, things like what kind of activity is going to go on and when it's going to be permitted to go on, to just disregard all that and it was their choice 100% to withdraw the PUD we had in their hands our last version of suggested revisions to the PUD when we received notice that they had withdrawn the PUD we didn't ask them to do that so that's what would be more appropriate in our opinion thank you

PUDs are absolutely appropriate in certain zoning cases where you have incompatible intensity. You have density issues. You have setback issues. You have things that don't make sense under the current or under a base zoning district. AA is not one of them. It doesn't get more benign than AA. And to talk about size, the ordinance only allows up to 200 square feet in area for our farm stand. This is not a case in which you need a PUD. You need a PUD when you have density concerns, or you're trying to modify lot sizes, or you're trying to alter height requirements, or you're trying to get more density than otherwise would be allowed. Not in an AA zoning district. This is not a case in which a PUD would make any sort of sense.

unless it was a possibility of event center and then you would have a pd to limit hours and days of operation and amount of people allowed on the property and to me it seems like the client understands that bus has left the building no different than in my neighborhood if i live on a half acre and 150 homes if i want to have a party and have 80 cars wrapped around my neighborhood i have the right to do that and i also have the right to get in trouble with with the action center for it um I do, but like I said, I believe it's a down zone, and I believe that this does give the neighbor's teeth that if there are events that happen there, he is not zoned for that. But I believe that any owner of their property that buys a piece of property that's not correctly zoned, this thing is a farm. It is an agricultural location in use. It needs its zoning fixed.

And I'll just add, too, I always like running the scenario in my head. If we do nothing, what eventually could happen? And say this doesn't pass, and the applicant sells the property as R1. Developer comes in, and at 10 acres, putting the smallest residential lot on it, you could have 90 residential lots on here. And I don't think the neighbors would be in favor of that either.

Well, there is no storm sewer. I mean, no sanitary sewer, do you understand?

What you would have, Mr. Chairman, is you would have a plat. Because there is no sewer, you'd have half-acre lots because there is water available. And so we would max out with half-acre lots with aerobic systems. That's what would happen.

Which is like my neighborhood, yes.

Which we totally understand, and we would welcome those neighbors to our neighborhood.

Well, because it's already zoned that, because it's already zoned that, there wouldn't be an ability to even complain about it. But I believe if this case was the opposite way, and this was AA trying to be turned to R1, there'd be more people here to protest, period. Because they can get sewer to this site. Yes, they can.

So maybe it is the 90 lots. But, I mean, that I think highlights the point of what is the most appropriate use for this site that's surrounded by, frankly, forest? It's a farm. That simple.

And if they want to make those changes, they come back with the PUD and SPUD. Sure. And that's exactly where I'm sitting now. If those changes need to come, they will come back and report this body in the correct form and fashion. But if I don't hear anything else from any further commissioners, I'm going to go ahead and move for approval.

Yeah, I'll say something about it. Best I can figure is they've been doing this stuff. It was zoned R1, and they shouldn't have been doing this stuff. Now they're zoning AA, and then some neighbors think they're going to continue doing these things. Either way, they're both not allowed. I don't think that's an issue for us. I think I'm looking at just the land use, and as land use as AA, yes, I think it's fine. Do I think there should be events there? No, I do not. Especially if it's AA or if it's R1. Those should be reported to the Action Center. And I get a feeling that maybe they have been and they're not getting any traction. I don't know. But we're not here to decide that. We're here to decide whether it should be AA or not. And I think it's a good use of it. That's it.

Mr. Chair. Yeah. I've made my motion. You ready?

Mm-hmm. All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item to City Council for approval. It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval. So as a reminder to the neighbors, this is a recommendation to city council. So it'll appear before them in approximately six to eight weeks. Keep your eyes out. You'll have the chance to voice your concerns at that meeting as well. All right.

Item nine. Item 9 is case PC11015, application to rezone 2301 Northeast 23rd Street from R1C3 and HNO to O2 and HNO.

Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, this is a request to go to O2. It's got a combination of different zoning districts on it. It's a church that's no longer in use. We simply want to make it office space, so this is an application for O2.

Okay. Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward again. I have one person signed up to speak. Okay, let's hear from them first, please, thank you. Okay, Victoria Kemp. Is there a Victoria Kemp present? Okay.

All right. I don't have anyone to speak. Okay. Commissars, do you all have any concerns or questions for the applicant?

I do not.

Just one thing. And so you've taken that C3 into that single-family neighborhood? O2. Or O2, sorry. Yes. It's C3 now. It's C3 now. We're trying to downzone it. reasoning why it's going under there i mean you don't have to tell us but i just want to know say it again i said the reasoning why is that going to be a parking lot i don't i don't know i just know all do you know

If you go to the zoning map, Caitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street. So the building itself is actually split right down the middle, C3 and R1, because of the existing single-family homes that we have right next to us. We spoke with staff in order to clean this up. They would not have been favorable to C3 there, again, because of the proximity to the R1. O2, though, is considered compatible next to residential, which is why the cleanup is to go to O2. Even though it's still split. I get it.

I just wanted to know why the single family lot was changing to O2.

And does the applicant have any hardly use they think they're going to see?

That's why Ms. Kemp was here. I can't tell from that zoning map, but my belief was that was. Already C3. C3. And we're going to O2. I know. Because they're C3 to the west of that. Yeah.

Okay.

Just the land use. What is it? I don't know. that's our one along the street yeah I don't know that we know that yet just that you could attract it the stuff along 23rd and the stuff into the I think that's just what the entirety of the site was that my client is acquiring and so our goal is to put into one office zoning district rather than having three separate use

Anyone else? And I know this piece of property well, it's just oddly constructive. It's just odd.

Okay, one last call for Victoria Kemp. Okay.

Okay.

Not seeing any other concerns, I'm gonna move for approval. A motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item for approval. It's not coming up on my refresh All right, there we go second by Commissioner Meek, please cast your votes when available I And that item is recommended for approval. Thank you. Item 10 was deferred.

Item 11, this is SPUD 1860, application to rezone 7200 South Walker from R1.

Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, this is for an SPUD that would allow for multifamily. This is an area that has many other multifamily projects in the area, as well as some heavy commercial right there along 240 and Walker. There are no TEs. However, in speaking with Commissioner Newman, he would ask that we add a TE to limit the height to four stories and 50 feet as a maximum, which we agreed to.

Okay. Mr. Newman, Mr. Ward, if you want to lead the discussion.

I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. It felt like this was pretty appropriate for this area. It's basically kind of an infill project, replacing a church that burnt down. There's already a lot of multifamily, so I didn't really have any issues with it. Did anyone else have any questions or comments? So with that, I'll make a motion to go ahead and approve SPUD 1860. I recommend approval.

A motion to recommend the item to City Council from Commissioner Newman.

I'm sorry, with the T.E.? With the T.E.?

I was subject to the T.E. I always forget the T.E.'s. Thank you. What?

The one T.E.

It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. Thank you. And that's recommended for approval.

Item 12. Item 12 is SPUD 1838, application to rezone 8121 Northeastern Avenue from AA and SPUD 360.

Failed to allow Ms. Powers to walk out last time. She got too excited, so I'll allow her the grace to exit. Okay, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. This is another case with a bit of a history. My client owns and operates a pest control business. They bought the site that is currently zoned under SPD 360 and began operating. They did so in a fashion that ran contrary to Spud 360. Spud 360 limits the site to a single use, that being a vet clinic. Came to our office, kind of walking through the process, explained that there's no way to do this other than a new SPUD. Filed the new SPUD, and we had protests that had kind of come out from south to the east, and frankly some of the people that are here on the other case. So we have modified and modified and modified the SPA now to a point where it would simply allow the pest control business. It was still met with protest, but yesterday a letter Was delivered to us and all of you by mr. Work. It's a letter that was just handed out to you dated August 26 2026 and it reads dear Oakland City Planning Commission members on behalf of the group of surrounding neighbors This law firm represents here are our requested revisions regarding spud 1838 master design statement then it lists six things that represent his requested revisions. The good news is I'm here to tell you that we agree to all six of Mr. Work's requested changes. Presumably that means we have an agreement. I'm a bit surprised he's not standing here next to me hand in hand like Mr. Groves and I used to do, but here we are. So what we would propose is to strike the two TEs that staff has listed and simply adopt Kelly Works August 26, 2026 letter and the six items that he requests as our TEs. It covers everything from revising the site plan to limiting the square footage of the building, limiting it to an existing building to access. So all of the demands that were put forth yesterday by the opposition, we wholeheartedly agree to and would ask that the commission recommend approval of this SPD with those six items as technical evaluations. Happy to answer any questions.

When we're ready for a motion, we will need you to read those.

I'm happy to read them in. I'm a pretty good reader.

Sounds like a big win for Mr. Work.

Is there anyone signed up to speak?

Mr. Work is signed up to speak, so if you're...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Kelly Work. My address is 105 North Hudson Suite 304, Oklahoma City, and I am representing James Pickle and Dana Spence. Mr. Pickle lives and has his home on the east side of Eastern across from the subject property, and Ms. Spence owns the property and lives directly south. of the subject property. And we do appreciate the agreed changes to the proposed SPUD. Those were not changes, though, that were just submitted yesterday. We actually had submitted those to Mr. Box and Ms. Turner more than a week ago. And we had not heard back from them. So in the interim, there have been a number of additional letters of protest that have come in from a number of our other neighbors. And so there has not been an opportunity yet to visit with them about these proposed changes to make sure that everybody is in accord with what is being proposed here. And of course a number of those letters of protest that have come in were objecting to the idea of having a pest control business at this property at all. And of course under the proposed changes that we listed in our letter, It would it would accommodate a pest control Business with the limitations that would be included as part of the SPUD because of the extent of the changes and because these other Area property owners have not had an opportunity to see what is being proposed what we would request be done is that those changes be provided because it will include not only changes to the master design statement, it includes changes to the legal description that is exhibit A I believe to the SPUD and it includes what will be a completely different master development plan map. And because of the extent of the changes, we feel that it would be appropriate to get those documents prepared and submitted and allow not only us but the staff and these other neighbors an opportunity to see what is now being proposed. And that is our request. That's what we would ask that you do. I did understand, I appreciate Mr. Harrison, Commissioner Harrison has been involved in these discussions back and forth, and I did understand Mr. Box didn't reference it, but I did understand that there was proposed to be an additional TE that would specifically state that there would be a revision to Exhibit B to reflect the regulations contained in the master design statement. Because although there have been changes made to the SPUD that is before you today, There's not been a revision to the master design statement which was originally filed when the SPUD was filed and it had included an additional 9,750 square foot building and concrete pads and additional points of access from eastern and from eastern placed on the west side. So I understand the applicant is willing to also revise the master development plan map to reflect the changes that are proposed to be made to the master design statement, but we would just ask that those changes be made and that everyone had an opportunity to see them before the commission makes a recommendation on this application. That's all. Thank you.

So I'm just fuzzy. I need to understand timeline here. So this, Mr. Work, this letter that we received dated yesterday or that Mr. Box received from you and now is before us. And we did get one, too, I think. I mean, I got one. Okay. So you said you sent that a week ago and then again yesterday? Yeah.

I sent it on August 19th.

Okay.

We had been going back and forth on the proposed language of the master design statement. I sent it to Ms. Turner, Mr. Box by email with each of those same items because we thought we were engaged in discussions about what the final language of the master design statement was going to be. We got an acknowledgment from them that it had been received, but then we had no word from them as to whether or not they were agreeable to any of those changes until yesterday afternoon. In the interim, quite a few additional letters of protest were submitted, and we were in communication with a number of those neighbors. They haven't been involved in this discussion that occurred yesterday. So that's my only point is that we've got a number of people that have filed letters of protest. Some of them are saying they don't want any pest control business at all. I don't want to be here saying I'm representing them. They haven't had an opportunity to be involved in these discussions. All that it would do would be allow them to see these changes We would be suggesting to them that these changes are appropriate and that with these changes we believe, that is Mr. Pickle and Ms. Spence, that the SPUD is a reasonable compromise. They haven't seen any of that.

I think it could have happened if we had a response a week ago.

That's the only reason I mentioned it. Have we received the protest letters?

Yes, sir.

So they're in your packet.

So the last one was from August 21st, I believe.

Well, there were many that came in just in the last week, as far as I know.

So the issue is when Mr. Work says we need time to speak to the people as to what is, quote, now being proposed, end quote, these are his proposals. Presumably he spoke to the people, got authority to issue something, and then we agreed to it. So the idea that he now needs his own language that he's proposed that I've signed off on, time to go see what is now being proposed to run up the flagpole. If you look at the front page of the staff report, this was originally set before you on May 28th. This thing has had three months of continuances. The positive is, now, as we're standing here at the hearing, the opposition that exists, is there anyone else signed up to speak? Okay, so the only person that signed up to speak is the lawyer, presumably carrying water for all of those protests, has sent us a list of demands that we agree to every single one of his demands. What is left to talk about?

As I've mentioned, there are a number of people that are interested in this matter that I do not represent. I know it suits Mr. Box to do these last-minute negotiations and to do these negotiations on the floor of the Planning Commission hearing. In my opinion, however, it does a disservice to the people that are trying to participate, the average citizens in this process. My only point is there are a number of people who are interested. We, that is my clients, Mr. Pickle and Ms. Spence, are suggesting that we would be willing to do this compromise that would allow the pest control business to operate with these controls. There are a number of letters that have come in from protesters that say they don't want any pest control business. I don't want to be up here saying I'm saying on behalf of those people because I don't represent them.

I don't think you even represent them.

That's right.

And so we have the letters. I mean, I can make my own decision based on those letters.

My only point is...

I don't want to see this go to the fifth month.

My only point is you're amending the master design statement. We're amending the legal description. We're going to have a new master development plan map. That's all some pretty significant changes. It just seems to me those documents should be prepared before you vote to recommend either to approve or not.

Personally, I can get behind all of that, and I can figure all that out, and I know there's six more weeks before this goes to council. Before council.

That'll be done.

I'm not in favor of deferring it anymore.

I am understanding, though, that what we were just handed, though, your clients have agreed to this. Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. Thanks.

He just wants some adjustments to the master design statement about access, about the building. I think we can get there.

It includes... revision of the legal description. That's part of one of those items. It includes the revision to the correction, really, of the master design statement, which does not comport with the new terms of the master design statement.

What is the revision to the legal description?

It's actually going to be the same property that was included in SPUD 360. This proposed SPUD has some additional property that it was proposing to include. We're suggesting that it not be expanded beyond the original SPUD 360. They've said they're in agreement with that.

So my question is, if we're revising a legal description, does it have to be re-noticed?

It'd be a reduction.

It gets smaller. That's right.

That's what I was thinking. I wanted a complication. And it's the existing legal description for the existing...

It's the same existing legal description. There's not going to be an additional structure. The entries and exits are going to go back to originally what they are, and that needs to be added as TE number 7.

Okay.

So if anyone else has anything else, and we don't have anyone else to speak, I'm going to recommend approval. Mr. Box, if you would go ahead and read the tees into the record, please.

Sorry, Sarah Welch, Planning Department. Can we put the mat back up? Sorry, Chuck. Okay. Two things, number one, I heard we're striking TE2, which was our request to modify exhibit B to reflect access points. Because I'm reading these TEs and I want a couple things, this is requesting one building. So there's one building max, I'm just confirming with the applicant that we're down to just one building, not two. which makes sense why you would strike our number one. But I do think that the master design statement should be modified so we understand where the building will be. The second thing is Mr. Works' request is to change the legal description. It does not require re-noticing because it's smaller. However, I will point out that when you're looking at this map, the little line within the triangle that's underneath the word spud 360, Is the zoning line so by removing or changing this you're going to be creating a non-conforming lot I'm assuming that's what's left over is is not five acres So you're going to be creating a non-conforming a a zoned parcel So I just want to make sure that everybody's understanding that they're not going to be able to do much with that property Unless they come back at a later time for something different Yeah, I completely and that's the way it needs to be per our conversation.

Yeah, we understand Yeah Okay, so I'm gonna read them into the record. Para one, period. One dot, one dot, eliminate, quote, 8300.1 administrative and professional offices, asterisk, end quote, period. Two, para.1.1. Eliminate the, quote, asterisk, quote, after, quote, building maintenance services, quote, and add instead, quote, comma, restricted to pest control services, quote, period. Three, para.1.1. Revise the sentence about chemicals to read. Any chemicals associated with the pest control services business within the SPUD shall comply with all federal, state of Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, and city of Oklahoma city regulations. For para period one dot three dot revised to read colon the maximum building size shall be limited to the existing building comma not to exceed three thousand five hundred square feet in area five para one para dot one dot four dot revised to read colon there shall be a maximum of one Per in one close print building comma not to exceed three thousand five hundred square feet in area within this spud portable and or temporary storage buildings or outside containers Paren, including but not limited to, connex boxes and cargo containers. In paren. shall not be permitted within the spud six para dot three dot revise legal description for exhibit A and depictions for exhibit B to be limited to the same area as spud 360, no additional area. The conceptual plan exhibit B needs to be revised to reflect the changes proposed from the original MDS that contemplated a second building to be constructed to the south of the existing building and additional access points. That's the end of it. That's how my father had to do his billing for 30 years via dictation. That sounds terrible.

And are you striking the recommended to you wanted to that would be my goal because I think everything is covered within Those six and I believe there's a reference to a te7.

What would te7 be?

That was the final one that Mr. Work said was in the communication we had last. Yesterday they would read a specific way, but I don't think we need it.

I don't think we need it because his proposed six requires the conceptual plan to be revised to reflect the changes. Right. That's all I think we need.

We're fine. Okay. Thank you.

With that, I recommend approval. All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend approval subject to the technical evaluations of the Red End. That's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes.

I'm not talking to you.

That item is recommended for approval.

Thank you.

I cannot wait for your first book on tape. It's going to be good. All right, item 13. Item 13 is PUD 2149, application to rezone 4001 Southwest 15th Street from PUD 1417, SRODD and AE2 to PUD 2149.

Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th. Jared, would you show the new site plan? This is an application for the Humane Society along 15th. Can we show the new one? So this is along 15. This is in the SRODD, which means we had to go to the Urban Design Commission, which we did yesterday. So yesterday, the Urban Design Commission unanimously recommended approval to the Planning Commission. There has been one request made by Commissioner Meek that we remove gasoline sales from the document. We are fine to do that We would ask to strike te number one that asked to limit this to two driveways We need three driveways the site plan before you will explain why that third drive to the east is to allow for The queuing of vehicles we expect somewhere around a hundred perhaps daily Animals to be spayed and neutered. So if you didn't have that third drive That's really for the queuing of the people dropping off and picking up the pets It would cause significant disruption to the rest of the operation. So the three parking lots is what we request That's what was presented to the Urban Design Commission yesterday.

And again, they recommended approval happy to answer any questions All right, mr. Meek I do not have anyone signed up to speak awesome I

I agree with removing T number one, the queuing lane, I think is very important. And I'm good with replacing that stricken T number one with the removal of the gasoline cells 8300.46. Any other commissioners have any other comments regarding this?

All right.

With that being said, and with the TEs, as I've just read in, I would like to recommend approval of PUD 2149.

A motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend approval of the item of city council subject to the TE. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes.

Nine items recommended for approval.

Thank you.

Item 14. This is PUD 2154, application to Rezone 9121 South Shields from AAC3, C4, I1, and I2 to PUD 2154. Jerry, look at the air.

Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. This is an application that would allow for the current use, which is a scrap operation, to come into full compliance with the zoning. The zoning is kind of a hodgepodge of different zonings. My client has operated this site since 1952. Fortunately or unfortunately, I've had the opportunity to visit many scrap yards in my dealings with zoning cases. I've never seen one that is more put together and clean and organized as this. They're in their fourth generation now of operating this site. This will allow them to, like I said, get into full compliance, operating since 1952. This thing has just kind of been there without, I think, a lot of decision as to what the zoning was. There are two TEs, and we would agree to TE1, excuse me, agree to TE2. We'd ask TE1 to be revised to state that in the event of redevelopment of the site, sidewalks would be constructed. We're fine with that. We don't know that given current operations, sidewalk makes sense, but if redeveloped, we're fine with sidewalks. So amend TE1. We agree to TE2. I know someone did sign up to speak, and... I think it is the church across the street. So I did want to say we are in agreement and we plan to anywhere in which there are vehicles stored outside, we will have a seven foot tall site-proof fence that will be required. So happy to answer any questions.

All right. Christopher, this is Ward 4, and I do have someone sign up to speak.

Okay, this is kind of a weird case. Like you said, hodgepodge of strange zoning, but yeah, let's listen to a person sign up to speak.

Okay, Mr. Miguel Morales.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Miguel Mireles, and I'm the executive director of the Blessed Stanley Roller Shrine, property just south of this property, 700 Southeast 89th is the address there. I'm in agreement that this place needs to come under one umbrella. some of this property doesn't have scrap on it i'm a little concerned uh... of more scrap coming in uh... because that causes large trucks to come in and i've continued to be uh... Very disappointed in the upkeep of 89th Street. 89th Street, you'll lose your teeth as you drive that first section right off of I-35 to Shields. It's poorly maintained. There are no curbs. There are no sidewalks when it snows. vehicles run off into into the grass on my property break links irrigation pipe sprinkler heads and Three months ago. We actually had a vehicle that careened off the road into the pond So with this property, too, I understand that they are going to put some visibility shields on 89th so that way you don't see into the scrapyard. But with that as well, with scrap sitting around, we have had... Abundance of rodent problems at the shrine and we combat that on a regular basis with rats muskrats beavers and geese So it's just a concern of mine. I understand they want to pull it under one umbrella But do want them to really make sure that they involve us in things that they may want to do things to improve the area Sidewalks will be great one of the things that last year. I just want you to know we had 350,000 people come to visit the blessed Stanley World of Shrine This week they're debuting a docu full-length documentary narrated by Martin Sheen The lid is about to blow off the top of this place with Blessed Stanley Roeder, where we will probably have in the millions of people coming to Oklahoma City and Pilgrimage to visit this property, this sacred ground. With that, too, we want to put our best foot forward and make sure that people know that Oklahoma's a beautiful place, and we're honoring one of our own. He's an Oklahoman, Blessed Stanley Roeder from Ocarchee, Oklahoma. So I just come in advisement that we really want to make sure we monitor what we're doing in this area and the economic impact that we've already made. We've seen loves on the corner has invested thousands of dollars in doing a remodel of their property there. And I assume there'll be some more things that happen in the near future as we can continue to grow that little corner of South Oklahoma City. Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you, Mr. Morales.

So I was involved in the rezoning for the blessed Stanley Rother several years ago. Look, these uses are, they are kind of what they are. And that church is brand new. Presumably during the site selection process, they looked across the street and saw this use. And so it's, This has been in operation since 1952. The blessed Stanley Grother was built within the last five or six years. So of all the scrap operations that we have in the city, this is perhaps the standard that everything should hope to achieve. So we're simply trying to allow this to be in conformity across the board. And we believe that the operation will continue to allow all of the other users in the area to operate in a manner The street, nothing we can do there. That's the city. The city needs to maintain the streets, perhaps. But that has nothing to do with our operation.

So talk to me about the seven-foot fence where any stored materials or vehicles are visible. Where are you envisioning that?

Along Southeast 89th, anywhere where there's outdoor storage vehicles, a seven-foot site-proof fence should be required.

Will that be added because of this TE, or is that going off existing stuff that's there? Or are you saying if you're adding new stuff, you're going to screen it?

Yeah, we'll just add that as a TE. Along Southeast 89th, anywhere there's outside material, a seven-foot site-proof fence shall be required.

If they're not already fences? I'm sorry? Is there not already fences?

Part of it is. I mean, you have some missing teeth, right, that aren't us. You have a fiberglass manufacturer to the east that's in that kind of, the one missing tooth that's not our operation. We have fencing along big stretches of it. Right. Some we don't. So anywhere that we do have anything outside, we will have the seven-foot site-proof fence. Okay.

You don't want to do that along Shields also?

Sorry?

You don't want to do that along Shields also?

Shields is where you have buildings. That's like kind of the retail front where you would pull up and park. So it's parking lots and the office buildings are along Shields.

There's buildings now, but I think what Commissioner Powers is saying, if that was to change to storage of outdoor vehicles, would you be amenable to require the screening there as well?

So it won't be, but sure, if the frontage along Shields were to be used for the storage of material, we'd be happy to screen it. But right now, if you drove it, it's parking lot and office. That's where all the employees park.

Yeah, my point is just that if that were to change over time, if you're only going to provide it where it's visible, then it doesn't hurt anything to say along 89th and Shields.

Yeah, I'm just trying it so that I mean so that the wording in the PUD doesn't become a problem or permitting how to define if the frontage of shields is used for outdoors. I mean, that's my only hiccup here of how to word it so that when we go pull a permit from somewhere else, they don't say, well, you need to go fence shields. I don't know.

I have confidence in your ability to solve that problem. What's that? I have confidence in your ability to solve that problem, Mr. Boggs.

You have more confidence in me than maybe I do.

No, I don't think so.

The brains of the operation are here.

But how do we define it?

I don't know how to do that. If there's storage of material within the first 50 feet along shields, that area shall be required to be screened with seven foot tall site-proof fencing. I don't think I can say it again. It just kind of came out. So hopefully someone wrote that down. If redeveloped.

Let's talk landscape.

OK.

I have a question. It says the subject parcel shall meet all requirements of the city's landscaping ordinance in place at the time of development. I think I've seen similar language in the past, of course. But what's the intent there?

I think the intent is for it to be what is there now.

Can we just say, shall meet the requirements of the city's landscaping ordinance period?

Yes.

I mean, the problem is it's already all paved. What does I2 require? Do we know?

Well, if you pulled a building permit to build something, that's when it would require it. Right now, it wouldn't require anything if you agreed to that.

The problem is, as you can see, it's completely paved and graveled. Like, there's nowhere to landscape.

Well, I'm just concerned about if they're out of compliance now, I don't want to make them... Give them permission to remain out of compliance? Right. I mean, because they're a combination of various things.

Could we say what is... Landscaping currently on site, if any, shall be deemed to conform? I mean, it's... It's a scrap operation. I don't know what you'd have us do here. Go dig out parking spaces to put trees.

I mean, I don't think you want them to change what's there today. I think at redevelopment.

If redeveloped.

Or new development. Yeah, that's fine. That's what I said.

So the language that they have will cover that.

Yes.

If that's all we're going for. If we're not seeking to bring them into compliance, then the language that is proposed will be sufficient.

Why don't we say at the time of redevelopment then? Instead of development, change 9.2 to say redevelopment.

Okay.

So that would be revising TE1 to require sidewalks in the event of redevelopment, agree to TE2. And then TE3 to be require anywhere along Southeast 89th Street where outdoor material is stored, seven foot site proof fence shall be required. And then TE4 would be modify the language in section 9.2 to add RE in front of the word development.

What about Shields? What about shields? I mean, there's nothing to be screened there.

It's office and parking. Any storage within 50 foot. Any storage of material within 50 feet of shields, we would be required to have a seven foot tall site-proof fence.

Sarah, how are you with catching all these? This is a little clunky. You'd have to rely on listening to the recording. Are you good?

He's not that good off the cuff. He can read, though.

I read good. Okay. That it? It felt good to me. Okay, with all those TEs read in, I'll move to recommend approval, TUD 2154.

A motion from Commissioner Privett to recommend the item City Council for approval subject to the four technical evaluations as amended and read in. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. He's like, no. That item is recommended for approval. Thank you. Item 15.

This is PUD 2155, application rezone 2124 South Check Hall Road from RACUP 72 and CUP 75.

Hi, my name is Brady Ghaniabadi. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Still here. So this is a PUD to, the base zoning right now is RA. We're gonna keep the base zoning, but we just needed to have a few variances on setbacks and lot frontage. My client's property is 300 feet on the dot along Check Hall Road. And so he wanted to split it. maintain the same RA lot area standards, but he just was hung up on the frontage requirement. So we came up with this PUD to basically alleviate some of those base zoning issues.

OK. Commissioner Meek, this is your ward. Do you want to start us off? I don't have anyone signed up to speak.

OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I spoke with the client driven by this property. I do like the exhibit because it shows the existing septic radius on the existing house and the existing water well radius. I understand the smallest lots at the front, it is 1.05 acres. I would like to add a TE that any additional residential homes shall tie onto and must have city water. That'll keep from having aerobic spraying in a well field. You know where you're mixing, you know what. Anyway, I do like that it has a requirement for the paved access 24 foot wide with the fire department turnaround. And you do agree with the two existing TEs? With the access and the meter? The setbacks have to be clarified, which I believe they are on the Exhibit B. Yes. So Sarah, could we tie Exhibit B to TE1? Because that shows all the setbacks. Or do I need to read them off? I don't understand. The TE number one is asking to know all the setbacks for all three lots, but they are shown on Exhibit B, and I walked through them.

Correct. Sarah Welch, Planning Department. It's because once you start to split the lots off in the back and we pull a permit and we look at setbacks for that individual house, it gets a little wonky on where the front is versus the sides. So just for clarification purposes, we'd prefer to know... what setback is from where, but if you're comfortable with tying it to Exhibit B and also Radiesse, I mean, you can do that.

Okay. Yeah. I think I'm fine with that, too. The only thing I would want to make sure is that the proposed house along the arterial, I mean, that's going to be a check hall address and that that would be a you know, front yard setback on a long check haul.

Right. There's no rule that your driveway has to be in the front on this type of situation. So if the front, if the house face check haul, it would be at check haul. Yeah. So I'm good with tying T number one to tie PED 2155 exhibit B to T number one, showing all setbacks for all three lots. T number two is written, and T number three to require any new residential structures to must access and use city water.

What about, I mean, the goal of that is not to use septic?

The goal of that is not to have two more wells dug with aerobic. Got it. Got it. Got to go.

Because, you know, we've had this precedence that we've kind of set with... Well, that lot's so small, I wouldn't want to...

Right. Right. But DEQ allows three-quarters, what is it, three-quarters of an acre with water. Or half an acre, yeah, that's what I got. So with city water, we're guaranteeing, basically, and I did speak with Brady about... If you guys want to go one step further, lot three is giant. They got all kinds of room. Lot one is the tiny one. We have one as far as requiring a 30-foot spray-filled easement, which would keep a future person from being able to come pull a building permit to put a swimming pool or an accessory dwelling or something where you need to be spraying aerobic, and that easement would not allow a permit to be given. If y'all are good with that, and if you're agreeable, I'd like to add a 30-foot spray field easement on lot number one, 30-foot radius.

How does a radius work?

I think that the 30-foot for lot one makes sense, and it's... not only is it good for the city it's going to be good for whoever buys that property my client was wondering if he could instead of having all three on city water um currently lot two does have its own water well right i'm good with that yeah it's only new homes well he was wondering if he could actually do lot three on a well and then the lot two and one on city water

No, I don't see a problem with that. Lot 3 is really big.

Yeah. Because that service line that he would have to do for Lot 3 would probably be really long.

You're going to have to bring domestic water up the side. You can't even bring a service from there. You have to bring domestic water. So you have to run a six-inch line and a fire hydrant, right, Dustin?

Yeah.

this is a utility department what we do we set the meters about them by the right away we were one of the line run into that private drive they wouldn't have an easement make water you know you can have a water service that long yeah you can have a water service along with the meter out uh... on the right away

There are flag lots, so I don't know if you can really see it, but the access drive is covering it, but basically there's a 25 foot width flag, you know, like a panhandle in the state of Oklahoma that hits Check Hall, that way you have access to the public right-of-way.

We have the right-of-way also. Okay. With that, anybody have any other comments? Do you believe our TEs are good? Do I need to read them again? You good? Okay, with that I'd like to recommend approval of PUD 2155 with T number one adding exhibit B, PUD 2155 exhibit B being tied to exhibit number one, adding T number three that lots, lot one must access city water. And T number four.

Was it lot one and two?

Well, two has a current well. Oh, okay. Yeah, so lot one only for city water. As it's shown on exhibit B, they do show that. And then T number four would be a 30 foot aerobic spray filled radius easement must be shown on the permit drawings, that time of permit.

I have a motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend the item.

No, it's okay. I just was explaining that he's trying to be able to split these administratively, which is something that the staff could do. If you're going to require an easement, that'll require platting. Correct, Jared?

For utility easement?

For a spray field easement? Would that work?

I thought it was only if it was public, a public easement.

There's so many rules.

We're just thinking internally how we would administer, record, and enforce that.

We've done it several times over the last six months.

I think you've done it with Platts, on Platts.

Okay, that's the difference.

I mean, could we... Because my understanding of the plat trigger is if it's a public utility easement. So would it just be a TE that we would have to file a private one, kind of like a covenant document?

Can we do that? Can we do that?

We're thinking it through. I'm trying to think through live here, y'all. It's a public, it's a PUD. That's the city's.

Yeah.

It's a PUD, anything goes.

Well, it's a PUD that we would enforce, but we wouldn't enforce that. So I'm just trying to think it through. I'm looking at Jared to see. Just have to be with a building permit, show it. I think that's the only enforcement trigger that we would have.

And that's kind of why I tied it to a building permit, because if it's written in a PUD, they come in for a building permit, they pull up the PUD, they read that it has a, have a 30-foot spray-filled radius easement shown on the plan.

Yeah. I mean, if we have that written in the PUD, then I guess if it's a, even if it's not on the plot, they would still require that, right? To be shown. Yeah, there's no plan.

Jerry, can you step up to the mic, please?

Okay.

Jared Martin, Planning Department. I mean, so if it is to be platted, then that easement could be shown on the plat, but if it's not going to be platted, it's not typically something we would get with a deed approval. So I think that having the wording say a building permit is probably the the best way to do it.

And if the plan reviewers do their job at the development center, they pull a PUD and read it and enforce it.

But if it's not part of a deed, if someone purchases this property after this development and they get the deed, they're not going to know that's there. They will.

It would show up on the title report. So what the building department would probably want to see is that it's been recorded at Oklahoma County, or sorry, Canadian County.

It would be on a title opinion.

And then whenever, let's say, Steve sells it, it would show up on the title report and the ALTA at that point. So it'd be a live document It just wouldn't be like it wouldn't be a situation where you could go on the plat and pull it up really easily But if the building department requires that they would you know, just kind of like my last the first Item on the agenda with that easement like Public Works is gonna say hey if it's not plotted We need to see that it's been filed

that drainage easement so that's what we can do okay i have faith i think we can figure it out um even if it sells to other people and it's not or indoor there's no structure ever built and the spray field easement won't come into play yeah um that's my motion if it sounds good to miss sarah

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Meade to recommend the item City Council for approval subject to the four technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Peaver. Please cast your votes.

Thank you.

I beat her. That item is recommended for approval. Thank you. All right, that was the last item to be heard. So we'll move on to item five, additional items. Item six, communications report, planning commission committees. Anything? I think we have one coming up on September 1st. I will not be able to make that. Possibly I can join late, but we shall see. Planning Commission members?

I attended, just kind of out of the blue, a meeting of... Is it called One Transit or is it called Transit One? It's One Transit. Last week. It was very interesting, kind of eye-opening. My big takeaway from it was that they're going around giving these... talks to people, groups, business groups and so on, I think we ought to invite them to come and talk to us. I think this is something that is far enough along and it's sort of on the verge of implementation. It's gone past inception and I think it will be affecting land use and I think we need to educate ourselves a little bit about it.

Do a study session on it?

That'd be lovely. Or they could come and sit through one of these meetings and then get up and give us, yeah, probably a study session would be a good idea. But I think we just need to know something about it. So that's my request.

All right. Do you know what the one stands for?

No.

Oklahoma City, Norman Edmund.

Well, that makes sense.

It's the regional, it's the regional.

What's the RTA? Yeah. What about Moore? Nope, Moore didn't want anything to do with it. They couldn't fit it in. Moore didn't want it. Moore didn't want to stop.

All right, Commissioner Meek? Commissioner Privet? I'm good. Commissioner Newman? I'm good. All right, Commissioner Milner? Nothing for me, thank you. Commissioner Harrison? No. Commissioner Noble? No. Commissioner Beaver? All right, I don't have anything.

Planning department? We're this close to getting study sessions on your calendar, so if you have not responded, please do to the calendaring requests. So we've got a few options. So anyway, that should be happening soon. We'd like to get on your calendars for code update study sessions coming up in September. So watch for that, and I'll follow up on that.

Yeah, I was going to say. Has it not happened yet?

I got the email. It was a new person in planning that I didn't recognize their name.

So I think it came from Dave. Yes.

When, when, when? A couple, three days ago, two or three days ago. I'll search for Dave.

I just didn't notice it because of the name probably. All right. If you can't find it, let me know. We'll resend it. Okay. That's all I have. Thanks.

Okay. Municipal Counselor's Office?

Okay.

Any citizens to be heard? I see none. We are adjourned. Thank you.