Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the April 23rd meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission. Like to call us to order and start with a few housekeeping items. If you have a cell phone with you, uh please silence or turn it to off. Uh if you've never been here before, thank you for joining us today. Uh here's what to expect. We'll begin with some simple administrative items such as minutes and continuences and then move forward with uh some the consent docket which is straightforward items that can be approved as a group. After that, we move on to cases to be heard individually. We'll hear them, discuss them, and determine if a recommendation or decision uh could be made or if a continuence or more time is necessary. Um there'll be some cases uh where the body makes a final decision but most of those applications uh where we provide a recommendation to the city and we are not the final decision. So on those those go forward to city council in 6 to 8 weeks. There are certain items such as HOA and CCRs uh and private agreements between um private entities that we do not take into consideration and so we ask that you please don't use those as justifications for your case. Uh, if you're here to speak on an item and are not the advocate, please fill out one of the forms available outside and give them to Elena or Jared down here below. When that item is heard, you'll be called to the podium. Come to the podium and give your name and address for the record. You'll have up to five minutes to speak. 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, and some additional time will be given to those speakers in those instances. where several speakers are heard on the same item. Please do your best to limit comments to concerns that we haven't heard yet. We reserve the right to limit extensive and repetitious comments. Uh please direct all your comments and questions to the commission and if needed, we'll ask staff or the applicant to respond to those. Lastly, we appreciate everyone's presence here

today and the time that you took away from your obligations to be here. We ask for your c cooperation upholding the decorum of the meeting and that you don't uh speak from the audience. Um thank you for your attention, your attendance, and your assistance. With that, we're ready to receive the minutes of the April 9th meeting. I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes of April 9th, 2026.

A motion from Commissioner Noble to receive the minutes. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes. I'm abstaining because I was wasn't present.

Yes. And the minutes are received. Next we have item three, continuence requests. And we'll start with uncontested requests. We have two uncontested requests for continuance. Item B18, which is PUD 2110, is being deferred to May 14th. And item B19, which is case number C156, is deferred to May 28th. Let's confirm there's no one here to be heard on those items. Seeing none, I'm ready for a motion. I will make a motion to approve the continuence uncontested continuence request as read.

We have a motion from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

Are we waiting on anyone? Commissioner Milner. Oh, mine didn't come up. I mean, yes. Thank you. Refreshing. All right. And those uncontested requests are approved. Uh, next we have new requests. There are two new requests for continuences today. Item B6, which is spud 1798, is requested to defer to May 14th. And item B14, which is PUD 2131, is requested to defer to May 28th. Just confirm there's no one here to be heard on either of those two items. Right. Seeing none, we're ready for a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the new continuence request as read. A motion from Commissioner Noble, seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes. I'm I'm a yes again. Do I need to log out? Log back in

or refresh. All right. And those new requests are approved. Um, now we move on to public hearings and the consent docket. We have one item. Consent item number one is KC7796. It's the final plat of Sunnyvale Estates phase 2 located north of I240 Highway and west of South Sunny Line Sunny Lane Road. I do not have anyone signed up to speak, so we're ready for a motion. I will make a motion to approve the consent docket as read. Motion to approve the consent docket from Commissioner Noble,

second by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes. I just needed you to ask. And the consent docket is approved. All right. Now on to items requiring a separate vote and to be heard individually. We'll start with item two. Item two is KC7794, the preliminary plat of Eagle Point edition, located south of East Memorial Road and west of North Bryant. We have an applicant present.

Yes, I'm Chuck Tuavo with SRV Engineering uh representing the developer of Oklahoma Christian University. And um we do agree with the um the TEES that they have. Um I'd like to clear up on TE6 that that's for residential tracks only and not our commercial lots, the front Memorial and Bryant. And we're uh combining two separate PEDs that that they acquired land in separate um time frames. So we have two PEDs that are combined to make one larger preliminary plat.

Okay. Just for the record, can we get a clarification on that his request?

This is Jared Martin, planning department. Um, yeah, that's a standard TE that we we tend to have in most of our staff reports. And and looking at it a little a little closer, I I do agree. I think I think it would only apply if there's going to be residential backing up to the to the section line roads. So with the commercial there, as long as they can meet separation, I think they could they could still have additional entrances off those uh roads. So So TE6 should apply to residential.

Yeah. Okay. Just residential only. Yeah. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Uh, okay. We don't have anybody signed up to speak. I will make a motion for approval.

Okay. Um, let's have that motion reflect that uh, TE6 should read, "Limmits of no access must be provided along the section line roads of the final plat for residential development. We have a motion. Yes, we have a motion with the motion right into the record.

Okay. All right. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to approve the items subject to the technical evaluations and the amended technical evaluation six. It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. And that item is approved. Thank you. Next we have item three. Item three is case number PUD 1530 SP03 which is an application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PD 1530 and located at 1803 East Britain Road.

And just for the record, Commissioner Noble has recused from this item. Um, please go ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Ryan Fair Sheets with Kimley Horn, the applicant on behalf of the owner. Here to present the specific plan for DGC3. Um, the staff report included no comments and the plans uh presented conform with the requirements of the PUD. I'll happily answer any questions if you have them. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Harrison, this is your word again. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. If we don't have anyone signed up to speak, I'll make a motion to recommend approval.

Um, we have a motion to approve the item from Commissioner Harrison. And for the record, let me state that staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with PUD 1530 master design statement and the master development plan as amended. So, yes, we do have the motion with that. Brandon to the record. Yes.

All right. That's been a motion for Commissioner Harrison, second by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And that item is approved. Thank you. Um item four. Item four is case SP610 which is an application for a special permit to operate use unit 8300.33 which is the drinking establishment sitdown use um alcohol permitted at 712 North Broadway Suite B.

Good afternoon. I'm Jay Shanker. I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant and property owner Blue Label Properties. Uh historically it's a uh century plus old warehouse commercial building on the lower end of automobile alley. There are commercial tenants in various suites in the building. Uh the 712 address is an upstairs downstairs unit that has not historically been separated for purposes of separate leasing. Although all of the entries, doorways, common area access, etc. are independent of the current lesorie, excuse me, of the 712 property. the landlord and that uh operator would like to separate the addresses so suite B on the second floor could be separately leased and uh operated.

Okay. Uh Commissioner Milner, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. I don't have any questions unless any commissioners have any comments on this one. Okay. If not, I move we recommend approval this item. A motion from Commissioner Milner to recommend approval of the city council for the special permit. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes. That item's recommended for approval. Thank you for your time and attention.

Item six, excuse me, item five. Item five is case number SP611, which is an application uh for a special permit to operate use unit drinking establishment sitdown um alcohol permitted is our bar use um in the I1 light industrial district at 3524 Newcastle Road. We have an applicant present for this one. Hi,

good afternoon. Tell us about your application, please. Um, I'm trying to open the bar. So, okay. Can can you state your name and address for the record? Sandra. Okay. At the one. And your address? My address is A1 Southwest 3 Street. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, you're looking to to open and operate a bar? Yeah. Okay. Um, this is is this W five? This is W six. This is W six. Okay. All right. Would you like to lead our discussion?

Do we have anybody signed up to speak on this one? No, do not. Okay. I don't have any questions unless any commissioners have any comments. Uh I do see we have one condition as listed in the staff report. Any other comments? I would we recommend approval uh with the condition as listed in the staff report? Um just so that you're clear, were you aware of the condition that uh the use unit 830033 drinking establishment sit down alcohol permitted shall be limited to the area depicted in exhibit C? Yeah. Which is the existing floor plan. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Uh so we have a a motion from Commissioner Milner to recommend approval of the item subject to the condition that's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. We waiting on anyone? No. Okay. Uh and that item is recommended for approval. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Item six has been continued. Takes us to item seven.

Item seven is case number SPUD 1809, which is an application to reszone 1701 Northwest 31st Street from the R1 district to sped 1809. It's Rob Elliot, 900 Northwest 6th Street, representing the applicant. We're hoping to reszone this residential property for two multi single family homes. And we agree to all the technical points. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Powers, this is W 2. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Um, this is a a great resolution to some concerns about the application as it was originally filed. I mean, this is basically like a lot split we're doing here, but um with some conditions and so forth. So, um the visual setback along 31st Street will be maintained, which I think is significant and important. So, um you're okay with the TEES as are written. So, um, unless other commissioners have comments, questions, concerns, um, I will move approval. Item number 7, SPD1809, subject to the technical evaluations. Yes, subject to technical evaluations.

We have a motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item subject to the technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. All right. And that item is recommended for approval.

Item eight. Item eight is case number SPUD1 1817, an application to reszone 2319 North Barnes Avenue from the R2C4 and urban design urban design overlay districts to spud 1817 and the UD urban design overlay districts.

Good afternoon. Mark Zitzo Johnson and Associates Sheridan Avenue. Uh this is a project that straddles the urban design uh overlay. So one of the things that staff requested that we've agreed to. I think in the staff report it might even mention that the boundary would be altered. Rather than the boundary being altered, the SPUD has language that just requires this SPUD to go back before the urban design commission. So yesterday we went before them. They unanimously approved it. So they will again see the landscaping, the architecture, the site plan before any dirt is moved on this site. So uh we've had no protest. No one's called to our knowledge. So happy to answer any questions, but we would ask for your recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Milner, if you want to lead our discussion. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. I don't have any additional comments. Um, I watched the design commission yesterday to see if they had any and they didn't have any comments approved. So, they made a motion before I stood up. They did. So, I think that was a wildly supportive recommendation. Didn't even move. Yeah. Yeah. I I I don't I I actually think this is kind of good infill close to 23rd Street there. So, um, if there aren't there's nobody signed up to speak, commissioners have any comments on this one, uh, then I'd like to move we recommend approval.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Milner to recommend approval of the item. It's been second by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval. Thank you. Item nine. Item nine is case number SPUD 1822, an application to reszone 12200 ER drive from the AA district to Spud 1822. Hello, Matt. Stevens, applicant. First time. I'm ready to answer questions if needed. So, here we go. No idea what I'm doing.

All right. Um, Commissioner Harrison, if you want to start with uh any questions or comments. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Uh, you want to tell us a little more about the project? Um, my cousin and I started Artemis Estates over his grandmother was her name. We're just my wife and I are living on the west side. His and wife and him are live on the east side. That's pretty much it. There's two houses in Oakdale School District. So, uh, are you in agreement with the technical evaluations that were written into the report? My question. Okay. That that was my only question. Any other commissioners have anything? If not, I make a motion for approval. Get back to

All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item city council for approval subject to the technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval. Good luck. Thank you. Item 10. Item 10 is case number SPUD1 1821, an application to reszone 13020 West Reno Avenue from Spud 1309 to Spud 1821.

Hello. Uh Michael Tibbitz, uh representative for Express Development. Good afternoon. Welcome back. Yeah. Hi Uh tell us a little bit about what's happened since the last time you were here. Uh we had a meeting with uh 10 to 15 people from uh the neighborhood uh on Tuesday. Uh we went through uh kind of showed them current zoning layout, what we're proposing with this um walked them through the different variances in the building and we've come to seven um items that we've voluntarily agreed to. I think one of them addresses one of the tees as well. Okay. Um, you want to just read through those?

Yeah. Do you want me to read the my attempt at making them legal or just a plain language? Just Yeah, read them as you have them and then that's where we'll start.

So, the modification uh the setbacks shall be 60 ft where the building is greater than three stories. Um, there will be a brick fence on the west and south property lines. Um lighting on the buildings will be down lit and street lighting will be back stopped uh from the adjacent single family um neighborhoods to prevent light pollution. Um we took the usual 20 or 25 foot tree distance and we rounded up and just came to a total number of trees that will be placed in uh direct line of sight from our windows to each neighbor's uh back yard as much as possible. Um dumpsters will go 100 feet from the west and south property lines. Um the height of the building will be 49 feet of tpo and 56 feet 8 in if shingle roof. And then there will be two-way tinting on the windows on the west and south or facing west and south. And we find these to be pretty fair and reasonable uh for all parties.

Okay. Um, Commissioner Meek, uh, if you want to lead the discussion. I do have one person signed up to speak. Okay, let's go ahead and hear from the person signed up, please.

Mr. Gatzero. Yes, Daniel Katzero. Good. Good afternoon, commissioners, chair. uh 312 Derky Road in Yukon, Oklahoma City. Uh yes, we did meet and we discussed some things. Uh the number one on Mr. Tibet's list. I just caught that because I was looking at other notes about uh the setback will be 60 feet if it's three stories or or greater. I'm sorry. Yeah. Well, you

So, so uh I thought I thought the concession was going to be 60 feet from the west and the south. So it makes it sound like if it's greater than three stories because he said the last uh buildings facing south are going to be three stories and they all have terraces going up. So does that mean that that's still going to be at 40 feet 40 feet step back if those are three stories or I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna ask Commissioner Meek to do I'm not sure about that. I I had other questions. I'm sorry.

Well, I I think this might resolve some of the questions. Mr. Meek, um, Commissioner Meek, we did not all the commissioners did not get all the tees. So, I'm going to ask you if you could, since you have a copy, if you could go through and read them as written in the document that you have.

Right. I want to start by answering your question. the the setbacks for the um south and the west are set at 40 ft no matter what. But if a building is over three stories, it will be 60 ft. That's the intent of this TE. Correct. Okay. So, um I can read in that he had a uh short version of the TEES and then a legal version written of the TEES. So I'm going to start by saying that bear with me the existing TE number one would be removed because it is being picked up with an upcoming TE. So our new number one would be in C.2 maximum building height which is what the old TE was about. So we'll start here. TE number one C.2 to maximum building height. Add language height shall be limited to 49 ft flat roof and 568 with sloped roof. Um T number two is C.5 building setback lines from spud boundary. We are going to add the language south minimum of 40 feet and 60 ft where four stories. West a minimum of 40 ft and 60 ft where four stories. T number three changes to C.6 sight proof screening. Delete. In addition, trees shall be required to be planted along the western southern boundaries of the spud on 25 ft centers. And we're going to be adding in addition 4-inch caliper trees of a minimum height of 14 feet shall be required to be planted along the western and southern boundaries of the spud. 23 trees on the west side and 24 trees on the south placed in direct line of

sights from building windows in the center of directly adjacent properties. We will have TE number four C.6 sight proof screening. We're going to add a 6- ft brick fence shall be constructed on the western and southern boundaries of the spud where allowed by code. T number five is section two other development regulations. One will be architecture add windows facing the western and southern property lines shall have two-way tinting. T number six, section two, other development regulations. On number four, on site lighting, they're going to add the language that says lighting on the buildings shall be downlight fixtures. Street lighting on the western and southern boundaries shall have a black a back shielded reducing light pollution. T number seven, section two, other development regulations. Number five, dumpsters will be modified to say said location shall be located 100 ft from the western and southern property boundaries. Those are the seven tees as read in to the record.

Is that a possibility to get those 100 feet away from people over here to to the east side? Okay. Um, that's all in your your hands with the recommendation. I was only aware of terraces up until Tuesday evening. That never even came up that there's going to be patios on every building. So, I didn't and they out they look outcropped here. Those were drawn in on the plans at the Tuesday meeting. So that you know all that talk about the windows and that was pretty good. But I don't know what the the you know that's going to be a rot iron post, you know, or what on those on those. So I'm not sure the design. I know the the one up in Portland is is just a rod iron post. So that's that's a view from sitting or standing or leaning for anyone out there. So that that was just brought to my attention. Now I see it. Maybe I thought it was storage or something. They all look like they're outcropped. So that's, you know, 180 degree.

So your concern, your concern is the terraces will be rot iron and not a No, the terraces will just be another visual. I I didn't know we, you know, about the, you know, door facing out towards everyone, you know, four stories. That that's all I'm saying. There are going to be terraces every every everywhere. I don't see them in the back, but I know they're there because we we spoke of that. So that I just, you know, just dawn on me. I'm not I'm not an engineer looking at the plans ever.

Well, I would I would think that the trees, you know, planted on the western boundary, much like should be aligned with line of sight. I mean, the line of they're going to be planted in a line of sight. So that'd be line of sight from terraces. Okay. I want I want everyone to have a nice view. I would want want one, too. So I would feel uncomfortable looking down on on other people if it got to that. Especially on this side. I know you've considered the south. Yeah. I I believe the applicant with his tees and uh as read into record and his intent is to it seems that make it better for everybody. Did it ever was it ever written that it was going to be 60 ft? So it is 60 feet if it's four stories. Yes. Or or more. Okay.

That is written in. So I wasn't under the impression either that it was going to be three stories in the south. I thought that was four. I don't remember that coming up. I guess I can address that. You can address. Okay. That's I'll let him.

The reason you bring it up is if you see on the uh the unit that's weirdly joged out to the left on the right hand side. um that unit and the two units on the other side of the building on the south. Those are the sections that are going to be three stories. Um in doing so kind of makes the building a little bit weirder shaped, but that one that's wonked out when we straighten it out, it violates the 60 ft, but it's only a threetory structure at that unit. So that's the reason why we phrase the setbacks that way. Correct. And and as you remember, he currently has the right to do that right now, but much less than 60 feet in his current zoning. Yes. Okay.

40. Yes. 40. All right. Did we have anyone else signed up to speak? No. Okay. No. Okay. Okay. If I'm done, and then there was one other little concern. The I know the parking isn't going all the way through. It it shows that it's stopped here and then here it it comes on the the the east side. Is there enough turnaround for for you know firet truck or something? That's all per city code review. That's all code. They hammerhead that in and all that. Yeah, they will review that when it comes to that point.

Okay. So I but I just figured yesterday at the meeting a couple days ago that the parking lot isn't continuous in the back. And what they proposed with the open space is a playground, but there's no if it's going to just be playgrounds or basketball or anything that that doesn't have to be they've proposed a playground. They proposed a playground and that's where that goes. Okay. Right. Yeah. And everything will have to be constructed to city. Okay. The open space is the decomposed granite around the sides with where the trees are planted and that's considered open space and all that. Yes.

Okay. That's all up to and the four stories will fit in and everybody's visual. No nimi but you know how it is. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Gatzero. Okay. Um, I think uh I think the spud turned into a better product than the previous entitlement they have on their current zoning and it also benefited the applicant. So, I think it's a it's been good progress. Um, any other commissioners have any comments regarding this? Uh, I did have a couple of things.

Okay. um where it talks about a six-foot masonry finch shall be constructed on the western and southern boundary of the spud where allowed by code. I thought that was kind of odd language. I'm not sure where the we're allowed by code was, but to get more specific, I think it means where it doesn't affect drainage. Affect drainage. Correct. So, I would like to see that rewarded to be, you know, constructed on the western side so as not to prohibit drainage or as as per public works. Um,

yeah. I mean, my my intent with that was a couple of things, but if I wrote the boundary, then I'm have to build a a brick wall all the way to the street. Right. And that wouldn't be allowed by code, right? So, not in public right away. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So, I think Yeah, there are a few little things about the wording. I would really strongly recommend that staff take a hard look at it. Um, you know, where you're talking about something being 100 feet, I think you really mean a minimum of 100 feet, you know, not like exactly 100 feet. So, little things like that that staff can can clear up between here and city council. It's the the I I still don't understand what this language says about 40 feet and 60 ft. I get the concept and I'm I'm sure we can get there in terms of wording that will make sense to somebody later who's trying to issue a building permit for instance, you know. So,

right, I I believe the intent on that one is anywhere that it's going to be four stories, he must be 60 foot away, a setback of 60 foot on west and south. Um, he could go 40 foot, but it has to be three stories. And that makes perfect sense. I just want to make sure that that's what this language really says, right? I got you in ways that are going to make sense to somebody who's not part of this discussion. So, right. Okay. Uh the other thing is as they were read in, we were off a number. So, were you read in TE1, it's actually TE2 and TE2 that you read in was is actually TE3. So, okay.

This is this is just for us going back and um making sure we have all the TE's correct in the minutes. Um, one is amended to the maximum building height, the 49 feet for the flat roof, right? And then the pitch. And then two, we're accepting, I believe, just our standard language for the maintenance area. Yeah. Okay. And then we're starting with his number two. Commissioner Meek read is going to technically for the record be TE3, right? Three through eight. Correct. Yes. Okay.

What she said. All right. Any other comments? If not, then I uh move to recommend approval to SPUD1 1821 with the TEES as accepted and read in. All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend the item to city council subject to the amended and new technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes when ready. We waiting on anyone.

While we're waiting, I'd like to say thanks for having that meeting. It's obvious how it the the turnout changed with your meeting. Thank you. Right. That item is recommended for approval. Item 11. Item 11 is case number SPUD1 1824, an application to reszone 14301 South Rockwell Avenue from the AA district to spud 1824. Good afternoon. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for having me. So, do you ask me questions or uh just go ahead and tell us um your name and address and a little bit about your project. Okay. Um my name is Caitlyn Kelly. I did did there was a correction on here. Should I make that now?

Uh to your address or not to the address, the name of the applicant. Oh, okay. They pulled it from um Cleveland County like and that deed has been switched. So, it's just under my name. So, you can take out the the applicant that says um Native Doodles. It was a business that had been sold. Okay. So, um but Caitlyn Kelly and then the address is 14201 South Rockwell Avenue. Okay.

I'm sorry, 14301 South Rockwell Avenue. And um we're basically just proposing a micro event center or event venue. It's very small. I'm basically just um we're wanting to provide a place that's like a private small venue that um different like boards could have like a retreat at. This is not anything to do with weddings or large scale events. This is something that you know 40 people and under um nonprofit boards, places that could come and rent and much like yourselves if you wanted to. So more like corporate professional

corporate professional events like if you guys want to come and have like a meeting there and you know do your yearly planning or something like that it's going to be marketed for that maybe yoga retreats things like that but very very small scale we live in a really beautiful peaceful quiet area so I want to keep the integrity of that I also live there as well very good that's helpful um commission Mr. Meek, is this your ward? W three. You going to start off with any questions or comments? No,

I really didn't have other than what she just told us about the size. That was my main concern. Um, you are okay with the uh TEES that were on the staff report? You aware of those? Okay. And you're good with all of those? Yes. Okay. Awesome. And do we have anyone signed up to speak? I didn't. Okay. No. All right. So, is is the size limitation reflected somewhere? I didn't It's not We need to add those as TE's. Yeah, I think so. Operational hours also, I think. Would you like to know those or?

Yeah, I think we'd like to we'd like to tie the operation hours and then like a maximum amount of people um just to protect the neighbors nearby from a a venue that grows out of Yeah, absolutely. So, any advice that you'd like to So, um this is a very intentional private space. The neighbors nearby ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar army like we we actually own 200 acres there. Okay. Our closest neighbor is the one that um I think they actually submitted a letter and then the neighbor would you say? Oh, I'm so sorry. 800 ft to the north. 800 ft to the north. We we've spoken to them and then um probably okay

block up from them. Both were in full support and super kind about it. But yes, but that is this is something that will be a very low scale almost like if more of like like a residential like if you were if we were basically just more social people is what it will be like. So, choose choose a a number that makes sense for you, but what would be like a maximum number of people you would host at a time?

I would say I would probably say 40. And this is something that would also be a low impact in the way of we're we're talking about maybe two to three events a week. Um, so just a very intentional business that um that would provide like for us but also would not be something that we're trying to scale or grow into a I I want nothing to do with weddings or a lot of people mass people on the property either.

Right. But but your scale is is also maybe not the same scale as some of the other neighbors to the north or anything else. And if you know 40 people were driving down that road three different times a day. um on the road. I would probably consider that a little bit more than just a small scale business against what could be a single family residential home. Yes. So there it is. It is it's just it's it's not a gravel road, but it is um just at the end, right? Well, it's limited on its construction. I'm sorry, I say that wrong. I said kind of limited on its construction. It's kind of chip seal. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, it is a chip and sill street. It did used to be gravel, right, years ago. Um,

but in the in the SPUD, it also mentions an impervious road is approved. So, I'm one more time. It it mentions that there is a gravel road would be allowed. Oh, well, I I did have a question about that because on there I wasn't sure. Our proposal was asking if we could do gravel on the parking area um instead of just to keep the integrity of the the beauty of the land instead of do doing cement. I wasn't clear on that. Was that something that was It's written into the PD, so you can Yeah, that's why they wrote it in to allow that. Okay. Sorry, this is my first time. No, you're fine. You're good.

Yeah, it allows gravel parking. I think we can keep this simple. If I I'd like to make TE number five, operation hours 2B, and you tell me what you think. So, our my my thought process was 9 to9, but to be honest with you, I won't be promoting a lot of evening events. I really want it to be 9 to5. Okay. So, that would just be your maybe two or three times a year if somebody really wanted to do some type of like Okay. The way we were if you're going to if you're going to you're going to have one, you got to have it in there. You get have you got to have those limitations. Yeah. Drawn. And um and I think 9 to9 is fair. Is fair. Yeah. So,

um and then we could make TE number six and I'm going to ask your advice. Would we call that max maximum occupancy or maximum number of customers, clients? What do you how do we want to word that? Guests Sarah, what should it say? I guest or participants is fine. Guest or participants. Okay. Okay. Um, so TE number six would change would be added and it would say maximum number of guest or participants allowed to be 40 people. Mhm.

Okay. All right. I just I just want to make sure we're clear. That means to me that means that if you're advertising for events the they can have up to 40 people. You would have people there on site of course you know working and yes that's okay if I'm outside of that. Correct. Yeah. Staff, right? But I just want to make sure we're all in the same Yeah. staff and catering would be extra or would would not count to that 40. Okay. Thank you for that. Yeah. Okay. Anything else, guys? Okay. With that, let me switch. Oh, did we land on the size, the square footage?

Yeah, it's 2700 square feet. Okay. But that's we're talking about the building. I'm sorry. We're talking about the building. Yes, the building. And it it's going to be built and look just like a home. You can't see it from the street. Um but the but the uh staff report indicates that this is to allow an indoor outdoor event. So I mean you you just to be clear that limitation applies to the building. Yeah. So might need to do Do you have any idea how much outdoor space you're going to use? So the way I envision the outdoor space is there will be a wraparound porch. Yeah.

So I mean that to be honest that would be if someone did like a breakout session if they wanted to go out there and have a meeting there while you know maybe another group is inside things like that. That would be the only time I would envision like them being besides like speak you know talking and coming in and out. So, and there may be like yoga that would be like in the yard, but again, that wouldn't you wouldn't be able to see that from the street either. So, maybe if you if you know what the parameters of your yard are, you know, I mean, you're not talking about using your entire 200 acres. So, no, this is only for five acres. So, well, this is limited to five acres. I'm okay with that. Are

we just I just included that so you knew who was around us was it was just vacant land that we owned. Are we modifying part of the master design statement for that or is that a new TE because pardon new TE okay T number seven would be um event center to be limited to the 5 acre property something that simple that yes that's what's on Good.

I just want to clarify if we're saying hours of operation, is that just known that that's seven days a week? Yeah. If we don't put a Monday through blank, I just want to make sure we if you needed the you might do the I just want to make sure we didn't hours of operation. This these will only be for private pre-booked events. This doesn't mean like we're open 9 to9 every day, but yes, that's your event parameter. But yes, you need that seven days a week, right? Right. Yes. You don't know when it we would rent. Yes. Okay.

So, I'll change that operation operation hours to be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7 days per week. Number six would be maximum number of guests or participants allowed to be 40 people. T number seven would be event center activities to be limited to the 5 acre property. And then public works just notified me that on the site plan it shows two access to driveways and and there is a a TE I believe that says something about the access number of driveways that you can only do one and you would also have to meet the drainage ordinance. We can only do one what I'm supposed driveway.

Driveway. Okay. Yes. Yes. That's what's clean. Okay. Staff has a TE to do. Yeah. Just because that's what was shown on the site plan. So is But they'd have to meet the standard then in the drainage ordinance and maybe have Barry come up.

Yeah. Uh Mr. Barry Lodge, can you come explain this? Good afternoon, Barry Lodge Public Works. No, there's a couple things, but just to point out in the spud, it said that one access would be allowed off of Portland or off Rockwell, but the site plan shows two. And so when a building permit comes in, we don't want to get Oh, wait. You can't have two of those. There's so because the spud only allows one. Um, so that may be something needs to be considered. And then the other thing just again so that nobody's caught by surprise, there is flood plane on here that there would be flood plane requirements that would have to be met per FEMA with the development of this. And so there was what anything on the tees of that? No discussion. I just want to be sure nobody was surprised when they turn in for a building permit and and wind up with some additional requirements that have to be met uh from the engineering side. So that was it.

Absolutely. Barry, I just quick question. If the rightway and I I can't tell for sure through documents provided, but if the rightway for Rockwell ends at their first entrance, then technically everything south of that would be private drive. Correct.

So that's going to be kind of an interesting deal because the rightway on Rockwell doesn't end there. the street paving or the the gravel paving may end, but uh Rockwell is a section line road, so you've got statutory rideway that extends through uh the entire length of it. So, uh there is a right ofway that does exist by statute even if there's no improvement in there.

Okay. So, so the spud application has one driveway, but staff put a TE in for two because that's what the site plan showed. And what they're explaining to you now is that if you did do that south driveway, you would have to put the road in that's not there from driveway to driveway. Correct. I apologize. That that won't be there. Okay. The second so much I just missed that. I'm so sorry. Yes, that won't that south driveway will not exist. Okay. I'm so I apologize. Okay. Yeah, because if you did do it, it would have to the road would have to be improved and be a little costly. Okay. Um

Yeah. I'm So we look at this all the time. I'm so sorry I missed that. No worries. So, do we want to remove TE3 to allow two driveways? So, if you delete TE3, then it'll just default to what the spud says, which is one driveway. And just for the like the public record and what we're talking about here, staff's TEES include uh TE1, which is adding single family residential to the list of uses. That's just so that you could have one home there should you ever you're kind of zoning yourself out of that option if we don't include it. Okay. So, that was our suggestion. And then um we also are um recommending that we specify in the master design statement that an event center and venue is an allowed use. Right now, we don't have a very spec we don't have a specific use for an event center.

Yes. So, we're just trying to clarify correct now, but that's what the goal was. Three was us trying to match your driveways up. So, we can strike that and you'll just be allowed one driveway. Wonderful. And then four was us not um was staff recognizing that this is gravel and allowing for pvious paving. Okay. For the So, it can just be for parking. The parking. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, you have you have to have a drive apron. You'll have to have some concrete at um where it meets right away and then you'll have to have um a hard surface border around the gravel. Okay. I'm sorry. That was all staff tees and then Jeremy or Commissioner Meek, you can pick it up.

Yeah. So, the TE's as listed one and two, we're going to leave. Uh TE number three, we're going to strike. Um well, let me just go ahead and make the motion then we'll go that way. Okay. If there's no other uh Make a motion to recommend approval of SPUD1 1824 with TE number one as written by staff. TE number two as written striking TE number three. TE number four as written adding TE number five. The operation operation hours will be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7 days per week. TE number six maximum number of guests or participants allowed to be 40. T number seven uh event center to be activities to be limited to the 5acre property

and I believe that's it. That's the motion. All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend the item per the amended and additional TEES that's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval. Good luck. Good luck. Thank you guys so much. Item 12. Item 12 is SPUD 1823, an application to reszone 501 Northwest 30th Street from the R2 district to sped 1823.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant who's also here with us. Uh this is an application that would allow for a small multif family building at the northwest corner of uh Walker and 30th. It's the same developer that is currently underway for the development that's at 30th in Hudson. Um another multif family development. Chair, could you show the imagery? Do you have the the rendering? If not, no worries. So, uh, what we propose here is a a threestory, uh, building, uh, with the top two floors being residential, most likely all of which will be one-bedroom apartments, and then the ground floor being a mix of a retail and then one unit that will be a live work uh, unit on the ground floor. So, um, we've had the opportunity opportunity to meet with Commissioner Powers, uh, as late as this morning to work through some of the logistics. As you know, this is an area that is under a lot of new development. Um it's a very popular area. The the PO has seen significant development recently. All of which is great. Lots of retail, lots of restaurants, uh lots of lots of exciting things. So um with that, as I mentioned, we did meet with Commissioner Powers and there are um a handful of TEES to address. So start with the three that are in the uh staff report. So what we would propose to do is modify uh TE1. We do have seven units. Uh so what we would say is or require require one dwelling unit to be on the ground floor under use unit 8200.4 that is the live work uh use unit. So there will be six dwelling units on floor between floors 2 and three on the ground floor which will be the seventh unit limited to the use unit of 8200.4 four. Um, on TE2, we would ask to strike that. Uh, it's a 35 ft building. Uh, we believe that to be compatible with the area, so we would

simply ask to strike TE2. On TE3, we would seek to modify it to Reed. Parking is not permitted within the front yard setback. We don't intend to park on 30th Street. We do intend to seek parking along Walker Avenue. We'll have to go through traffic commission to do that. We've had some preliminary discussions with staff. We're not um we're not terribly worried, but we do want to make sure we have the ability to park along the east in a similar fashion to what you see is along the east uh east side of Walker, both north of 30th and south of 30th. TE4, we would seek to strike the second sentence of the second paragraph in the SPUD. Uh that sentence reads, "A first floor building wall along North Walker Avenue shall not exceed 80 ft in length without a pedestrian passage or building break. We would seek to strike that portion of the architecture section. Um TE5 vehicular access shall be limited to Walker Avenue. TE6 buildings uh the building shall be at grade along Walker Avenue. One of the original renderings had it kind of up on a hill. Uh what we're going to do is dig that out, put it at grade on Walker, which is a significant uh significantly different than if we were going to build it up on the hill. uh seven the architectural metal shall be moved from the 70% allowance to the 30% allowance and then TE8 uh prohibit the use of Ephus uh within the project. So um with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Uh like I said it's a it's another I think great infill project in an area that is I think where we want to encourage density uh right in the core of the city. So happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Powers, this is your ward. And I do have one person signed up to speak.

Let's hear from them. Okay. Uh, Miss Joy Reed.

Good afternoon. Hi, my name is Joy Reed Belt and my address uh is 6208 Waterford Boulevard and uh I really appreciate the quality of this project. I'm just terribly concerned about the location. Uh as he referenced, but PO is growing. We have uh six businesses across the street from the lot on one side and the other side we have five businesses and already there and then we have Trinity School which has changed from being a neighborhood school um to now it's a school that accepts children with learning disabilities and it it is a busy busy thing. I have photographs here of the cars lining up. Uh now they go I think K uh not K but first grade through 12th grade. So you've got kids that are driving and you've got faculty that's driving and you've got staff that's driving and uh of the and then you've got businesses on each side. So several times during the day and early evening there is just a lot of congestion and u a lot of cars like I said I brought a few pictures and so I I appreciate the concessions that had been made so far. I did not know of those concessions until he mentioned them just now and taking the size down and and everything. I'm I'm very grateful for that. I'm still worried that we're doing too much and it's going to be so congested that it's it's gonna it's going to hurt

the area. That that's my concern. And so that's what I wanted to let you all know. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for

Thank you for taking the time to come down today. Well, you're welcome and thank you all for listening to all this and having to know all of that stuff uh that I've heard since I've been here. But thank you. Um so the the issue of traffic and uh uh parking is really probably the primary concern um that has continued to come to the surface is and and what will happen if traffic commission decides not to permit the street parking I mean you know they've got four spaces on site and then they've got the plan to park along Walker, which is completely consistent with the area and how it functions and just the age of the community and how um these kinds of commercial uses were designed. Um, but I is it even possible for us to in any way condition the approval on on traffic commission approval of the um uh submitted plan for street parking. We're asking you, Susan, I guess.

Oh, I can I can answer. I think the planning commission is really limited to the prop the private property. So you're looking at things like the parking ratio for instance would be something that would be approved and if they can't if those street if even if those spots are approved by traffic commission they're in the right of way and they should be all completely within the rightway and they can't be reserved by this project. Right. So I think that you're you you're the spud needs to stick to the private property. Okay. So, that sounds like a no to me. We don't have the ability to condition our approval. You can you can allow I I was I'm

I don't think you can condition an ordinance. You either pass an ordinance or you an ordinance fails to be approved, but you can't condition it upon a triggering event to happen in the future. And so, I'll just use this opportunity to say what a shame it is that we're not able to better communicate with the members of the traffic commission. I would have loved for Commissioner Rob Littlefield to be able to kind of consult on this as we were discussing how this was going to work and how that was going to function. We spent years trying to get there to be more discussion and cooperation between planning commission and traffic commission but apparently that's just not going to work. So the timing is

Yeah. but do know they have communicated. So there is communication working. There's a construction project for a streetscape that goes through here that they're already talking about that in the proposed public parking.

So, I you know I the reason I guess I struggled with this I think it's very difficult to make a case that this is not an appropriate use for this property both on both sides both the residential and the commercial. There's commercial across the street to the east, caddyy corner to the southeast and and um I would have liked for there to be a little less of residential, but I think on balance what they're proposing makes a lot of sense. So um I'm somewhat um comforted by the idea that that the traffic patterns will kind of offset you know people who are leaving and coming and if for the res especially for the retail or or commercial uses are sort of different than the needs for the for the residential uses. Um there has there needs to be something on this corner. It's been sitting there vacant for a long time. Uh, if somebody was going to come along and build a duplex on it, I think they would have done so by now. Um, I think this proposal is a good one. Um, I have some concerns about it, but I'd love to hear what other commissioners have to say,

if anything. My yeah I I think my only comment and more of a question for the so they're they're going to use private land to construct a public sidewalk or what will be used as a public sidewalk. So I guess you know agreeable to another TE that basically says you know an easement will be given uh for the construction of a public sidewalk. Yeah. I mean yes we'll have to build a sidewalk. So whatever the process is for that I and and we discussed that there might be a need to do that even for the parking portion of it that that if they're not able to get their parking all in the right of way there would have to be an easement and they're agreeable to that. So y

so I think that the sidewalk easement and that public parking ement would all be in the same parcel of land. So, I mean, as drawn, I mean, we we obviously intend to have sidewalks to, you know, Yeah, you'd have to have it go through. Yeah. Is it going to have a name? A name? The building. The Janice. No, I'm just kidding. Unnamed at the moment. Okay. Naming rights are available. Um I if nobody else has anything that they want to ask or say. I just want to make sure understand but the ground floor will be commercial right except for except for the one live work unit. That's right. Okay. Okay.

I think this is a nice project on that corner and for the and for the commercial there's a good chance they're not necessarily going to be parking right in front of there. They'll be walking over because they're so close you know to the PO district. So fingers crossed. I don't think all these urban people like walk and ride their bikes or scooters or whatever it is they do, right? That's what the young people do. We walk everywhere. I walked here today. Yeah. There we go. Cars are gone. All Whimo and whatever else exists. Okay. So, we're good. Anybody else? Do you want me to go back and uh

do we need to?

Yes, please. for Sarah. Okay. Um, TE1 to be modified uh to limit the seventh dwelling unit to the ground floor under use unit 8200.4 strike TE2 modify TE3 to read parking is not permitted within the front yard setback. TE4 strike the second sentence of the second paragraph of the architecture section that reads a first floor building wall along North Walker Avenue shall not exceed 80 foot in length without a pedestrian passage or buildings break. TE5 vehicular access limited to Walker Avenue. TE6 the building shall be constructed at grade along Walker Avenue. TE7 architectural medal shall be uh allotted within the 30% and then EA TE8 E shall be prohibited. Okay. So with that I'm going to move approval for item number 12 SPD 1823 with TE says read. Um it suddenly occurs to me that initially uh the email that you sent me indicated that there shall be seven residential units. There's not anything in this. Of course, I haven't actually read the MDS, but that indicates that it will be

it's a maximum commercial on the ground floor and residential above. I mean, that's just an option that's available. Isn't that correct? That's correct. And I guess I'm okay with that. I mean, I wouldn't want it to be all commercial, I don't think, but um I think I'd be okay if it were all residential. Yeah. I mean, we limit the number of dwelling units to seven with the with the new TE requiring one of the seven to be a ground floor under that live work use unit. But the mixed use thing of it is really just an option. It's not a guarantee. Sure. and and it's limited to 3,000 square feet.

Okay. Okay. So, that was my motion. All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item subject to the technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. Give it a name. Are we waiting on anyone? Oh, Commissioner Miller, we did not get your vote. Yes. All right. He voice voted yes. All right. That item is recommended for approval. Thank you.

Item 13. Item 13 is PUD 2138, an application to reszone 9810 West Memorial Road from PUD 986 to PUD 2138. Good evening, Todd McKinnus. My address is 1503 East 19th Street in Edmund. David comes to Edund. I do a lot of zoning in Edund. We never have music uh at planning commission meetings, so I appreciate the accommodation for me since I came downtown.

Uh we've enjoyed working with Sarah and her staff. This is a new PUD that replaces or asked to be replaced a current one that adds uh age restricted housing. Uh there's Kim Chambers is the applicant. He's the owner. He's here and happy to answer any questions. We're agreeable to the three TEES that are in the uh staff report. I think there might be one other issue regarding a sidewalk uh about the location about abudding the curb or not. We're okay with it not abuing the curb. Our language said it will. We understand there may be a concern about utilities. We don't have a problem with the spacing, but I need to clarify what that is. And that might have come uh from one of you recently, and so I'm just Kenny mentioned it to me. I wanted to get it out in front of us as we go. So, happy to answer any questions and get clarification on that one item if we could.

Okay. Um this is Ward One. I think I mean I can I can do my best and ask for anyone's help but I think just the clarification on the sidewalk is you want to provide four feet at back of curb and I think city standard is like when it abuts the back of curb it's got to be five feet six five five in residential five in residential yeah we're good with that okay and so what we could do is just say that it's per city code per public works standard on the sidewalk you clarification. Ken, this is Ken Chambers, the owner and the applicant.

And then just one more question I was going to have on it is whether it was a private road or a private drive addressing the individual units. Yeah. So, I think to address that, if I could, Commissioner Noble, the idea about whether or not it's going to be one lot or multiple units is going to be an issue we're going to try to deal with at platting based on residential issues, utility issues, and other things. Ken's done this project in other areas in the metro. And so, there's some benefits to doing it one way versus the other, but I don't think we're clear on that exactly yet. That'll be more of a platting issue if that's okay. Right. So, that Yeah, that's why I wanted in the PUD to allow for both.

Thank you. I appreciate that open. Can you address the sidewalk get would you say the regulation again? I'm sorry who to point at. No, it was just it's in residential. If you're going to place the sidewalk at the back of curb, the the sidewalk has to be 5 foot in width and it was proposed as 4 foot. Okay. And there and there still need to be a location for the water meter. that and that was kind of some of my concern on where that would be and we might need to know from the utility department which she's here to tell us what we could do.

Yes. Um the sidewalk so it would need to be 5 foot versus 4 foot or and that's not a problem but moving it further in towards the lot or towards the structure is leaving a swath of grass for meters and so forth. I mean that's okay with I think we just simplify it like Commissioner Noble said. Sidewalk shall be per city code per public works require uh standards. Okay. So that works. That works. Thank you. So any other questions I could address on behalf of the applicant?

And just to go back to the addressing Sarah, if it's a private drive, then would they have to come get a variance to get addressed or how how would that work? Um, I think that we they they'd have a couple options. Um, one, if it was all in one parcel, we would address off the main street and then they'd have unit numbers inside or they could seek a variance to the portion of the subdivision regulations and allow the private drive to be named and then we would be able to address off those.

Could we write something into this PUD that would keep them from having to get that variance? Yeah, it's a subdivision regulation. I mean, you can I guess write the intent in and we'll sub when we bring the if we have to bring the variance back, we'll reference the PUD, but this the PUD can't vary the subreg for that. So you can't make a TE that varies a subdivision regulation or prove a variance today

to the sub subdivision regulation that we could address on a private drive like that's right like write a TE that says if private drive uh drive would be be allowed to be named and addresses be given off the private drive named private drive. You cannot use the zoning to override the subregs like that. Those are I know you would like to because the subregs are in your power, but you cannot use the zoning to override that.

So, just so I'm clear, when we came when we come in for platting, that'll be in essence a variance that we'll address at that time as part of the subdivision process. So if you're platting, that's because you're going to establish lots and sell it and you'll have city streets and all that kind of stuff and then we'll just you'll just be addressed off those city streets that you're dedicating or um the rights away. It'll be private private streets. This would be if you're going to hold it all on one parcel a private drive compared to and although those will be your own private drives then addressing gets a little bit tricky. Understand? Thank you.

Okay, any other comments, questions? Okay, I think we're ready for a motion and we're just going to add TE4 that sidewalks will be per city code and public works standards. Could we also include in there just to amend the master design statement to where it references 4 foot sidewalks to instead state Yeah, it's in Yes, ma'am. It's in 9.15 in the uh sidewalk regula setback regulations. It says structures will be no closer than 24 ft from the curb and a 4ft sidewalk will be will abut the curb. So we need I think we I think we should just strike the 4 foot language and defer to the planning commissions.

Okay. So So let's amend TE4 to be uh TE4 shall strike the language in the master design statement referring to 4 foot sidewalks. Period. Sidewalk shall be per city code and public works standard. With that, I will make a motion to recommend approval of PUD 2138 with the three TE's as written and the fourth TE as read in. I have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item city council subject to the technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. That item's recommended for approval. Good night.

Thank you. Appreciate your time. Item 14 has been continued. Item 15. Item 15 is CPA 20264 at a consideration of a proposed map amendment to the comprehensive plan which changes the land use typology area from rural low to rural medium on approximately a 6acre track located south of Northeast 50th Street and east of North Bartell Road.

Trey Miller, planning staff. Um the amendment seeks uh the applicant uh requests to amend the conference of plan use from ro medium to roll low. One more. Thank you. Um the area is primarily surrounded by undeveloped. It's currently zoned royal residential or current land use is rural residential. Um the area is currently zoned uh agricultural with oh with uh rural up to the northeast. Currently the area is zoned rural low with urban future to the east and urban low to the south. The area is uh close to water expansion, but the applicant has uh requested to use private wells for this project.

Trey, I'm sorry. Can you pull that mic up a little bit? Yeah. Thank you so much. Is that better? Thank you.

Um the site is close to sewer, but the applicant has uh proposed using the aerobic septic septic system for these lots. um emergency services is in the longer rural response time. This includes fire. Um as far as capital improvements go, the area is subject to residential resurfacing. Um city staff finds that this area is perfect at the current time for moving from rural medium to or roll low to rural medium. We think it will help maintain the area as is. Um despite or the proposed development use of aerobic septic systems on large lots is less likely to result in significant environmental and health impacts. Larger lots provide more area for natural filtration and reduce accumulation of of loading on groundwater uh resources. Based on the above fighting, staff recommends approval of the request.

Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. if you want to lead our discussion. Well, uh the applicant is actually here. So, well, this is right now this is this is just the comprehensive plan amendment. Got it. So, at this point, uh I would recommend approval based off of uh staff's recommendation. Any other comments, questions from commissioners?

I do. I mean, I know we're kind of, you know, dealing with several different applications here that are dependent on each other, but since um staff has made a point of the proposed development's use of aerobic systems as part of its thought process and its recommendation, I really would like to talk about that a little bit. I mean, how much how many lots are we actually Yeah. I mean, I if there's water close by and sewer close by, why are we doing this? I just don't you know staff you can't get away with not talking

Ben Vanetti Muhik Ortiz planning department. So this is a very small um residential development. This is only three houses and it's going to be only three lots is more than six um acres. So that's why we are recommending approval. Um and um actually in the staff report for the PD um utilities recommended it was okay for them to not expand water and in terms of septic um they're going above what we usually recommend for um an acreage um to for them to be able to use a septic Arabic septic and that's why we're recommending it's by the edge of the city um so they're not causing any kind of leap frogging either so those are the the recommendations Yeah. Um after them is it's for a spark. So it's not within the city boundaries either. And that's why the main reason why we're recommending um approval in this case. Um we are not um not all septic systems in all projects are issues and this is a good example of an appropriate use of those.

No problem. So, and basically if they did move water and sewer over to here, then we wouldn't see RA2, we would see R1 and less. So, good trade-off, I think. Any other commissioners? If not, I recommend uh item 15 CBA 20260004 for approval. We have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to approve the CPA. It's been second by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. That item is approved.

Thank you. Item 16. Okay. Item 16 is a companion item to the previous item. It is C1 1159, an application to close the single bypass portion of North Bartell Road rightway east of Bartell Road and south of Northeast 50th. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. My name is Hodrick Steel and uh I am the uh managing member for Steel Properties Group. Uh the address of Steel Property Groups is 641 Northeast 39th Street in Oklahoma City. We are uh respectfully requesting a close of the uh uh that easement there. Yeah. to remove that easement on that easement there. It's uh let me give a little bit of history of that. That easement was uh given to the county, Oklahoma County in October of 1928. I think that was before any of us was born. So, so that's 98 years. Now, the city of Oklahoma City annexed that easement in 1960. For whatever reason, I don't know. Now, Steel Property Groups purchased uh a plot of land there, 6 acres in October of 2026, 2025, I'm sorry. Now, the reason that we want to uh consider closing this easement is because number one, it's it's dangerous on that easement there with that circular curve going there that uh it's no longer really it's no longer needed because uh on on road going all the way up to 50th there, there's Uh that's where most of the traffic go. It's hardly very little traffic. I I happen to live on the other corner right across there. I own the property there.

So I've been there about 20 years and we watched that. Now that's me as a person. Okay. Now on on Northeast 50th Street, if you look at the corner of Northeast 50, this is the danger. at Northeast 50th and Barter Road, there's a stop sign right coming off of Barter Road. But then if you go down to the uh right at the uh end of that uh right there, there's also a stop sign. But then there's a yield sign coming around that curve and that the uh if you come to that stop sign, then traffic is coming up 50. You get three or four cars that are stopped and bang, just last week a car came there and uh like to run up on that traffic because people are coming coming uh west on northeast 50 and making that turn. It's not a yield there. They turn there. I'm sorry. And come on down to uh that arc at the end of that arc there. There's a houses there. There's been some development that right behind there and cars coming out from those houses coming around that not yield and then cars coming up going north on northeast 50 bang creates a lot of danger. Okay. So, and also another thing there is a cedar trees had been growing up there I guess since 1928 and there was a blind that's a blind curve there very dangerous okay fire hazard all those trees there and you know what we had out in that area several years ago the fires okay now living across the street from there that's a very concern of mine personally uh also it's a speed coming around that curve there's a speed trap. Now that when they built that, they built that thing is about four to 5t high just like a racetrack curving around there and sometime kids come through their own

motorcycles and things they're just zooming real dangerous. So that is the dangers of that curve there. And in addition is environmentally it's a nuisance environmentally that triangle there it's about a 3 to 4 foot drop down in that triangle and when it rain the water stands there we got mosquitoes frogs sometime at night when it's really raining it's hard to sleep if you live around that corner. So there's been no changes on that uh tall grass growing up. Now the reason why another reason to close that is because what we doing with that uh that CPA is going to allow steel property groups to come in there and the plan is to uh create with that six acre plot there build three 2acre lots. Okay? And those will allow for housing to be compreh uh same as on the on the uh east side. Yeah, I'm sorry. West side of Bartell is for Forest Park. It's kind of confusing. On the west side of Barter Road is Forest Park, the town of Forest Park and then on the east side is Oklahoma City and then on the north side up there is a county. So, and that that creates a a challenge. What steel property group group groups have uh done and this is what uh had an agreement with the property owners that sold the land to Steel Property Group is allow for a 2acre uh lot to be built right on that corner in addition to two other acres down Bair Road. Now that will create for the city of Oklahoma City there going to be stabil stability of the tax revenue. You put three houses

there and my house right across the street, the taxes on my house is in excess of $8,000 a year. Can you imagine Oklahoma City what that would do for a tax base? In addition, the county takes care of that and it's hardly ever cut. It is a nuisance. Okay, m Mr. Steel, I appreciate all this background information. I'm not sure we need this much convincing. I think Okay. All right. I I think I think you can leave it where it's at and and I'll be shocked if if we're surprised, but I do have a question for for public works.

If we close this road, what does public works do or we close this easement? What what hap what are next steps? Do barriers go up? Does the pavement get removed? How do some of these conditions? because I imagine that you know we this gets this gets recommended for approval and goes forward to city council. I don't imagine the next day that the road gets removed. So what what things are put in place and and basically how how does this road get removed and and people and and cordoned off so that people aren't doing the things that he mentioned?

Very large public works. So once this goes through the easement closure process, the city no longer has any responsibility whatsoever for that. We will not be taking out any of that. That will be up to the property owner to close it off. We're we're not going to go up put any signage up. uh that may be a a condition that you want to put on the approval of this is that when the that easement is is vacated that the road actually be cut off from access from 50th and from Bartell Road because public works city of Oklahoma City will not go in and do anything with that. Yep.

Yeah. That's I mean that's that's kind of what I envisioned is it's going to be on the applicant to uh put up barriers um put up barriers to prevent traffic from going through here now. Yes.

And what about removing regulatory signage? That's city of Oklahoma City regulatory signage. Are you do they remove that or they just leave that? If there's any signage up there that indicates a a public street or anything that that are our signs, we'll go take those down. We want to because we'll want to get rid of them and and not have any uh we we'll want to get rid of the public responsibility for anything that that pertains to that at that point. And I don't know what the signage looks like out there. I would I suspect there's very little.

There's a there's a yield sign if you're going southbound and there is and that's on that's on the curve and if you're going eastbound on 50th there's a stop sign on 50th. Now what's at what's up at the intersection at 50th and Bartell. Now that will stay because that rightway is not being there's a stop sign according to Google Earth there's a stop sign at the curve okay where it intersects on Bartell or on 50th. So once this uh goes through all the the closure approvals, then we would I'd have our traffic folks go out and remove those signs. Okay.

All right. Barry, um can I ask just one clarification question? So this this process, the CE process happens here, the city of Oklahoma City, and the the city council will pass an ordinance that would close it, which closes it to the public, but it's not actually vacated until they take the extra step at district court. So, does the will the city take our signs down as soon as the easement closures through council, do you think, or

I think we can. Uh, that would probably be the appropriate time for us to take it down is when city council has has approved the closure. uh the any time between that point and when it goes to district court to actually vacate that rideway that that actually vacates our uh right to come back and reopen it up until it goes to district court. The city could come back and say, "Oh, by the way, we need that property back. We are going to reopen that." And so that's the that's why it needs to go to district court to to do the vacation to complete that process. But I think after the city council action to authorize the the the closure of the easement, we would go and remove the signs at that point.

And then if he wants, he'd be able to block it off at that point because it'd be closed to public. That I think we would we would say yes, go ahead and close it off at that point. Uh we could again we could come back at some point later to reopen unless it goes to I guess to district court which I don't anticipate that happening but uh yeah that at that point it when we take the signs down we would need to have something done that would prevent access. That would be like jersey barriers and you probably need the MUTCD, you know, dead end. I think the city could put up barriers. I mean once we close it because we're the one closing it so I think we could put the barriers there

chose to normally we I mean we could say normally we wouldn't what I what I would suggest would would probably be the best course of action is that once that's done is that the roadway actually be removed that is the connection between 50th and the curve and Bartell and the curve and uh that's something that I that we could direct street crews to go out and and remove that and it's probably it's gravel if it's asphalt now, right? Uh we could we could blade that create a ditch in there that would uh prevent that access. I like that idea.

I do too. I have a question though on the TE. Um it's recommending that the um exhibit B be amended to reference partial closure of easement. What does that mean exactly? You can it's either closed or it's not. Um no that was just the partial part of it. What does that refer to? And for our applicant too. That's just a um that was a request from our legal department because the way it reads on their exhibit is that it's a partial release of an easement. And so all we're doing is asking to change the exhibit to reflect. I see. That's not what mine says. Oh, partial.

So So what I was getting at is is does one of the conditions meet, you know, are we putting the removal of pavement or the barriers to restrict vehicular access? Are we putting that on the applicant? I don't think we can.

Or are we putting that on or is the city going to take care of it? That's one thing that I would like answered. We so I think what what what we'd offer up here is that we would remove the roadway surface within the right of way that's uh remaining on 50th and on Bartell. Anything the remainder of the curve between the those two rightway lines would be up to the applicant to do what they want to with it. we would we would take care of it and and and what that would do was it would eliminate the need for any barricades to be erected because we don't want to put the barricades up and then have to come back in and maintain those. That's just a that'll be an ongoing problem for us. But we can go out and and grade and remove that surfacing within the the limits of the right of way. So, can we put that as a TE?

I wasn't going to go that far, but I I think that's fine. How about the I mean, how about we just state that it's going to be removed and it's between the applicant and the city to determine who does it. I I I would be concerned about setting a precedent. So, I'm not sure

I'm not sure it's really necessary or even appropriate for us to make that part of this request. They're asking to close the easement. We're saying yes or no. Um, what happens after that, I think, is something for the two of them to work out. Okay. I just I humble opinion. I don't want to I don't want to, you know, create a dangerous situation where we close. We vote to close. I think the council once they close it, they're going to make sure that public works goes out and Okay. puts the barricades up or or works that out between them to take out the portion on that we would be responsible for. Okay. You can talk to Councilman Kamal Pennington about that. I'm sure he'll take it under advisement.

All right. All right. Anything else? All right. We're ready for a motion. Yeah. No TE2 just just it's just TE1. All right. Uh so in that case I will recommend approval for C1159 with TE1 uh which will be the partial closure of easement instead of partial release of easement.

A motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item city council subject to the technical evaluation. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. That item's recommended for approval. Brings us to our last item of the day.

Okay. And finally, item uh 17 is PC 11,000, which is um the companion zoning to the two previous items. It's uh request to reszone 4912 North Bartell Road from the AA district to RA2, the single family twoacre rural residential district. And just to be clear, um, once and if and once the easement that you just discussed is closed and vacated, then this zoning would apply to the entire site. So, anything additional you want to tell us about this one? Um, sounds like you've already got it covered. All right, let's go home. Any comments, questions from commissioners?

All right, we're ready for a motion. I I move that we approve PC 1100 0. A motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend approval of the item. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval. Thank you, Mr. Steel. Thank you very much.

Good luck. All right. That was the end of items to be heard individually. We now move on to additional items. Communications, reports, planning commission committees. Don't believe there are any active planning commission members. Um, I'm sorry I wasn't able to join the commission and board's training last week. Um, even though it I may be incurable at this point in terms of actual training. Um, a I always enjoy sort of the camaraderie and getting to uh see the other members of the boards and commissions. Um, I hope it everybody found it helpful. Um, and

I always learned something new. Yeah, there's there's Am I the only one who wasn't there? I couldn't I couldn't make it either. Well, I I really am sorry. I I had intended to be there and and just couldn't at the last minute. So, I had to go. Um, this seems like there was something else I wanted to say, but I can't remember now what it is, so we'll let it go. Commissioner Week, Commissioner Privet, nothing. Uh, I don't have anything. Commissioner Harrison, Commissioner Noble, uh, planning department, nothing. Municipal counselor's office. All right. Any citizens to be heard? See none.