Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon everyone. It's 1:30. I'd like to call us uh the meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission for April 9th, 2026 to order. Um go over a few housekeeping items. Uh if you have a cell phone with you, please silence or turn it off. Uh, if you're here to speak on an item and you are not the applicant, please fill out one of the forms available outside and give it to Elena or Jared down here. When your item is being heard, you'll be called uh to come to the podium when we're ready for public speakers. Uh, come to the podium, give your name and address for the record, and you'll have up to five minutes to speak. Uh, if you're here with a large group of people, we encourage you to elect a representative to share your group's concerns. And in those instances, some additional time will be considered. Uh where several speakers are going to speak on the same item, please do your best to limit comments to concerns that we haven't heard yet. Uh we'd like to keep the meeting efficient and moving and we reserve the right to limit extensive repetitious comments. Uh please direct all your comments and questions to us up here on the on the commission and if needed, we'll ask the applicant or staff to respond. Uh finally, we appreciate everyone's presence here today and the obligations that you stepped away from. Uh we kindly ask for your cooperation and upholding the decorum of of the meeting and specifically that you don't speak from the gallery. So appreciate your help on that. And with that, we will begin uh move to item two and receipt of the minutes from the March 26 meeting.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes from the March 26, 2026 meeting. Have a motion to receive the minutes. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

And the minutes are received. Uh next is item three, continuence requests. will start with uncontested requests.

We have several uh requests for uncontested continuences today. Uh that starts on with item B number 17 KC7794 defer to April 23rd. Item 18, PUD 2110 defer to April 23rd. Item 19, PUD 2131, defer to April 23rd. Item 20, spud 1798, defer to April 23rd. Item 21, spat 1809, deferred to April 23rd. Item 22, case number C7761, deferred to May 14th. Item 23, CPA2506, deferred to June 25th. Case number 24, uh, item number 24, PC 10997, deferred to June 25th. And item 25, PC 10996 has been withdrawn.

I'll just confirm there's no one 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 continuence requests as read. A motion to approve the uncontested continuence requests. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes and those uncontested requests are granted. Uh any new requests? We have no new requests. Okay. Right. So we'll move on to item four, public hearings, and we'll start with the consent docket.

We have one item on consent today. It's KC7793, the final plat of Shamoy section one, uh located south of Northwest 150th and west of North Sarah Road. All right. I do not have anyone signed up to speak on that item. So we're ready for a motion. I will make a motion to approve the consent docket as read.

A motion to approve the consent docket from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes and the consent docket is approved. Takes us to items requiring separate vote and item two. Item two is KC7795, the preliminary plat of SH at State Highway 74 North Development located south of Northwest 150th Street and west of Lake Heapner Parkway.

Good afternoon. Mark Zitz with Johnson and Associates. Address is 1 Sheridan Avenue. Uh before you use the plat for a project that you approved late last year, uh I think what most people saw was the Shields development that that'll be the first project to go in here. This is the final plat that is a estab sorry the preliminary plat that's establishing the ring road of public streets that'll service all of those lots. Uh staff has four TEES in there and I did want to walk through a couple of them. TE2 uh is stating that a sub street is required to the north um or we need a variance. We our development is not opposed to providing the sub street but at your last planning commission you did not require the developer to the north to stub into us. So, for that reason, we would ask for the variance. I know the neighborhood is is also opposed to it, but we don't want to have to put what would be a lengthy substrate in that ultimately won't connect to anything uh as the other developer didn't have to. Um, and then it kind of goes along with TE3. Uh, we've had conversations with uh the owner and developers of that tract and to this point we have not been able to work out any sort of cross- access agreement. Um, otherwise, we're in agreement with the other TES and we would ask for your approval. Okay. Um, Commissioner Noble, this is your ward. Do you want to lead our discussion?

I will. Uh, and I did discuss this with the applicant prior to the meeting. Um, the only thing that I did see was the variance and then on TE number three, do you want to just strike the vehicular portion of that or just leave it as is and let them work that out in the future? Uh, I mean, the language isn't binding, so we're happy to continue the conversations. Uh, we're we're in agreement to the pedestrian connection. I think that's what the developer of the north had, but the vehicular if if we're able to work something out, great. But ultimately, that's not going to be our

I'd like to see it in there and I would like to see at some point I'd like to see something in writing that they can't come to agreement or they can or whatever. Um, but I think it's I think it's good to leave it in there. Yeah. It's not binding. It doesn't limited. So, first we'll do the the variance. Yes. So, with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance to section 5.3.1.D.5.

A motion to approve the variance for the item. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. The variance is approved. And now the remaining remainder of the item. I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of item C7795. A motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item city council or to recommend to approve the item. It's been second by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. And that item is approved.

Thank you. Item three. Item three is PUD1 1999 SP01 which is an application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 1999 located at 3700 North Walker.

Mark Zitzel Wy Sheran Avenue. So this is the specific plan uh from the the jump. I'll note that staff's uh has noted in the staff report that they've recommended approval and it conforms to the PUB. Uh but given uh the community engagement that we did uh during the PUD stage and then again during platting uh we thought it would be worthwhile to walk through a little bit uh more detail on the landscaping and the fencing that was required to come back before you. So Jared, if you go to the next slide. What the specific plan was required for was landscaping and fencing only along tract one. But we've included some other images just so you can see how the street frontages have come together. So tract one is the town home section. 36 is the east west street and Walker is the north south. And so there is a row iron style fence uh that will buffer the alley uh from the street and then there's new sidewalk and a significant amount of vegetation which if you go to the next one uh in the PUD the the goal was for our entries uh and our signage to look and be similar to that of Edgemeir and Crown Heights. And so what you see here is uh brick cast stone and then there's some flag stone. If you go to the next picture, it was blurry, but the columns are flagstone. So, if you go to our next slide where we've placed the columns uh and the walls, you can see that we've mirrored the flag stone, the cast stone, and the brick in the details. And if you go to the next one, uh you'll note that uh for the one off of the Walker Avenue entrance. So, these are some renderings. Uh if you go out there today, what you'll find are the streets are in, the cobblestone uh entry paving is in. uh as are some homes that have officially gone vertical uh and lots that have been closing which is very exciting. And so you can see those walls, the signage and the entryway and then the landscaping in front of the

walls. As you move through you can see the cobblestone at the entries and this is the entry off of 36th Street which is a narrower entrance. And so I put in here the landscape plan. You can see how much uh landscaping is actually being included in that landscape buffer. And if you go to the next one, it zooms in a little bit more. So what the pud calls for was a mix of evergreen trees and deciduous trees which the landscape uh plan conforms to. And so the renderings there's a mix of multi- trunk trees, evergreens, and then the the shade trees that would meet the street tree requirement. So the goal is, you know, at full uh full height, full full plumage. Landscape architect can correct me on my terminology here. maturity

uh maturity is that you really won't see the fence and ultimately really that second story of the town homes that uh would be behind that fence. If you go to the next one, it's just another view. As you march down to where the bell tower and old cell tower are, you start to see more evergreens that as they grow, they'll continue to screen the fencing uh and the concrete retaining wall that's holding up the bell tower. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. It looks nice. Um, Commissioner Powers, this is your ward. You want to lead the discussion?

This is um this is a sort of a minor miracle um that this piece of property has come to be developed in the way that it has. Um it's very much a sort of jewel in the crown kind of thing to have residential development here and to have it um being spearheaded by someone who is so interested in uh bringing not just a quality product but something that really mixes with the um historic neighborhoods around it in a really positive way while offering a pretty modern uh product. Um I I'm very pleased to hear that, you know, so much time and attention, but not surprised to hear that so much time and attention is being not to mention money. Um uh showered on the the landscaping and so forth. My concern about the properties um perimeter has always been that it not look like a walled or gated community. And I think the the open rod iron is is great. And the fact that it's going to be um I won't say camouflaged, but let's say enhanced by the landscaping around it, I think is is a very positive thing. Uh the fact that it's a bit heavier there on the corner makes sense given that it is is a residential product, pretty close to what's pretty busy intersection. So, um I don't have any questions per se about the um presentation. I wanted to have a little more um full presentation of of the application just than our usual sort of specific plan. Looks good. let's go on kind of uh presentation because I I

do think that it's very important to the people who live in this area that what is being built there fits into the community and I think this is a wonderful example of just how that can be done. So um is there anybody signed up to speak? I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Um if other commissioners have comments or questions u but if not then I will move approval for item number three PUD 1999 specific plan 01 for Leburg Park.

I have a motion to approve the specific plan and for the record staff to review the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with PUD 1999 master design statement and the master development plan as amended. That item's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. So, please cast your votes when available. That item is approved. Thank you. Item four. Item four is PUD 2053 SP01, which is an application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 2053 located at 17841 North Pennsylvania Avenue.

Good afternoon, Mark Zitz, Wy Sheran Avenue. Uh this specific plan uh staff notes does uh conform to the PUD. Uh there was a request uh in in a staff report uh that dumpsters be relocated, the ones that are along 178th and the one that is closer to Penn. Uh we've talked with the developer. He is more than happy to accommodate that request and relocate the dumpsters um what I guess would end up being south of the the front building wall of the apartment buildings along 178th. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions, but we'd I guess for staff appreciate a TE that just notes relocation of the dumpsters along 178th and the one dumpster along Pennsylvania Avenue.

We'll add that as a condition that you just modify plans at permitting for that. Okay. All right. Commissioner Noble, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Thanks. Uh and we did go over this with the applicant and they did agree upon with the dumpsters. I know there was a lot of uh of work that went into this project to get it uh approved with the existing neighborhoods and so without anything from any commissioners.

No. Nope. And you didn't want to add a TE, right? No TE. Just we're going to we're going to capture the condition or the modification in the in the minutes. Okay. With that, I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of PUB 2053 SP01.

It's we're approving. Uh so we have a motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the specific plan. For the record, staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is otherwise consistent with PUD 2053 master design statement and the master development plan. That's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. And that item is approved. Thank you. Item five.

Item five is case number SP 608 is an application for a special permit to operate the use 8300.18 which is an automobile dealership and mall in the C3 district at 11818 Southwestern Avenue.

Good afternoon. My name is Elena Cormio and along with my business partner Mark Holden, we're the owners of Adastra Management and Tesla Rental OKC. Thank you for the opportunity today. We re recently purchased this property. We are repurposing this existing um old Burger King building as our office and our operation hub for Tesla Rental Location. We are uh not a car dealership, although that's the application. Uh we are a local veteranowned car rental agency. We specialize in um upscale boutique car rental experience for electric vehicles. Um the site will also feature um a hotel inspired lounge and in uh public EV charging stations which will be available to anyone in the community especially in this area of Oklahoma City that has been a bit underserved um in terms of EV charging infrastructure. This adaptive reuse um has minimal impact. Um it preserves an existing commercial structure with virtually no structural changes. It brings a low impact sustainable business to the area. Um we're pleased to share we already have strong support from nearby businesses who recognize the value this project brings. We respectfully request that the planning commission recommend approval and I'm available to answer any question you may have. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Newman, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Um, I'm familiar with their existing operation. It's not too far from my office. Um, it's kind of a low impact sort of thing. I don't have really any issues or concerns. Does anyone else have any comments? I'll just say that, you know, Commissioner Meek is very disappointed that he's losing his favorite Burger King. So, if you have any if you have any recommendations on the next favorite Burger King in Oklahoma City, I'm sure he'll be happy to hear those. Um, with that, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to recommend approval of SP 608 to city council. A motion to recommend the special permit to city council from Commissioner Newman

with the uh I'm sorry uh with the noted condition. Uh the the technical evaluations. So we have and you were okay with that. Say that one more time. The technical evaluation. I'm sure you're okay with it. It just says you can't be a car dealership. Okay. Yeah. It's limited to vehicle leasing and rental. So all right. So we have a motion subject uh to recommend approval subject to the technical evaluation from Commissioner Newman. It's been second by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. That's recommended for approval. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Have a good day. You too. Item six. Item six is a special permit application number SP 609. It's an application to operate use 8250.10 which is high impact institutional in the C3 district at 3817 Northwest Expressway.

Good afternoon. Caitlyn Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. So, the application before you is to allow for a Bachelor of Science and Nursing program within the sixth floor of the existing office building. Uh, typically when you see this use unit and the required special permit that has to get submitted with it, you're going to see it for uh development of an actual university or college. In this instance, because of the high higher education nature of the use that we're seeking, it still triggered the special permit application. So staff recommends approval. We haven't received any protest and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Okay, Commissioner Powers, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

I was a bit puzzled by this initially. Um, it seems a bit odd to have to go this route to for this particular use at this particular location. I I don't see how it is in any way impactful to the uh uses around it or um you there's when you look down the list of special permit items, it's like yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Which is unusual for people who are asking for special permits. So unless there's somebody in the audience who wants to be heard on this item or comments or questions, I don't have anyone signed up to speak. Commissioners, I'll move approval for item number six, SP 609, subject to the technical evaluation, which we agreed to.

Yes. Subject to technical evaluations. So we have a motion to recommend. Although can I ask why why do we need it to have to be limited to the sixth floor? Why why was that a thing? the first I want to say that I agree that I I really hated actually telling both of our last two applicants that they had to come through this process for buildings that were already there. In our new code, we've recommended that they seek a way to reten this viable space. Um, in this case, just due just just due to just to for the sake of the special permit, we didn't want it to apply to the whole building. So, we just said the sixth floor because this is what this tenant I don't even think they're occupying the entire sixth floor,

right? But it would allow a potential expansion if that should happen. They wouldn't have to come back just to only have what's shown on their floor plan. So, well, yeah. I And I mean, if the applicant's willing to agree, it's like not a problem for me, but I'm just curious about it. Um, we're good. So, we So, yes, with the tees. Okay. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item city council subject to technical valuation. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval. Uh item seven.

Item seven is PUD 2137, an application to reszone 1325 East Hefner Road from PUD 2057 to PUD 2137.

Good afternoon. Caitlyn Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street here. on behalf of the applicant. Uh so the PUD before you, we have an R1based zoning district where we've modified minimum lot size to the 4,400 square ft and the 40 foot lot widths. Uh you'll see in the site in your staff report that the site is encumbered by floodway and flood plane which is reducing the amount of developable area. But also if you look at the trajectory that this area is trending towards, you're going to see we still have some R4 zoning in that PUD 1443 to the northwest. We have the smaller lots in the existing PUD 1529 immediately west. So, we've got 4,000 to 5,000 square foot lots in that division. Uh, we also have the commercial and office there to the west. If you look a little further southwest, you're going to see PUB 1841, which is currently zoned with an R4-based zoning district. So, allows for multif family, but also allows for the 4,000 square foot lots and 40 foot lot width. So that's actually smaller than what we are proposing. And if you look right next to PED 1841, you're going to see a developing community that also has the 40 foot lot width. So you are seeing these more in this area, especially uh what we have done to um you know give the give and take with this PUD application is we have increased the amenities and we've also increased the open space. We'll add those TES here shortly. You're also going to see that we have a 30-foot landscape buffer along the east since we do have larger lots to the east and then we also have uh some seed a sixoot cedar capped fence along the common area that you're going to see in the southeast of the property. Uh so looking at the TEES staff does recommend approval. We're going to seek to modify and strike some of these. Uh the first one regarding the singlecar garages we would seek to strike. You're going to see the other developments in this area

with the same uh 40 foot lot width with two-car garages and of course we don't want to exacerbate any on street parking issues. Uh number two, we agree. Number three, uh we would seek to modify to healthy mature trees shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible within platted common areas. Uh number four, we would seek to strike we already have included under section 8.6 Six usable open space shall be located within 1,320 ft from every lot within the PUD. Um, we would like to add T a TE that would state the following amenities shall be required. Splash pad, double pickle ball court, and a playground. And we would like to add an additional TE uh to modify the minimum open space we currently have in the pud from 15% to 24%. and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all have.

Um, Commissioner Harrison is not with us. Um, and this is Ward 7. So, if Commissioner Noble, if you could lead our conversation. I do not have anyone signed up to speak on the item. Thanks. And, and there was one written protest in the application. You probably did see. Yes, the applicant has discussed with that neighbor and has alleviated their concerns. So we are coming with you today with no protest. Good. Um there was also in the application a statement about the location of where the trees were going to be planted. Um

yes that is correct. And I have confirmed so you're referring to the tree between the sidewalk and the curb. I've confirmed with Mr. Dustin C. Graves that the water line is always going to be in the front. And I spoke with Mr. Jared Martin and confirmed that Oeni is also going to have a 10-ft easement in the front. So, if that's something that we would like to modify to just meet the code instead of planting a potentially problematic tree underneath utilities, we're more than happy to do so. We can add that as an additional TE to modify to just per code for the landscaping. I agree with that. So we can just add the landscaping will be per code. Yeah.

And then did have a question on the on the common areas and where how it's written within the application and then how it's written in the TE. I would rather see it stay as written in the TE. with the walkable distance.

We've we've seen this TE pop up here recently. This is a newer TE that we have been seeing from staff and historically we have modified to what's currently written in the master design statement which is why that's already in there to have that distance requirement. So it for that reason and again because of what historically has been approved with that revised verbiage I do recall I mean this has been brought up a few times um and there was one on the one down on the south side just south of 240 and I was almost positive that we did it as walkable and not straight line but it's yours so you might know more than me I just I wasn't sure how we did that

we I know we did one in ward one that way so the The reason that we put that in there this way was at 150th and county line. We did the same thing 1320 ft from any lot. Straight line. Straight line. Correct. Is there So is is walkable a defined term um in the code? I mean is it says walk a walkable distance along sidewalks or trails? So that's how it would be. It's the walkable part that's along sidewalks or trails, not the location of the trees. I mean the or the Yeah. to the park.

Well, I think what what it what it circumvents is if for whatever reason there's a barrier, whether it's a drainage channel or something like it's right out in your backyard and you've got open space behind that, but you can't get to that open space because you have to walk down the street and all the way around. then really you shouldn't be able to count that as as open space that you have access to if it's not within the 1320 ft.

So on this one before I even put that into the PUD I went to every lot and looked at our usable open spaces that were centrally located in this addition to make sure that they were within that 1320 ft of that. Well, that's going to put us at maybe, I don't know, 2,000 feet or something walkable, you know, and so that's why and and we stuck with that on 150th and county line, which is the last one that I discussed this with you on. Yeah. And now there. So,

no. And that I mean that's that's a fair point. As it as it's new and we keep, you know, we've only seen it a few times. I would ask planning to maybe look at it and maybe does it need to be an average of something. I don't know, an average of 1320 because you're going to have lots that are just a few hundred feet, but you might have some that are 2,000 or or you can only have a percentage that exceed, you know, the 1300 up to 2,000 or something like that. So,

I mean, there's got to be a way to to achieve in text what it is we're trying to express here. Um, and and I get the point. Yes. As the crow flies is not helping anybody get to the amenities. So, and even like on your site plan, I mean, there's there's open space southeast, southwest, in the middle, all along the west side. It seems like there's quite a bit of open space that I didn't know that you couldn't reach it. I just I say usable is like I would I would Can you speak into the microphone just so that we make sure that we got it? Watch your feet. Watch your feet. Thank you. Um just push Caitlyn out of the way.

When I when I see the the usable, I'm thinking that there's some amenity inside of that, right? Not just being like open space, detention ponds and the other things that are considered. And how is how is staff going to interpret that in sometime in the future when staff changes? So yeah, not that she's told me anything or anything, but yeah, and I and I understand that also, but to the same point, if if you're walking to the park, you know, the 1320 ft is is the, you know, quarter mile. And

if you remove the word usable, then it's easy, right? Well, I think Yeah, it is. But I think you I think I think you need the usable in there because I mean if you're going to count a detention pond um or a retention pond as you can't you can't count that as it's not that's not usable open space unless there's a trailer around that. So I mean or if it's if it's heavily wooded if it's open space but heavily wooded and underbrush and all that stuff that's not usable. So, um, so I think it's warranted, right? But, and the whole object is to get centrally located parks that everyone could get to in a timely manner.

And I know that we talked about the distance and how much time it was to get to walk the 1320 ft. I just was looking for something that we could all agree on and in the future just know in the development side and in our side that we could already be in the application so we wouldn't have to go through this. Yeah. I mean on this in this particular edition we're giving up over 30 acres with 24% you know and just trying to give and take here. the 1320 and what we had agreed on before. I thought I was hoping that we could reach your agreement there.

Yeah. No, I mean I I'm all for the the upping it to 24%. I just have a feeling that that is area that's probably just not buildable. Um so it looks good on on paper with a number, but as far as being usable, um I'm not sure how usable it is. What's everyone else feel about this? In the bad old days, I think we used to actually designate where the amenities we're going to go. I don't know whether that would be the system we would prefer or not, but I mean, you know, we can just decide now where they're going, I suppose.

And we want to give the developer the flexibility of where they're putting the parks. We do want them centralized. We do want them close to the homes and and not having to to walk or, you know, ride a bike too far to the park. So, I mean, I like the way it's read. I know you I vote that we leave it the way it is and task Mark with forming a subcommittee of developers to solve this problem.

The next six weeks before it goes I mean, given the additional amenities that we're also agreeing to, hoping there's maybe more wiggle room. I mean, I understand the comment about the increase in open space, but we're also adding amenities to this development that wouldn't otherwise be required. Okay, then that does matter. Okay. Yeah, I know. That's that's a good point. Um, usable. How about how about we just add the word usable open space or amenity shall be located within 1320 walkable distance alongside walks and trails from every lot. I can do that.

With amenities defined as the park, the playground or the splash pad or the pickle ball splash pad playground. Got it. Um okay. So, now that we got that covered, I regarding TE1,

the singlecar garage, um we we've got another we've got another case later, but uh where they want to go to twocar garages and again, it's 40 foot lots and and you know, we've really been emphasizing, you know, things that we can do on these 40 foot lots that kind of help improve the community so that you just don't a whole garage as the front uh on such a narrow lot. And one of the things that that I suggested I would like to suggest is that if they want a two-car garage, great. You can have a two-car garage, but break it into the two single doors and stagger the facade a couple feet. Um in our briefing, we made that request and they said it couldn't be granted. Um so, but I'm

They said what? It couldn't. They said they said they couldn't do it. So, um, but I really would like to see us as a commission push for that. If we're going to be putting two-car garages on 40 foot lots, that we that we really push for that or even if it's a double door, not two singles, that the facade of the house steps back and forth at least, so it's not just a straight row of garage doors.

You know, my fear with the two garage doors is it typically takes up more space than a single overhead door. And and and I don't know if this is I'm going to throw something out there. You know, instead of focusing on the garage, what if we require a certain amount of frontage that's not garage? I'm fine with that. I'm not the architect. I'll leave that up to you. But I'm a designer, so I know what, you know, what I think's going to proportionally going to look good. But um or if we limit it to a certain size garage door, you know, 16 versus 18,

right? And what started the single car garage te was really the 30 foot lots, which I don't hope we don't see any more of those, but that's where it that's where it was born at. I mean, you still a way to to break up that look is is the goal, right? And so, you know, you maybe put the garages next to each other off the five foot and then the more part of the house is mirror them. Mirror them. Yeah.

But still just break it up. I mean, and how do we put that in in the PUD is difficult, but single cars or the two singles, some offset, um, some double. I I agree with Commissioner, but if they're not 18 ft wide, in today's world, getting two cars in is impossible. And then you just got more problems. But when you're looking at it, you have 30 foot of buildable space. You have 22 ft for a garage or 24 ft. There's not much left. Front door and a window. Maybe not even the window. Unfortunately,

we're just asking for something to make it look better. Understood. Um, again, just southwest of here, you're going to see the same product with smaller lot sizes that are doing the two-car garages. People want twocar garages. Um, so and again just because of the market and the builders, how these are being developed and I'm in total agreement with of putting a two-car garage in. It's just trying to get it to then look aesthetically more pleasing from the street, not just seeing garage doors all the way down.

You know, there there are there's language in our urban design standards having to do with, you know, breaking up that flat look. Um, you know, I suppose you could do it with with your m materials. You could do it. There are other ways visually to do it. A garage door is kind of a garage door, though. That's the problem. You know, it's not there's not a lot you can do to dress it up. But surely there's some language there in our urban design standards that we could look to in terms of how these could be varied a bit. You really don't want to look down a street and just see nothing but, you know, garages. garage doors in a tree.

Well, and maybe one of the things that along those lines make it such that the garage door had to be pushed back. A lot of times we'll see the garage door being the first thing out closest to the street. But if we put in some language where that the entry to the house had to be proud of the garage door might help a lot. I think it's either or, you know, whichever one is the one that pops out is not as is significant to me is the fact that it's not just flat. They want to put the they want to put the porch part out front. Great. They want to put the garage out. I don't like that quite as much, but at least it varies the it gives you some articulation, you know,

like like we do with the tiltup buildings that have the big long facades that we make them vary the facade heights and the facade protrusions. I think a simple way to handle uh developments like this would be to put like every 400 ft or 500 ft you have to have a minimum 5 foot setback separation so that it's at least breaking up on the block. I think you're going to have to look at it on a lot by lot basis. Lot by lot. Yeah. But I mean, if we just put in some language, for instance, that there must be two planes in the of the two planes in the front facade that have to be offset a minimum of 3 ft. I don't know. Yeah.

So, it's not one big deal. I think I don't know if it's in this one, but don't sometimes on the 40 foot lots or even on less, but that the house can be 15 foot setback and the garage has to be 20. And so that kind of that will that will require that it's just how and if they do do it. You were you wanting to say something?

I was just going to say, you know, hopefully at least in this case because of the landscape buffer we have on the east because of what is existing immediately to our west and kind of in this area as well as the amenities. Maybe we can proceed with the two-car garage and continue to strike TE1 and then in the background for the future, we can work on some verbiage in the meantime for uh moving forward with with these types of applications with with the smaller lots. But again, given the amenities and given the items that have been negotiated into this PUD to make it compatible with the area and to make it an attractive product again with the buffers and amenities,

how do we feel about just keeping that one struck for now moving forward? Yeah, I think what we're doing today really is a discussion and and we know this is going to council and I know the council person in W 7 is probably going to have something to say about this and we're just putting some stuff into his mind so he can talk about it because I know he he misses this and he comes back and watches every meeting, right? Definitely. Definitely. I'm good with it. Did anyone sign up to speak on this? I didn't ask. No. No. Anything else from any other commissioners? No.

Caitlyn, would you go and the number five and number six? Read those back in. And seven. Yes. And seven.

Yep. Um number four, I think, is the first one that we modified. So modified to usable open space or amenity as defined as splash pad, double pickle ball courts, and playground shall be located within 1,320 ft from every lot within the PUB. Uh number five would be the following amenities shall be required. Splash pad, double pickle ball courts, and a playground. Uh the TE6, there shall be a minimum of 24% open space provided within this PUD. Number seven, modify the landscaping regulations to be in accordance with uh code code. Modify number one. Strike number one.

Strike number one, agree to number two. Uh number three, modify to healthy mature trees shall be preserved to the and al and also on number four just to clarify um so usable open space and amenity located within a 1320 ft walkable distance along sidewalks or trails. Oh yes, apologies. Okay. And I'm sorry, Caitlyn, I need to have you describe number seven again and what we're actually modifying. U modifying landscaping regulations to be just per code. Pull it up. Yeah, we're basically removing the requirement to put the tree in the space between the curb and the sidewalk.

Can you please Can you please go to section 8.2 and tell me what you're modifying? Yep. Yep. Going there now. 8.2. Okay. Um, so basically, uh, removing item four in section 8.2. Okay. So, I think, you know, not that you wouldn't put the tree in the front yard, but technically our zoning code does not say the one tree has to be in the front yard. So, I'm just putting that out there for you all. So, maybe what number seven needs to say is just that we're removing item number four, 8.2.4. four.

Well, what she's saying, what she's saying is the last part of item four says that there has to be one tree between the sidewalk and the residence. And if you remove number four, they can not do any tree, right? They could do one tree per lot. It doesn't technically have to be in the front yard. Front yard, right? Do you all want it to be in the front yard? I mean, we already

I'd like to see it read one in the front and one in the back. This this is kind of what I brought up a couple weeks ago um and why I think we should look at it in the code update as far as you know trees and requirements and um for obvious reasons the two trees and especially the one by the sidewalk doesn't make a whole lot of sense especially when that tree matures if it's able to mature

typically when Mr. Grubs and other developers bring a plat forward, they put on the front of the plat that the tree will be placed in the front yard. I'm just letting you know that if you're if we're talking about where the trees go front and between the curb, that technically under our current code, um the zoning wouldn't require it. And if we would if you all would rather see us modify 8.2.4 for to uh for single family residential 8200.14 there shall be one tree planted between the sidewalk and the residence period. I like it. Okay. Well, they were already going to give you two trees.

They were going to give us two trees. I I want to stay with the two trees. So So instead of instead of there shall be one tree planted between the street and the sidewalk, you just say there's one tree planted in the backyard and one tree planted between the sidewalk and the residence. I like it. Agreed. Okay. So the TE will be modifying uh 8.2.4 is read in.

Anything else? So I'm going to recommend approval of the TEES as written into the striking TE1. tracking TE1 and TE's 2 through 7 is reading. Good with that, sir. Yep.

Okay. With that, I will make a motion to recommend approval of PUD 2137 striking TE1 and recommending or reading in TE's 2 through 7. So, I have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item city council for approval subject to the amended tees. Do we have a have a system issue? We took too long. Okay. All right. Then we just need a time on it.

Have to unplug it and replplug it back in. All right. So then we need need a second for the motion verbally. Second. Okay. The item's been seconded by Commissioner Powers and then voice vote. I I I I I I I Nate. All right. Um the item passes is recommended for approval. All right. Item eight.

Okay. Okay, the next three items are related. Item eight is CPA 20260000002, which is a consideration of a proposed map amendment to the comprehensive plan removing the employment layer over the urban low designation in an area located north of West Hefner Road and east of the Kilpatrick Turnpike.

Okay. Good afternoon. My name Cortis for the planning department. So this is a comprehensive plan amendment CPA 202600002. Oh, there you go. Uh like Sarah mentioned is a request to remove the employment land Luda from the urban low Luda base designation. The associated application is beauty 2130. Um that's where the selected site is. It's in the northeast uh northwest part of the city. Um in terms of land use uh right now is undeveloped is surrounded um to the east to the west uh undeveloped and it has some residential to the north and some residential and commercial to the south. In term of zoning right now is zone AA with some AA to the um east and some beauty um surrounded area too. in terms of the Luda is the employment Luda. Uh in the site is employment Luda to the east and then to the west is just basically the highway to the north is um or below. I just want to point out go back um all this area used to be employment. Um in terms of water the site um the water is read readily available on site. In terms of sewer is ready readily available on site. In ter of emergency services the site is within urban response time for fire and emergency services. In terms of the findings, the subject site is an excellent site for employment uses due to its proximity to highways and other employment uses in the area. Plus, it has all the city

infrastructure. It's a well served and situated employment land are limited to in the northwest area of the city where sites are suitable for residential users are more plentiful. Preserving employment land to facilitate the creation of jobs remain critical to Oklahoma City's overall economy, economic stability, and future growth. Removing the employment designation on this side will reduce the amount of development ready employment land available in the northwest quadrant of the city, lessening the city's ability to retain and attract large employers. Based on the findings, the staff recommends denial of this request. In the case the planning commission decides to remove the employment layer, then the staff recommends to include an expansion of 9.9 additional acres. Those are the acres between the site and the highway just to create a more clean um area with a total of 106.87 acres. I don't know if you have any questions.

Right. Thank you. Right. Um this is ward one. So I mean this is this is the last kind of segment of the employment reserve and we've we've tackled this numerous cases over the last several years and I'm you know planning is still adamant that this is employment reserve and needs to be kept and but you know half the time these owners don't know they're in employment reserve and they're selling the land and they're not aware of it. Um but what is developing out here is residential and um that's that's been the case for the last several years and um as we'll see here in a little bit that's continues to be the case and so I I am all for the employment reserve areas but if you're going to do it we got to do it right like we've done it out and the Oklahoma City you know property authority goes and buys the land and it's reserved so Um, so I'm in support of the removal of the employment layer. So any other comments, questions from commissioners?

Anyone signed up to speak? I do not have anyone signed up to speak. And I'm in agreement with you, too. So I still, you know, I've always had kind of mixed feelings about these. It is it is I think very difficult to make a strong case and I'll take my lawyer hat off I guess but that you know the city by simply designating something as reserve is going to um

require yeah actually reserve it. The idea behind these large swasts of of uh employment reserve initially was to allow for sufficient room for a very large employer not only to have their own business and um you know the ability to to design traffic access that made sense for a large business but also to provide you know some services uh for the employees. and even possibly um residential development that would you know um provide workforce housing or whatever. And I I think it was um a laudable idea. I think at the time most all of this land was, you know, out in the middle of nowhere still and, you know, there weren't turn pipes and um I I think it is unfortunate that we are losing these large reserves, but I I can't make a very articulate or clear-headed argument for how we should be able to control the development that the market is dictating, you based on our limited ability to actually control the development. It's it's to go buy it or to more actively recruit, you know, actual employers who want it or whatever. You know, I I think it's it's all land that's been sitting there for a long time. And that's what you do when you have empty land. you plant a flag on it, you know,

and and you know, to say that comprehensive plan was built between 2012 and 2015, per se, and then the turnpike already existed and this was all raw land except for some AA and large acre acreages throughout there. And the idea to have an industrial buffer along the turnpike on both sides and then housing past that to me makes a lot of sense. But once once the ball started started rolling towards all residential and residential backing right up to the turnpike, stopping that especially at this point is is it's almost a mute point. It's gone. So I'm in agreement with that. But the idea behind it and having that ground as a buffer between the highway and then residential is was pretty good planning.

You're absolutely right. I mean this particular piece of land which is actually what we're here tasked to look at. I mean it would be very difficult for you to put any kind of uh employment you know a large employer. I mean not only just the size of the site but but the traffic and the way it's working out there now with the residential that's already developed around it. I mean this would be a terrible place to try to put a big business. Yes. At this point it's Yeah. gone. Okay. All good points. We ready for a motion?

I would like to make a motion to approve the proposed map amendment to the comprehensive plan removing the employment layer over the urban designated designation and include the additional 9.9 acres as shown shown in the exhibit.

All right. A motion to approve the amendment from Commissioner Noble and seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. That item is approved. Item nine. Okay. Item nine is the zoning associated with the last case. It's PUD 2130. An application to reszone 9525 West Effner Road from the AA district to PUD 2130.

Good afternoon. Caitlyn Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. So, the PUD before you is an R1 based zoning district. Again, modifying the minimum lot size to 4,400 square feet and 40 foot lots. Uh, with this item, we did cap it. So, we have a maximum now of 200 uh 40 foot lots and a maximum of 35 duplex lots. So, that decreases the dwelling units per acre that you see in your staff report now from 5.04 04 to 4.78 dwelling units per acre. So when you're looking at what is now the urban low inensity land use typology that it falls under, you're looking at four to eight dwelling units. So we're still on the low end of that uh contemplation for density. Um we do have 40 foot lots immediately to our north in PUD 1796 as well as to our east. East we also have a 70% lot coverage. So, we will be lower than that in that PUB 2049 that you see there. Um, of course, we're adjacent to the highway north of Northwest Expressway. It's compatible with the surrounding zoning. Uh, there is one TE regarding the singlecar garage that we would seek to strike. Uh, but other than that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you all have. This is also another one where we um have the landscaping the tree with the in between the sidewalk and the curb. So, I think we'll need to go ahead and modify that as well. Um, adding the TE to do so. So, happy to answer any questions that you all have u with the with those

amendments.

Thank you. Um, this is ward one and I want to um offer my appreciation um for the applicant to work uh with myself and Councilman Carter on this. This this originally came uh to us as 379 40ft lots and we felt that was too dense and also 55 uh duplex lots for a total of 110. So they have um we've gone back and forth and they've I think we found a good compromise with the 200 foot uh or 240 foot max lots uh and the 35 duplex lots. Um so I appreciate that. Um I think you know one of the other things in discussions that I I requested was that if we could somehow you know mix in the 40ft lots um with the with the the 50ft lots or the other lot sizes just so that we didn't have you know a section of of um you've got the duplex obviously those will all be uh in one area But not I don't think uh you know colllocating all the 40s in one area of the development and then all everything else in the other. Um I would like to I would like to see everything kind of co-mingled to break up. Again this is going to get away from that that item that we talked about in the last case of just having a string of 40 foot lots and all the garages in the front. So, um, I wanted to put that out there that as we again talk about this case, future cases and the new code that we are somehow prioritizing that as as being something that we can implement. So,

unfortunately, we are unable to agree to the intermingling of the lots. I don't know what the verbiage would look like, number one. But number two, whenever build builders are purchasing these lots, they're unable to really agree to that, especially if their product is going to be primarily the 40-footers and you have another developer doing the larger. It's not feasible. they become less marketable from a building perspective, but also as someone that's, you know, going and buying a lot. You know, like is next to like, so people are going to want to look around and see how their neighborhood, how their street is going to look and uh what they expect, I think, from an appraiser standpoint. Then that also uh helps with that aspect. So that that's ultimately the reason we get that. Um but I still think there's things that could be done. I mean the the larger lots can be put on the perimeter or you mentioned there's 40 foot lots up north in the next community. I mean makes sense for the 40ft lots to abut those. But I think I think the point I'm just trying to convey is that we prefer not to see just shoving all the 40 foot lots in one area of the development. Um

yeah. So, all right. But I mean, I' I'd really like to hear an explanation better than that, better than just marketable money. It's just not true. It It's more about the look of the neighborhood, good planning, mixing 40s, 50s, mixing people within the development to create a better community. Kendall, would you like Kendall's got and I can see I can certainly see that if you've got 40 and then you've got 60s or something like that, but when you're talking 40 to 50, yeah,

for the record, Kendall Dylan, craft and um and to cut to the skinny, I think Caitlyn's exactly right. I mean, at the end of the day, um everything that we do is market driven. And so whether it's right, wrong, or indifferent, what we do know is especially if you go look at the top um builders that are pulling permits in this town, they do not want them interm. But now if you look at it also, and I think a large part of that is if you start to look at it's when you deal with the normally the market for those units goes up in five foot increments in residential development because you're deal building a different product every 5 foot, but for sure every 10 feet. So, even for instance, we had one before you the other day, Magnolia, um up at 164th in Wester Pin. Um I've got one right now that I'm working on that are 60 and 70 foot lots, but even with those lots, they still always were segregating them or putting them in pods because you're dealing with different markets and the absorption rate is different with every different market. So now when you start to look at absorption rate, one market obviously is outrunning the other one. So now we look at phasing and it's a lot more difficult to phase something that's intermingle throughout the whole thing than it is within its pods. And so what you would end up with is from a feasibility and efficiency standpoint if we try to phase and let's just say we need 70% of this market versus 30 of the other we have to build a huge footprint with lots of infrastructure sitting on the ground out there and the absorption rate because the ones intermingled aren't that. So it's just it's not efficient development. That's the reason that developers whe and like I say from a planning standpoint I get it right like we mix in 40s and 50s but when you get to the market side of it and the builders and the people that are building these developments that's the reason that they still like the pods and the segregation is because it's just an efficient it's a numbers game. it's an efficiency thing and um and so that's the reason on this one we've got it

we've tried to balance it the best we can and it's not that you just have you do have them somewhat concentrated but there's still kind of throughout the development you still have pods of 50s and pods of 40s yeah no I mean I I get what you're saying I'm just it's it's an issue and we got to figure out how to resolve it we could just say that we're going to just in suburb herbs that outside the core 50 foot lots. You'd like that a lot, wouldn't it? Yeah. Well, I mean, and and here's the reality, right? Like I would I mean have this discussion though, right? About let's take your comp plan for instance.

Well, your comp plan recommends 4 to 8 million per acre.

So, we have 240 foot lots just to get us to 4 point a little over four. So there's a discrepancy between the between your comp plan and what we're proposing and and we understand the sensitivity with 40 foot lots. But here's the predicament obviously from our end of it as well is you know we did one thing six months ago and so us trying to do the planning because we're planning months ahead. It's difficult for us and then to come in and to try to negot because some of these things make a big difference, right? Like even with recess garages, like it seems like it should be real simple, but the guys that are building them every day, they have a good reason for why they're reluctant to do it because it screws up the efficiency and the constructibility of the house. And so it's hard for us and Caitlyn and I to stand up here and to be able to answer those on the around the horseshoe and give good answers and protect our clients and do right. So it it's almost like we this is where we've been. We're doing our best to understanding the sensitivity of it, but at some point, yes, it sounds like we need to have a discussion about this is how we're going to approach things so that we're not trying to mix them on this one or recess garages on this one and and we can have some way that we as engineers and developers can kind of know what to expect and try to design around those things. And and I want you to be able to know what to expect and I want you to know what to tell these national builders when they come in here and they want to put cookie cutter product all the way across a block and it looked like a garage door from one end to the other other and so that that's the discussion today.

Sounds like a study session. Yeah. I mean, one developer I'll I'll single out that I tend to like their the looks of their product is ideal homes. Um there I know there's other ones that that look like that, too, but they they seem to, you know, make them to where not every house is the same. They all kind of look a little bit different, but they're all basically the same, but they just don't look the same. I like them.

All right. So, it's more than we can solve today. Um, but I want to keep talking about it so that it's on every it stays on everyone's minds. So, um, any other comments, questions from commissioners?

I'm sorry. We're probably ready to move on from this, but I my best friend has moved out to a little neighborhood southwest, which has been a really eyeopening experience for me. and she lives in a a neighborhood that has these really windy streets, which is interesting since we're all married to the grid here. Um, but also you almost don't really notice it except that there is so much variation. The the model in the neighborhood she's in, which I cannot remember the name of, to save my life. Um, is that some of the houses have twocar garages and some of them have threecar garages, which is interesting. Um, so there can't be that much of a problem incorporating and it's just like they seem to be scattered. It's not like all the ones on this street are two and all the ones on this street are three. They're just scattered and it can't be that much of a problem to build some variation into your development. It is when you have perfected when you're a builder that's perfected a a specific floor plan and that's pretty much all you build with a slight variation. The footprint stays the same, but in the, you know, interior might have a few changes, but I get what they're saying, but at the same time, like come up with a couple different versions that aren't that significant of a change. And because if it takes you a little bit longer, I mean, when when you've perfected the the method, then it is it's efficient and time is money. So, but I think we just need to see some more options. Um,

and I I get that, too. Everybody has their way of doing things, but um, you know, our job here is not to make their lives easier. I know our job our job is to make our communities better. That's right. Yes. not make it easy on the builders. Yeah.

Well, and to that point, we have decreased the maximum number of 40 foot lots. We have decreased the maximum number of duplex lots. We've increased the percentage required for recreational common area. So, hearing the comments ahead of time, we did include um those tradeoffs to to make it a more diverse uh type of community in that regard. And again, I appreciate that we've made it better. Have we made it great? Probably not. But we will get there.

I think just from planning perspective, we've been talking about this for years and years and years. And I think that the the like the code update, this is the next opportunity to try to figure this out except on a case- by case basis um with every individual PUD would be during that code update process and revision of of the potential revision of the subdivision regulations. I mean, I'm look I look at Mr. I mean, Mr. Dylan, you know that that's been We've talked about that for years and years. So, okay. Anything else? All right. I think we're ready for a motion. Well, before that, Kaitlin, just go through the the TE's. Are we going to

do more than just one and two? I think we're striking striking one adding two on the landscape, but do we have to add the tees for the maximum number of 40s 40 foot lots? It's already included in here. It's not in your staff report, but the master design statement was updated before the agenda was released. So, the current master design statement does stipulate that max of 200 and max of 35 for the duplex lots. That's going to be under section 9.1. Uh, very last paragraph states track one and track two. Okay, that's good enough. Sarah, uh, I'm not seeing on page four.

Landscape. Well, no, the landscape we'll have to do something too for the trees. Okay, landscaping is section 9.3. So, that would be uh potentially just striking um after the comma except that there shall be one tree planted between the street curb and sidewalk. Amend 9.3 to say except there shall be one tree planted between the street curb and front of house and one tree planted in the backyard between the side between the sidewalk and the front of house and one tree planted in the backyard.

Yep, we agree to that. So we'll add that as a TE to modify the landscaping regulations. 9.3 as read. Let me read it. Let me state it again. So, I'm sorry. Striking TE1 and adding the landscaping as TE2. Yes. And that's all. That's all. Yeah.

Just to confirm, I think somebody asked, the lot count is already captured in the staff report. What's going to differ is that they've revised their um their exhibit for the PUD to add all the additional open space and reconfigure it into more usable space. That will not be reflected yet on the plat, but but the lot count and all those rules are already um incorporated into what you're approving. Anything else? Rusty? No. Okay. I will make a motion to recommend approval of PUB 2130 striking TE1 and adding TE number two modifying section 9.3 the landscaping. All right. Have a motion to recommend the item city council for approval subject to the amended tees from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. That is recommended for approval. Item 10.

Okay. And finally, item 10 is the preliminary plat that goes with the last two items. It is C7788. the preliminary plat of Rother Farms located north of West Hefner Road and east of the John Kilpatrick Turnpike.

Caitlyn Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. So, the preliminary plot application before you is uh accompanying the PUD 2130 you just voted on. Uh staff recommends approval. It conforms to the subdivision regulations as well as that PUD 2130 uh including the revision to the lot count and the maximum number of 40s and duplexes. Um so we would ask for your approval. Happy to answer any questions. You're in agreement with all the TE's? Yes, we are in agreement to all the TE's.

All right. Any comments, questions from commissioners? All right. I think we're ready for a motion. Nobody signed up to speak. No one signed up to speak. Then I will make a motion to recommend approval of case number C778 7788. Have a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the TEES from Commissioner Noble, second by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. The preliminary plat is approved. Item 11.

Okay. Item 11 is uh CPA 202600003 consideration of a proposed map amendment to the comprehensive plan removing the heavy industrial layer from the urban low um intensity land use typology area. Um this is located south of Southwest 29th Street and east of South Meridian. And uh we seem to be having some issues where I don't think we can show your uh presentation. So we're I am really sorry about that. Hold on everybody. Just stand by. Give it a good kick.

Computer gremlins are in full force today. use it. Okay. If uh okay, if we can't show the presentation regarding this, I have issues with this case as it is. Um I didn't know if we could just do a deferral or continue this item or a overhead projector. Yeah. Or

Oh, there it's coming. If you continue this item, I would assume you'd want to continue the PUB that follows. Our client has an application deadline associated with this project in June. We're unable to take a deferral on this, even two weeks. Correct. Looks like we we know there's going to be multiple conversations before we get to city council. So, we just do not have the leeway to take a deferral. Are we going to get the uh Okay, then stand by so we can get items back up on the screen for

Do we go something?

Yes. Item. Okay.

All right.

Mhi Cartis for the planning department. Uh so we are comprehensive plan amendment 2026003. The request is to remove the heavy industrial layer from urban low. I'm going to do this presentation a little different. Um, this case is very particular, a little different. So, we're gonna explain a little different things while we move along the maps. There's the subject site. Okay. In terms of the land use, I want to stop here for one minute and this is part of the explanation why um the recommendation from the staff. In terms of the land use, um the uh site itself is between undeveloped and residential. Um you can look to the south of the site, there is a lot of residential, um line use. And even though to the east it says that it's undeveloped, um it used to be like a trailer park kind of residential area there too. And even though it says to the west um industrial, the truth is there's some um residential too in that area. Next one. In terms of the zoning, um is a similar story in the zoning too. Uh we have a lot of residential to the south. Um even though it says industrial two to the east um it used to be a residential. Um again like a trailer park and then to the west is the same story too. Um next one um here you can see what the heavy industrial um layer is. We are requesting to the the staff is requesting to expand. The reason for that is that we want to remove the heavy industrial um to go to urban low. It's

important to mention that urban low is not only for residential, it includes mixed use. What it means that light industrial, commercial, all of that is within the policy for urban low. So that's why um recognizing how the area is been changing and the character of the area that's why we recommended to expand to this area is what is actually there is what has been happening in the area. Um the site has water sewer and emergency services too. Um in terms of street topology um and capital improvements there is a lot of capital improvement improvements that is are happening on that area too. Um in terms of findings the proposed urban low luda designation is compatible with the adjacent urban luda to the north and west and the residential and commercial development in the area. Additional housing in this area is desirable due to its proximity proximity to business and major regional employers. Removing the heavy industrial layer from this area provides a compatible extension of urban low development happening in the area. Based on the finding above that recommends the approval of this request and again if the planning commission decides to remove the heavy industrial then we recommend to include and expand another 110 acres to cover the whole area. I don't know if there's any questions for me.

Um commissioners any questions? I do not have anyone signed up speak on this item.

So, currently there is residential that has heavy industrial overlay on them. Yes. And so, the applicant for the next case wanted 10 acres, but then staff decided to

Yeah. to move it all to a total of 120 acres. Yes. Correct. Okay. It's not uncommon for staff after we look into an area and you know the character of the area has changed uh for us to recommend expanding or changing Ludas. Um we usually do a big plan OKC update every two years uh where we look into the whole city and we recommend changes in certain areas but once in a while when we receive some CPAs um you know we have cases like this one. Can you can you articulate why

it is sort of specifically the area that you chose and not the whole overlay? So if you go to the Luda map when we look in into the area and and when we actually uh did the study of this area everything that is not included to the west um we were not able to identify uh specifically the use that it was there there's some aggregates and some things that were happening there and because we didn't have that information at that time we didn't want to take a risk. and just take the the he have industrial uh and the protection from that area. And that's the reason um we went uh parcel by parcel um and trying to identify exactly what was happening on the area that we recommend expansion and that's why we recommended expansion in that area. Sorry, we're having technical difficulties again.

Computer is died. It ain't coming back this time. Jeremy, do you smell fire? Um, I have a good nose for fire, but I don't smell it yet. That's why it shut down. So, we do have I have a cup of water. Think that's good for electrical fires. All right. Um, well, in terms of the the case, we we don't have any more visuals on it, but

Okay. So again, as as I'm looking at the land use typology map, you know, there's a there's a chunk here that you're recommending be removed from the heavy industrial, but there's still this sort of semi- triangular um shape

to the east and some area then to the south beyond Newcastle Road. So that area to the south, they they do have some industries on that area and that's why we not recommending expansion to that area and to the east. Um we're still looking into it. So we might come back depending it's just as for the time that we have for this CPA in specific we were not able to identify exactly what is happening. Um so just to prevent we're not recommending that this moment the expansion towards the west. Right. Um, what I want to say to the other commissioners and and to staff for that matter is that, you know, as a commissioner, I found out about this when I get my packet on a Monday and comp plan amendments are a big deal and that they affect what happens in an area and how it affects other areas around it forever. And I know that I haven't sworn to, you know, uphold the project okay fee that we make changes. That's what we're here for. Um, but I would like, you know, I think getting it late into the game, not being able to go spend enough time looking around the area cuz there is industrial all around this. you're at the end of a runway for the airport and and uh just you know having a couple of days to deal with making this decision is pretty difficult. So I would request that in the future we could get notified about these when we have a pud or a spud that's going to require a comp plan amendment that we when that application's turned in maybe we could get a a notification. Any thoughts on that agreement?

Absolutely. I I would agree with that. I mean, just just knowing what the area is and that there's one proposed before before all the due diligence. I know staff has to do their due diligence, but and I'm not even asking to know ahead of time what staff's recommendation is going to be just so that we can know about it and uh start doing some homework on it. So what we can do is that we usually notice 15 days ahead of time uh at least 15 days. I usually try to notice a little. So this would have been on the development reviews that go out the CPA. Um we no we noticed in the journal. Okay. That's why another reason why I didn't. Yeah. But what I mean is when I prepared that notice I can Okay. Let you guys know.

Okay. Maybe for this specific area um we look into it like I said parcel by parcel and the industrial that is in that area is light industrial that it falls within the policy for um urban low. So what that's what we thought it was not a an issue because there um there's not a problem with the the use and the plan policy for urban right and I don't profess to be a professional on comp plan amendments and the luda types and the overlays and all that but I do have a quick question I know we have a a case following this that

that is a application for reasonzoning on on what we're speaking of right now But if we did not, if this was just a CPA removing heavy industrial off of it, could heavy industrial still, it doesn't change the zoning type. Heavy industrial could still come in there. Correct. Yes. Okay. All right. Any other comments, commissioners? I don't see any.

Okay. Um I'm fine with moving forward on this case on the CPA. We do have staff recommended approval. Um it doesn't limit the type of use in the other area of the 120 acres. So with that being said, I will move to approve CPA 20260000003. Have a mo motion to recommend approval of CPA 20263. uh by Commissioner Meek. It's been second by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes.

Thank you. And that is recommended for approval.

We're now ready for item 12. Okay. Item 12 is the associated zoning case to the last item. It's PUD 2134, an application to reszone 4200 Southwest 29th Street from I2 and the AE2 overlay to PUD 2134 and the AE2 overlay.

Good afternoon. Mark Zitzau with Johnson and Associates 1 Sheran Avenue. Uh I appreciate staff on the the last one. It's not often that we get to stand up here and be in agreement on the comp plan amendment. though this was a a a pleasant case to work with them on. Uh when we look at the PUB, what we're asking for is a multif family development that is half a mile from Tulsa Park, a mile and a half from Woodson Park, a mile and a half from the river trails, and a quarter mile off of Meridian Avenue, which is a major job center for this portion uh of the city. There's a significant number of hotels, restaurants, not even counting the airport, immediately to the south. So, we think it is wholly an appropriate use for this particular site. I know you can't see the the site plan, but what I would point to is immediately south of us, as Bener mentioned, is residential development. If you went less than a quarter mile to our east and north, there is a large residential neighborhood. And if you went another half mile to our west, you would see another single family residential development. And I think just over a half mile to our north, you would see another multif family project. So by no means is this introducing multif family in an area that has never seen it before. What was mentioned was what is around us. Yes, there is industrial but our immediate surroundings are not an i3heavy industrial user. It is a lot of smaller scale uh warehouse office type of uses which we believe is wholly compatible which is partially why the developer has sought this project. Uh he believes it's a growing part of the city and I know that there's been conversations about the meridian placemaking study. Our firm completed that study last year. It's maybe been about a year to the day that that was adopted by city council, which seeks to redevelop the Meridian corridor from Airport Road all the way up to Reno. What that means is redevelopment. And

while this particular tract was not in it, it is just outside of that boundary. And when you do things like that, it signals to the development community and to the neighbors that the city is preparing to reinvest and reimagine a corridor. So, I think th this is the type of project that follows the city investing in planning, putting additional dollars into the bond, relooking at public transportation. If the RTA vote passes, we're talking fixed rail on this corridor. So, to be a quarter mile or a half mile potentially off of a fixed rail stop makes this an ideal site for multif family development. So, uh, in terms of the TEES, uh, we agree with TE1 with the understanding that that is again referencing the concrete drive approach onto Southwest 29th. Uh, we are in agreement with TE2 to increase the setbacks. TE3. Uh we are in agreement, but we would ask that the uh TE be amended uh to say the 10- foot wide landscape buffer shall be required along the south boundary and that that landscape buffer shall consist of deciduous trees planted on 30-foot centers. Uh and then TE4 uh we are asking for the first portion of that TE to be struck and just leave it at the maximum building height for structures within this PUD shall be 45 ft. We increased that southern setback to give more room uh from the right of way across the rightways where the houses are. So uh we believe that increasing the setback uh is what allows us to kind of go up to that 45 ft. So happy to answer any questions but we would ask for your approval today

on the third TE. So did I did I hear you right the south you said revises to only be the south boundary and removing the east and west. Correct. The south boundary is where there's existing residential. Right. But if we have industrial zoned spaces parcels to the east and west, we're not going to we'll have screening. We we will have uh the PUD requires fencing and screening along our boundaries. Okay.

Uh and I apologize. I did need to add one additional TE that was requested. Uh the use of concrete board uh shall be limited to 40% of the building facads. Commissioner Meek, this is your ward. I have two people signed up. Okay. Okay. Can we hear from them, please? Sure. Uh we'll start with Mike Jolly. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Mike Jolly. The address is 3101 South Lakeside Drive, just uh west of of this project. And thank you for your for your time today. Uh I just want to voice my opposition to the zoning change at 4200 Southwest 29th. Um, my family owns numerous industrial properties in this area uh within a half mile of this location. Concerns that I have and and and and I apologize. I just heard about this over the last 24 36 hours. I really would like to learn more about the project and and understand it better. The concerns are traffic that'll be introduced on the 29th. Uh especially if there's not a traffic light. And I I apologize. I couldn't hear everything that was said about the uh about the project. uh the possibility of younger people if this is a an apartment uh project the possibility of younger people in the area in an industrial neighborhood is not I don't think a good idea. Uh again if u well just in understanding I'd like to understand the the uh apartment or housing project better. what what what kind of you know what's a group that it's going to to um uh attract. We have um a lot of issues in the area with uh breakins, vandalism, uh people roaming the streets at night causing causing problems now. And u I'd really like to again understand more of of what we're what we're looking at. Uh changing the zoning within an industrial neighborhood is not going to increase increase the value of our industrial

properties in my opinion. Um, my goal is to in protect my investment, my family's investment. Understanding is this project move forward that a Texas company would handle the construction with our Oklahoma taxpayer dollars. I don't know if that's true or not, but I heard that um I would at least like to have more time to understand the reason for the zone change and understand the project and its impact. And that's really it for me. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Jolly. I'll respond to a couple of those. When we look at these cases, I mean, uh, what is within our purview is that this is going to be multif family residential, not not what the tenants are. Um, and then as far as where the developers from, we we don't look at that either. So, that's that's all information that that we don't have any say over. So, um, okay. Um, Robert Parmley.

How you doing today? Good afternoon. Uh, I've been in the area since Can I ask you to start with your name and address for the record, please? Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. I've been in the area. Can I ask you to start with your name and address, please?

Okay. Hey, my name is Robert Parmley. My d my address is 1110 Northwest 113th Street in Yukon, Oklahoma. I own the property next to Mr. Waggle. I have the 20 acres and some of my concerns are the same as the previous man. Uh, a lot of people drive fast. There's a lot of late night activities that are probably not lawful, you know, or unlawful that go around in that neighborhood. Uh, I basically haven't done much with the land. It's own my thing. I'm pretty sure my property's own commercial. I've been raising horses and alpha alpha grass and catfish on the property most of my life. So, I would just kind be the same concerned. and I don't see what's going on with the maps or the landscaping or if there'll be fencing to protect my animals. Uh that's some of my concerns. You know, uh like I said, there is a lot of fast traffic on Southwest 29th. I've seen numerous accidents and you need to slow it down. Put some stop signs or some stop lightss up if you plan on putting a lot of people there. you know, in one one area, but uh I know I can't stop progress and I don't intend to. Everything changes in time. So, my biggest concern is is that my neighbors all approve the neighbors I've had my whole life down there. And uh it's just I see the property now. What you what's going on? But now when you talk about landscaping and all this other

stuff, what is that going to look like? This is what it's going to look like. Now you've got it up finally. That's an exhibit. There's it's we we go by what's written in the application, not necessarily what the what the picture looks like.

Okay. So on this side where that barn and the long property is, is that all parking with buildings running down the middle? I believe that's what it's supposed on the outside, but as uh our chairman said, the exhibit's just a pretty picture. You can't you you can't take that to the bank. What we what we have to read about is what's in the black and white. Okay. Well, the line down the s there's a building in the front and then there's a line down the center. That line down the center, is that buildings? Is that considered buildings? Mark, can you help me?

May I answer your question? Yeah, sure. Uh, so there's the building and the parking are showing up very similar uh on this screen. Uh, you have a building that fronts 29th Street. That's the leasing office, the clubhouse. And then there's a green belt that's through the center of the parking lot and it's parking on either side and the buildings are on the uh exterior side of that parking. Okay. So you can kind of see the the white lines are uh drive arrows kind of these square things are the buildings rectangle. Okay. So how tall are the buildings?

Uh so well I'm gonna ask Mr. P if you could we want to be able to hear your questions and record them. So if you could go to this other microphone over here, the far the far podium. There you go. And then we can both hear we can hear and capture both of what you're saying. So go ahead with your question. Yeah. Buildings are we have sought 45 ft. That's three stories, right? Three to four stories depending. Yes. Roof pitch. And the offset on the east side is the request is five feet. And so you're also going to have two entrances, huh? In the front or one? Uh, we have

Do you just want me to answer it? Yeah. Uh, we have two drives off of 29th Street. Uh, and then one correction. We agreed to the TE for the west set back to be 10 ft. The west and the south. South 15. Yes. Let me ask you, two drives are on both fence lines. You got one on each fence line, correct? That's correct. Nothing in the back facing the neighborhood. We are not taking access through the neighborhood to the south. The only two entrances would be on Southwest 29th. So, is this going to be fenced all the way around? How high is the fence?

It's a minimum of six feet, maximum of 8 ft, and it will be fenced. Okay. maximum would probably be required for my farm animals. Okay, we'll we'll take that under consideration. Maximum uh safety fence. I know there's a fence that is a shared fence. I've been taking care of that my whole life, but if there's going to be something like this, I need a I need a really secure fence to keep those people away from my animals. You're the property just to the east, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. All right.

Okay. You, Mr. Parley, do you have any other questions? Uh, yeah. The is there going to be a bus stop in the front of that apartment complex on that 50 mph street? Well, there's one in the back, but there's no entrance in the back. So, how is that how will that work for the kids? Are you going to slow the street down and put a street light up? We're going to talk about some things. Okay. All right. Is that it?

And one one last thing. Uh uh I guess there's city sure and all utilities have been brought there pretty much. They're on the other side of the street. And I know they've ran up in front of my property and they've stopped right at my driveway. I don't know exactly what they stopped there, but uh Right. If this is approved, they have to have all city utilities. Okay. Uh can I get a copy of this for my records or It's available online. The the packet, the whole application is available online at okc.gov.

Okay. Okay. And I can give you my email. I'm I'm happy to send over the documents as well. I'm also happy to meet between now and council, but I think I can address a lot of the points and questions that have been raised. Okay. All right. But now now on that fence, uh, it needs to be a solid fence that can keep back at least 2,000 lb animals. Now, I'm not talking like something from Home Depot. It's got to be got come out come out of pocket, you know. Okay. If it's if there's going to be something three stories up in the air now, I'm sure that's going to be part of discussion. Yeah, we're going to visit about it. Sure. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pley. Thank you.

Okay, that's everyone that I have signed up to speak. So, um Jeremy, Commissioner Meek, if you'd like to lead our conversation.

Yeah, it's uh you know, I'm not I know it seems like it. I'm not a R4 multifamily apartment hater, but this is a perfect example of to if I'm telling any development person listening, if you're going to come at Ward 3 with a R4 multifamily and you have a neighbor next door that owns a farm that big, you should have had a meeting with him already. Period. Um, we shouldn't have to be dealing with stuff like that here during planning commission. Um, I uh I can go through the TEES. I can let you respond to anything he said first and then we can go through the TEES. Um, I agree with this gentleman that that the fence needs to be upgraded on the east side for sure to a masonry fence. Um there is no bus stop. I did I did speak to the applicant the applicant's representative about the concern of the speed limit on 29th and these two entries and exits and everybody trying to get out. Um there's a lot of things concerning about this uh application to me um that I would be interested in hearing your response and other commissioners responses.

Sure. So, I'll start with traffic. Uh, I don't think it's best practice to put a public traffic signal at the entrance of a private development that serves one user that does not serve the greater community. Uh, nor do I believe that it would be warranted. The traffic counts right now on Southwest 29th Street are about 8,800. uh we would anticipate, you know, on the conservative side, 1100 additional trips per day on that street with the the units that we're proposing. And so I I don't think a traffic sign can be warranted. I also don't think it makes sense to put it at the entrance of a neighborhood. Uh a the street as designed today can handle in excess of 17,000 cars per day. We're at 8,800. adding in the additional 1100 is not going to trigger this section of road falling to a level of service lower than B. So I don't believe that traffic is going to be uh an issue any more than it is a perceived issue today. I think I think I resent the fact that young people or folks living in an apartment generate crime. As the person who led the placemaking study, we heard for over a year about the on-house population, the crime. I understand it is real and it exists. What curbs that is developing vacant properties, not having encampments occur on underutilized, vacant, abandoned, unmaintained properties. So, bringing new development will absolutely help solve that issue. Terms of bus stops, we've had a conversation with Embark. Uh the city, if you are unaware, departments are taking a 1% budget cut. So right now they are more focused on maintaining existing service levels, not expanding. However, they are looking because of the RTA, the Olympics, and then each time that new developments

occur, they revisit and potentially revise bus routes. So, if there were 250 new apartments here, that may impact the route that's currently just uh to our west. We don't know that. We can't guarantee that, but we've had those conversations with Embark. Um, in terms of what is this going to look like, I understand it's a conceptual site plan. The PUD does require a specific plan uh be required. So before dirt is turned, we will be coming back before you and showing you in detail the fences, the dumpster locations, the buildings, the elevations, the architecture. You will see all of that before anything else happens. Um, did I miss Oh, and in terms of the fence, I mean, I think we talked about that. We're happy to amend the fence to be a stained cedar capped on galvanized post fences. Um, but we we cannot agree to a masonry wall surrounding the property.

I didn't say surrounding the property, but we've agreed to that many times on R4 developments where they abutdded, especially farm animals. I railroad tracks, etc. I understand there may be farm animal farm animals that land is zoned as industrial. Um, just real quick, regarding fence height, so under the existing I2 or I3 zoning for the neighbor, it would be a 10 foot maximum. Um, they're lowering it. So I if you want anything higher than the 8t, then you would need to write that into the PUD. Okay. But the industrial zoning district would allow that. Our PUB and base zoning would say max of 8 foot.

Correct. I'm just saying if they want to go higher than eight, if you want to go if they want you or you want to go higher than 8 ft, it needs to be put into the PUB. Sure. Right. But you're saying it could go to 10. Right. Currently, the existing So, indust in industrial zones, the maximum height is 10. Everywhere else, it's only eight.

Right. Okay. Uh Mark, can you explain to me um T number four, how and why that you want to disregard the base zoning uh regulations on on how high a building can be as you're moving away from a residential property line. Um you're just want to set it, I believe, with TE4 at 45 ft. And then at your setbacks you're requesting that we're going to revise uh you could go straight to 45 ft. Correct.

Correct. So the way the base zoning district it's arguably the most complicated and difficult to measure uh of any of our base zoning districts because it's measured at a 45 degree angle on a bulk plane, right? So it's not as not as simple. Um so we've increased the setback on that south side so that we can have uh 45 ft for the southern buildings. What the code does not provide for is a cap on the building height which we have placed. So while we're asking to go up where we would normally have a minimum, we've also put a hard cap where based on the surroundings of the north side of the property, we would not have otherwise had a cap.

Okay. So, so what you were just saying is that the what is it a 15oot setback on the south would allow by code a 45 ft tall building against R1. No, that's what we're requesting, right? I thought you said that it would have allowed that by code because code would would allow a 20 foot onetory. 20 foot one story is what code would allow if we're within 70 ft. 60 ft. Okay. So, yeah. Do you want me to do it? Yeah, I think I can do it

because he's right. It is complicated for height. So, in the R4 district within the first um it's 20 you're limited to 20 sto 20 20 feet and one story within the first 60 ft and then it goes on a bulk plane for the next 15 ft and then once you get 75 ft out, then there's no height limit. So, in this case, um when we were review when staff was reviewing it, we were looking at it as a 10-ft set back on the south and then immediately up to 45 ft. RTE in number four is saying follow base zoning which would mean that they would have to do the step down. They're asking to delete I don't think it would be a modification. I think you would just delete TE4 and then you would have just what you've already proposed which is 45 ft but then they are also agreeing to increase the south setback. So uh to 15 ft. So you'd be at 15 feet and then yes, you could go up to 45 from their south property line

and that's measured from the residential property line across the rightway of the R1. Normally I think when we're having these discussions, you you are sharing a property line and you don't have the additional room in between you that's stepping you back, right? They were getting credit for having the street there. The the R1 would be measured from the properties on the south side of the street. So probably 50 foot rightway and then 15 foot that I have not pulled that plat to confirm the width of the rideway but that's a standard right residential street right away. I can't confirm that sitting here but it typically is a 50ft rideway.

Okay. I also have a concern about um in the screening regulations under 9.4 before it says said site proof screen may be a combination of natural plant screening and then it lists different types of fences. Um if this was to recommend approval to city council, I would want the I mean it needs it needs uh it needs fences. I don't count landscaping as a fence. We're in agreement with with that if we need to te it.

Okay. Uh, as long as we're talking about landscaping and screening, I do have uh an issue with the removing basically the landscape on the east and the west. As I understood it, the TE said required along south, east, and west, and that was the east and west boundaries were was going to have landscape removed. So, we'll still be landscaping those areas because the landscape code will require us to have a significant amount of landscaping based on the size of the parcel and the number of parking spaces. So, landscaping is still going to occur. Uh we are just seeking to eliminate the buffer and the straight tree lines going down the east and west property lines. What's what's the uh code for R4 against I1 setback?

I knew you were going to ask that there. Um 5 foot is it's just non-starter for me on the east side. We've we've already agreed to the TE that amends it east. Yes, east and west. We agreed to increase it to the staff's recommendation and 15 on the south. and and looking I understand it's a picture but looking at the current site layout like I would want I I want to see the parking on the outside to buffer and have the buildings down the center is what I would like to see.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you're talking about putting apartments 10 ft from a heavy industrial. I mean, it's the heaviest industrial we have. I know it's a farm horse farm right now. Yeah. I I don't know that we get to cut it both ways that we're putting uh multif family in the heaviest of industrial, but then also say it's a farm. Also say that it's R1 to the south of us, but it's car. I mean, I'm looking at it as what it is. It's I30. It's heavy industrial. Yeah. We're looking at zoning. Um, and we have a auto recycling facility to the west property line.

So, to Commissioner Claire's point, if we need to review the building placement at the specific plan, we're happy to. This this is conceptual. This is not the final site plan. So, we can go back to the architecture team with the TE that that'll be specifically reviewed knowing that that is your preference and they can work to redesign it to shift around the parking. I don't believe that's going to be uh a major concern or issue with how this is currently laid out. So in agreeing with a number to the setback I think would guarantee that to happen. So we need to just decide on what that is. Yeah. Bigger.

So that's why I asked the question of what it would be because market is zoned I3 to the to the east and that is the heaviest,

right? I'm not trying to pick on you, Mark. I have a question, a legitimate question that this is the first time we've heard this case, but you have a client that can't take a deferral because of a contract issue, which is pretty bold to not have a better contract date than that um on a contingency. Um but uh but there's a lot a lot that we need to be working on. I still believe. Um and I have I have no doubt that your involvement with the city council woman over the next six weeks we would absolutely get there.

So I I need to know more about what your deadline is then. What you said you have some application or something. Tell me more detail about the urgency. So uh my understanding based on the call from our client earlier was that it is not a contractual deadline to close. It is an application with OFA. There's an application window that is open that closes in June. So, we have to be through city council for this site to show that it is entitled so it can qualify for different funding mechanisms by uh Oklahoma housing and finance. Oklahoma Housing Finance Authority Oklahoma City or Oklahoma State of Oklahoma? The state of Oklahoma Housing Finance Authority

ends in June and that's the last ever or that's just maybe the next one is in June and otherwise there may be one 3 months later or 6 months later, a year later or is that the last time in the future that that is possible? I'd have to ask them that question. I mean, I know something about the agency and it's the kind of thing that might be that yes, that's the next convenient opportunity is June, but it may or may not be. So, I wish you knew the answer to that because I need to know if that's actually a drop bid date or not.

All I can say is I'm told that it is. But if you want to kick this to the end of the docket, I'm happy to call the client and get more information about OHA's application windows. Okay, I'll jump up. Um, my problems with this case are really more um about just the uh leftover uneasiness. I feel about plopping residential down in the middle of of uses that are not compatible with it. Industrial being sort of the top of that list. Um I without knowing more about uh what's going on in the area including the the plan um for the corridor or whatever that would suggest that this is actually you know this area is trending in a different direction. what I see and your comment about the gentleman's question and and comments about uh young people and and um illegal activity and that sort of thing. I took in absolutely the opposite way that you did. I wasn't hearing him suggest that putting those people here would cause those problems. I was hear I was hearing this might not be the best place for a residential development if there are you know issues of crime and and so on in the area that it this might not be the safest place in the world. But anyway, be that as it may, I I you know, you can say all you want to about how there's housing around you, but when I look at my lonely little, you know, map, what I see is an awful lot of uh what looks like industrial and semi-industrial development. So, I I I'm having a hard time getting here on this. the residential I was talking about, this is

not zoomed out quite far enough, but on the to the northeast you see all that R1 that is a fairly large residential neighborhood and then on the corner of Southwest 29th of Meridian, there's the C3 and then there is another large uh single family residential neighborhood there. Beyond that, there's a uh mobile home development and then of course there's the R1 immediately to our south. You can make the case that the city's policy decisions over the last 40 years has been to plop industrial into a residential area based on the age of those homes. And so when we look at when we look at these areas of town that are either about to transition or we hope hope to transition to higher and better uses, some project has to be first. And Commissioner Powers, you and I have talked about at length on multiple occasions north of Chesapeake that was single family that trended industrial and office warehouse that is now trending back residential. These things do happen, but one project is going to be the first one there. I think we're not the only residential in the area.

You're right. they do happen, but those conversations that we've had have been mostly about how um surprising it is um rather than that it's a norm. And and I

I would just say it's surprising in that area because there's been no study that would indicate to people that things might be happening right here. Meridian did have a study and then was further backed up by a bond and the city planning department's current efforts to get a business improvement district on the Meridian corridor. So, this is like while we're looking at this as a one-off project, we're a quarter mile off of a corridor that the city is saying, let's invest either through city money or private development funds.

Right. Uh the city hasn't told me anything about that. Um, I wasn't part of that study. I haven't read that study. Can you explain what a business improvement product means?

Sure. A business improvement district is a self- tax that the businesses along Meridian and the defined boundary would pay into. So, it's an additional tax that they pay that would go towards security, landscape, cleanup, maintenance. If you're familiar with downtown, that's where most of our bids are. Uh, downtown OKC partnership manages the green team. You may have seen them walking around with trash cans. They do homeless outreach. Those are the types of things that the Meridian business owners through the stakeholder engagement were hoping to see if a bid was to ultimately uh work its way through. Okay. And uh and I'm getting there. I promise we're getting there for a decision one way or the other. But I take uh offense to the comment about the the R1 that's to the south of this site that some planning commission members in 1970 let a development get there or it just got built there and then had to be fixed later without researching it. We have no idea how houses got there. But to me from looking at this map and looking at what's up on your screen, this area is trending I too more than anything. Any thoughts? I just say in the last 18 years there have been four buildings built in the immediate vicinity of this and they were all smaller scale industrial office warehouse buildings. This is not trending I3 by any means. We are not seeing these larger parcels get bought up by Amazon warehouses and distribution centers. these parcels aren't large enough for that. And so when you look at 29th Street, the new buildings that are there, I I think I counted from the 19 or sorry, from the 2008 Google map, there's four new ones and they're they all look to be under 12,000 square feet.

Well, I said I too. And and you're talking from what area to what area? So along 29th from Meridian to our uh eastern boundary, there have only been four buildings in the last You're talking on 29th though, correct? On 29th. Okay. Well, if you go down Vermont and Utah and everything across the street from where this apartment complex is going to be, it is office heavy warehouse, outdoor storage, a city park. It's still I I two and I all all everything to the north. Everything. Yeah, understood.

Okay. Well, we've heard from some uh concerned citizens. I I I I think the TE's are still a mess. I don't know where any of you other commissioners are and how you feel regarding this, but I you know, I'd like to I'd like to check your pulse on it.

I'll go first. First, I want to set the setbacks. I think that's very, very important. Um, and I'll say this, Mark, as this is the first residential development, new development in this area, I would rather see it be something that is that is something that the additional as it gets developed strive to become, not something at the bottom. And so that's my ask of of why I would like greater setbacks and and more potential landscaping. So I need to know what the number is on the setbacks that we could get and then what the landscape buffers would be.

Sorry, are you beyond what staff had recommended and we agreed to? I keep looking for that. Where is it? It's TE number two. So yeah, 15 and 10. Is that what that is? Correct. Yeah. Additional. That's why I asked about what the standard would be. I mean, it's just so close to I3 and it is zoned I3. And it means they could put an apartment building 10 ft away. Fill a new asphalt plant or something. I don't know. But just something I go to that because there's one over there on Melrose right by that concrete plan. Right. That was R4 that that got denied. Um

is there sorry is there a particular setback number that you're recommending? And if you can go back to the site. I was kind of just wanting to see what the code was. She's looking. So I I mean we have the room. We have the green space in the middle. We can squeeze that in. I know. We can do it. I just want to put it in the in the

I just I just need a number. One of the tees that I I think where we were heading was building and parking placement shall be specifically reviewed at the specific plan stage. Um my guess is what ends up happening is exactly what Commissioner Claire said, which is those parking fields get moved to the perimeter and the buildings end up with the green courtyard in between them. Um so I think we just need a number for the to amend TE2 to the setback that you all desire. Mark, you've got is it double loaded parking you're showing there? It's hard kind of hard to tell. Yes. I mean, that's 60 feet, correct? And if you move that to the outside, that gives you a 60 foot setback.

I would I'd probably prefer to see a 42 foot setback so that if we do one row of parking and one drive aisle, I know it's not extremely common, but a 60oot setback on the perimeters really squeezes in the site. Yeah. Well, I I would like to I want to see, you know, they've gone through they they added deciduous trees 30 foot on center, but that was just for the south boundary. I want to see it all the way around and you're going to need a minimum of 10 ft landscape buffer on those three sides to get those decides. So, I would like to see 10 foot landscape buffer. Then the parking, whatever. If it's one bay and a drive aisle, so if it's 44 ft, then that's fine. 42.

42. 52. Oh, wow. Yeah. So 52 total. If we're moving the parking to the outside, all of the parking lot landscaping points are going to be on the perimeter, right? It's my opinion if we don't do what we're talking about doing right now, then TE4 is going to get real crazy because we're not going to ignore the base zoning district Gregs and just go to 45 ft. Sarah, what's the distance to get up to 45 feet from 60, right? you guys. Okay. Between 0 and 60 feet, it's 20 feet in one story. Then it's a bulk plane between 60 to 75. And then

you're at least 60 period before you could even talk about it over one story. Yeah, that's what I hear. I'm saying we have the rightway and a 15t setback on the south side. I'm talking east and west. Well, east and west that doesn't apply because there's not R1 on those boundaries that would dictate our height. we would have unlimited height once we were away from the R1. Yeah. What's making this challenging is you have I1 on the south and then you have I2 and I3 on your east and west. There's no additional there's no screening requirement or step down at height or anything required when you put the R4 next to the I. It's the other way around. putting the R4 put makes it so that the industrial zones would then be the ones that would screen and

so this I3 lot to the east that the gentleman has farm animals if they come in and tried to build something I3 that's legally zoned to be built they would suffer because of the pud that we approved they would have regulations that would require a step down in height from the R4 I'll double check that I'm pretty sure um but then the opposite is true on the south the opposite is true when you're when you're when you're R4 adjacent to R1, then the R4 has the burden of the step down and the screening and the landscaping, right? Um, so what's the setback between I3 and R4?

So that's also complicated. So R4 has a sideyard setback of 5T and a rear of 15. Um, the I2 has a it's it's a greater setback for in the I2 if you're next to R4. of 25 ft in I2. So we can get that. Yeah. Um you want to give us the 25 foot setback on our side. So a future industrial user if that's where I was going. Ever seeks to develop, we would have it, they could go seek a variance and say they provided it based on this hearing on this day. Mark said and and it also dictate where you put the parking lot. I mean, so

or it's all going to turn into residential if we go with the thought process of what Yeah. the future could be, right? Uh, but it still designates where the parking lot can go on this plan. Agree.

So, I I think I got it. If you want me to read it, we agree to TE1. TE2 we will amend for the east and west setbacks to be 25 ft and the south to be 15. revise the landscape regulations to where the landscape buffer is only required on the south. And then I think we're still deleting TE4. Then we're adding TE5 to limit concrete board to 40% of the facade materials. TE6 uh perimeter fencing shall be required to be stained capped cedar fence on galvanized posts. And then TE7 would be building and parking placement shall be specifically reviewed at the specific plan stage

almost. We're getting there though. So, um I still like the idea of a landscape buffer on the east east and west side within the 25 ft. Yeah. Great. But a documented landscape buffer. And I want to go over the detail on the fencing more. You want more detailed than a stained C?

I do because I want the stained cedar fence along the south and I'll give it to you along the west, but on the east I want more. We did it between the school and an apartment complex. I think you can do it between a farm with heavy animals and this apartment complex. So, we're in agreement that we can, however you want to say it, the landscape buffer on the east and west because that's normal for parking lots to have the the landscaped area there. Um, can you repeat what like what is it that you're desiring for the fence? I'm not sure I followed masonry. We can't we can't agree to masonry.

We can agree to the we can agree to going to eight feet as the minimum, but we can't agree to doing a masonry wall pre-cast. We can't wood stockade is is what is the m basically the max you can go. Uh yes with the additional restrictions that we put on it that makes it a longerl lasting wood fence that isn't something you go buy at Walmart or Home Depot or where people buy fences. What what is what is what are those conditions? It has to be cedar. It has to be stained and it has a cap on it and on galvanized posts, not wooden posts.

I would I mean what I would say is that the pickets picket material needs to be one inch. Sure. That's an upgrade, but it's not masonry. I I But it's better than being able to buy prefabbed panels for sure. I don't know. I just, you know, 8 foot you're going to have to have four. You're going to have to have a bottom rail, a top rail, and two intermediate, right? So, you've got four rails

with one inch stock for pickets. It's going to be pretty sturdy. Okay. Did you say with one inch pickets? Is that the thickness thickness?

That's not the h that's not the half inch that you get at the big box stores. So, it's revising TE2 to have 25 foot uh setbacks with a 5-ft landscape buffer within it. And then we are amending the uh fence language to be a stained capped cedar fence on galvanized post with minimum 1 in thick pickets 8 foot tall and 8 foot tall. What about T number four? What are you guys thoughts on just being able to go

Well, and I want to deal with the architecturals just a little bit too. I wanted to remove the architectural metal from the 70, which probably good. And you already decreased the the uh cement board. I decreased the wood to the same wood. Wood. Sure. Or similar materials to 40. So, we're decreasing wood to 40. Are you eliminating metal or moving metal down to the 40? 30. 30. Sorry. Because it already exists. Yeah. But you're So you're moving metal and wood down to 30. Okay.

And adding concrete board into 40. Okay. Bobby. Let's limit the stories instead of the height. We need up to four. How about you do took away the perimeter? Okay, I can do it. Four stories. And you're limited at 350. 250. I mean 250. That's right. I couldn't read my own writing.

Yeah. So 25 dwelling units

per. Is that right? What do we think? Are we there? My head hurts. All right, looks like this is a go. Um, I'm going to have you read everything back in if anybody hears anything that doesn't agree uh that we've pre-agreed with. Um, looks like we're going to be moving some R4 into our industrial corridor here on 29th Street. Um, I will uh I'd advise you that you speak to the council person and possibly the people that have spoken against today because a lot can happen. And and for all the people that are still sitting out here, another case coming up. This is what we do. We try to make it as good of a product as we can, but a lot can happen between now and count now and council. And it is a council decision. We are a recommending body. And I know it's hard and you guys all keep we all fight this every time, but we're looking at land use rights and entitlement. We're trying to put as many guard rails on it as we can to make it a better product. Um, and then it leaves us from here and goes to council. So, with that being said, um I'm going to ask to

recommend approval to city council for PUB 2134 with the TEES being read in by Mr. Zetz one more time.

Okay. Stop me if there's an edit here. We agree to TE1. TE2 we agree with an amendment that the east and west setbacks be 25 ft. TE3 uh we agree to on 10 feet on the south side the east and west would be five feet on the south it would be deciduous trees planted on 30ft centers TE4 is struck TE5 we're limiting concrete board to 40% and we're moving the architectural metal and wood to the 30% categories we are requiring a stained cap cedar fence on galvanized post with minimum 1-inch thick pickets It's on the PUB boundaries. Uh, and then TE

8 8t tall and a minimum of 8 ft tall. And then the final TE building and parking placement shall be specifically reviewed at the specific plan stage, which I think captured everything on the fence. You probably want to do south, east, and west, but not across the north. Agreed. Thank you. And one last question for me on striking T number four. Is there anything baked into this PUD that sets the stories or the height if we remove that TE? We need to make sure that's in there.

So we can amend TE4 to say the maximum building height shall be 45 ft and four stories. Yes. If not, it could be unlimited and then people would really be mad at us. It'd be very very small people living in very small ceiling height to get more than four stories, but we're fine with the Okay, agreement. All right, that's the motion.

All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend the item to city council subject to the technical evaluations as read in and amended. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval for the benefits of the neighbors here. Uh look for it to be at city council in 6 to 8 weeks. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 13. Item 13 is SPUD 1760, an application to reszone 4904 Southeast 104th Street from the AA agricultural district to spud 1760.

Hello, my name is Aaron Hail with Engineer by Design 10700 Meyers Lane, Chalkaw, Oklahoma. Uh we came before you uh several several months ago uh with this uh SPUD with a use of a personal storage uh building if you will. Um you guys it was denied. We understand. We regrouped, met with city staff and now we're presenting a revised SPUD that use utilizes more of a R1 zoning for this piece. Um again a little bit of history on this. This parcel, this track one was split over time. It is now owned by two different owners. The owner on the east had purchased or had built a residential unit on a 2.7 acre piece within the AA zoning which is not allowed but was permitted. And so there's a different owner on the west. That owner on the west is who I'm representing. He is trying to figure out what to do with this parcel. Uh so we are presenting a rural an R1 piece uh for approval on this. Um otherwise he's looking at some using some sort of a zoning for animals or some sort of farm storage.

Any thoughts? Thank you. Uh Commissioner Privet, this is your ward. I do have two folks signed up to speak. I figured um yeah, let's hear from them. Okay, we'll start with Brian Deubberry. Are you My name is Brian Dra. We live at 4820 Southeast Hunter Forest Street. We live directly behind our in-laws. Uh the whole area over there is owned DAG. The gentleman to the east who built his home, I believe, was grandfathered in. There was an existing structure there from 1962. Is that correct? Your grandfathered in. That house was there before 1962.

No idea. So the reason the house there is 2 and a half acres 2.7 acres is because it was an existing structure there. So they were able to build their home. Uh the one acre lot one residential area over there it just cascades. All of us were required to have 5acre lots. All of our homes are half million dollar homes over there except for 4900 Southeast 104 street. If you look down Granada Lane, there are $1 million and two million homes, million-dollar homes down there. And they want to build a 1,400 square foot home there. You have the Philips 66 pipeline running through the yard. So, what are the health risks involved with a multi-product pipeline running through your lot and how far away does your house need to be? Because you'll have to have a well and a septic system there as well. Uh we're zoned a we have animals. You know, five years from now, we're going to have people telling us we can't have animals anymore because everybody's zoned residential. Um I'm against it. I was required to have a 5 acre lot. Everybody else was required F5 acre lot to build a home. That's all I have to say.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Tubberry. Uh, James Stroop. This is my hearing aid. I don't have them. I can't hear unless somebody's right in front of me. So, I'm sorry. All right. We'll try and speak up for you, Mr. Stroop. This is James Strap. He lives at 4900 Southeast 104th Street. I'm Sandra Deubberry. I live at 4820 Southeast 104th Street with Brian Deubberry. Okay. This is my parents.

Okay. What would you like us to know?

Pretty much the same thing that Brian said that we are zoned a everybody else had to have five acres that this is such a small lot. Was he going to put the well in the septic? Um, this is the gentleman to the west. Like Brian was saying, there was a old structure there. They did live in it. They didn't live in it in my time, but you could see where they did live in it at one time. So, I could see where he kind of got away with doing that. But, we were never sent anything that he built. So, I know that's where all that's coming in. We were never asked whether or not he could build like we are with this. So, we did not approve that at all. What else did you want to say?

I'll move to the country. That's what I want it to stay. He moved to the country and that's what he wants it to stay. We don't want people 20 years. Yeah. I'm going to inherit their five acres. I will have 10 acres in the middle of the city. I I want to keep my slice of heaven. Okay. Okay. Um, anything else? Not at this moment. I'm too old for it. Thank you for coming down. Thank you. All right. That's everyone I have signed up to speak. So, Commissioner Privet.

Yeah. Um, although this is better than the uh previous PUB, um, still not ideal, obviously. Um, I I would like to know how it got to be in the state that it currently is in. Previous to the split, it would have been just over 4 acres looks like according to the the survey. Um, it's a little concerning to me. Um, being just over 1.2 acres with the pipeline easement going through it. Um, I'm not sure how buildable it is, but uh, open for discussion.

Well, I don't think it's on us to determine the buildability. It's it's the land use. Yeah. So, Right. And is it in harmony with the surrounding properties? And I'd have to say I don't think it is. No. Well, that's where I'm at. Like I said, it's better, but you know, it's doesn't mean it's it's good. So, um I'd be inclined uh if we have no more discussion to recommend denial of this one as well.

Well, I just I'll I'll raise one question. If you look and I don't know if we can go to the map to the back to the zoning map and you look to the west I know we can't see parcels but I mean on Southeast 4th it looks to me like there are smaller parcels and residential that front fourth 104th to the west. Do we know if that's the case? There's not really that I know of. If there is, it's they're hidden. Well, it look it Well, from that it looks to be larger. They're deep lots. Yeah. Okay. All right.

All right. Are you going to Yeah. Does the Does the applicant have any other You can respond. Yeah. response to some of the discussion items. Yeah. I think our client just wants to know what he can use that land for. Um, so if you guys have any recommendations or if we need to visit with staff again on this, uh, I don't know if my client has any other comments, but, um, just looking for some ideas what to do with it. I mean, I'd try to sell it to the the guy next door. Let's not give recommendations of what somebody does with land they bought, whether they bought it at auction or otherwise. That is up to them to determine what they can or can't do with it when they think they know and discuss with city staff to see what what is permitted.

Yeah. I'm not going to start helping an investor figure out how to make the best out of their property. Yeah, I just try to sell it to my neighbor. That's the only thing I can think of. But, um, okay. With that, I'll recommend denial to, uh, city council.

All right. We have a motion to recommend denial. City council from Commissioner Privet. It's been second by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. Remember, a vote yes is a vote to deny. And that item is recommended for denial. Thank you. Item 14. Item 14 is SPUD1 1820, an application to reszone 1714 Northwest 30th Street from R1 to Spud 1820. Fallon Brooks Magnus 11 Northeast 11th Street representing the applicant. Uh we have a single lot here. It's 7,000 ft and we are putting six units on it. And this is a big ask. Um we've previously done something similar not too far away at uh 31st I think uh where we did four units on a lot half this size. Um so some of the things to note is even though the number of units is pretty high, we're we're limiting in the master design statement the footprint of the all the buildings totaled. Um, and we're limiting the size of the units. And we're also, uh, I think the biggest feedback I got from city staff was about the setback. Um, we have parking in the setback as do a lot of the homes already existing on the street. Um, and so instead of pulling the buildings forward and having, you know, a shallower setback and then moving all the cars behind, we decided to keep it in line and leave the parking

out front, but create a sight proof screening. And this is the only technical evaluation we had had to do with the language for the sight proof screening on the front of the lot. The intention is to put in a sight proof fencing that is 4t tall with an additional landscape buffer between that and the sidewalk. Um I think the the TE is just asking that we make the language in that more specific because I think that we're not supposed to have anything that is sight proof within the front part of the lot. So we have to figure out how to write that. But other than that, we didn't have any other technical evaluations. Happy to answer questions.

Uh, Commissioner Powers, this is your ward, and I have one person signed up to speak. Okay. Um, Stephen, is it Froch? Froch.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Thank you, council. My name is Steven Froch. I own the property directly across the street from this uh planned development. And initially I was just going to say that I'm against it, but the more I look at it, the more I I it's an interesting uh proposition. I think what I'm against is how many dwellings? I think six is excessive. I feel like four maybe there's a duplex to the west already. Other otherwise is mostly R1 single family residential. I know my house across the street is single family uh dwelling and it's about 800 ft². So, um the really the only problem I have with it is the multi I I assume that the two 400 the double 400 foot units are either left or right or bottom and top and I think that's what's really excessive. It's forcing there's six minimum parking spaces. So, that's one parking space per tenant. There is no parking on the street on either side of the street. No street parking whatsoever. So, no visitors basically. You get your one parking spot. But if you did, I think I'm okay. I would be okay with four structures if they're two stories and a minimum of I think the bottom two units are 700 square feet a piece, which I assume is downstairs and upstairs, which could could be kind of cool. like, you know, 700 square feet isn't isn't crazy, but I think 400 square feet for a that's 20 by 20. That's pretty stinking small. I'm not sure what the city codes and ordinances for the minimum are. Like I don't know how they're a foot the two buildings on the south are a foot apart from each other and I don't know if that meets city code or ordinances as well. But um I just wanted to give my input since I have lived on the north side of this property for almost 10 years and know the know the area well and I've you

know in the 10 years from 2014 to 2023 that I lived on the north side of this property. It's kind of funny how there's no street parking but there is street parking on either adjacent on Indiana and uh Kentucky but no one I know or ever had visited was willing to park and walk four houses over. like you're like that seems feasible but in 10 years no no no no single person I know was willing to do that except for myself like if I was having people over because there's one driveway and can't park on the street people will run you off that street. So that's uh that's all I had. Okay. Thank you Mr. Froch.

Is there anything that you want to say to any of those comments?

Uh yeah just a couple of things really quick. Um, so we're limiting the size of these units. Uh, and and I'm happy to change the language to reflect this. Uh, did a previous spud 1588, I think. Uh, where we talk about if we're building this many units on this lot that they are required to be under a certain size. Uh, and that worked really well. Uh, so if that's the concern is, you know, how many units we're getting on this lot, how big the buildings are, all of that, that is all written into the MDS to force us to build what we're saying we're going to build. So, we limit our foot our footprints of the buildings. We limit the number of units. And the number of units, by the way, is calculated in the LUDA. We it's it's, you know, 10 to 40 per acre, and we're at about 36, I think. So, we're approaching the top of that, but we're below it. Um, and then as far as parking, you know, one parking space per unit for units this size is fairly appropriate because the market that we are uh trying to get here is, you know, students, people that are in kind of transitional phases of their life where they don't need more than 400 ft. Um, you're probably not having a lot of guests, a lot of parties. Um, this is also strategically located close to the university. Um, there's not an organized neighborhood uh in place. That's why we hadn't reached out to any of the neighbors. So, um, yeah, I I just I think the key here is limiting the footprints uh of the buildings and making sure that we are, you know, building what we're saying we're going to build. So, we've also limited the height on these to 28 feet, which is pretty aggressive. R1 allows for 35. Um, and so that's 28 feet with no flat roofs as well. So,

okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Powers, this is W two.

This is kind of problematic for me. Um, we were not able to meet before today's meeting. We were not aware that there would be anyone coming to speak. Um I Miss Brooks Magnus had already indicated that if someone did show up she'd be willing to take a continuence and work with the neighbors and I think that's what we need to do but also I mean I have comments for her and if you do I would like for you to share them. I think six units is too many. Um, I'm I'm not uh very well-versed in the um um joys of micro units, but I'd be willing to listen to that. Um, but six is just too many because, you know, six comes with six parking places and so on so forth. They're they're doing what they think they can do to make this work on the lot and and so on. It's in the middle of a block. It's these are singlestory homes that face the street. Um I mean there's just there's too many different little bits and pieces here. I don't see anything in the MDS although maybe I just missed it that indicated there was no flat roofs but I I I have some questions about for instance what is signage per code for R3? Um, this is an R3 base, but it indicates that the only uses allowed are single stole family and two family residential, but it's also um, you know, for six dwelling units. It's just the I'm not quite sure I that all makes sense to me. Maybe it does. 16ft driveway is too wide. Um the idea of the screening wall out front um you know it might work some places and and actually I have seen it done and and look lovely and work well but not here. I that just doesn't make any sense to me.

I I'm in in agreement with that. It's just it it puts up a barrier that feels I mean they've gone to the trouble to set the setbacks or to have the facade align with the other you know neighboring residences and um I think I think that um I think we need to hold that. Now one of the thoughts and so the reason for that fence is because there's parking in the front. There's two spaces. Yeah,

my recommendation, what I would like to see is that driveway get narrowed and you provide essentially kind of a parallel space in front of each unit there between on the on what would be the west area. And I think you still have enough room for a driveway to get around those and get to those back four spaces. And then that gets those two spaces out of the front yard. Um, and you don't need the fence. Um, I think that makes a lot of sense. So just to

specifically to the driveway problem. So currently this lot has a shared drive with the property to the west and that is there's an 8 foot drive there. Now we if we split their drive, let's say we flip this whole thing to the other side, we're still going to need a 16 foot drive uh for two-way traffic. Uh I'm not sure you do. I mean we have to specify it. If we don't, then we will be married to the minimum for two-way because we have parking in the rear. So, we would actually be required if we did not call out the we would be required a minimum of 22. So that 16T is limiting it on I'd just say this that there's just too many units on a interior

lot and so that that changes you know some of the parking issues that you'll run into and some of the other so can so to the parking then let me ask if we reduce to four units and we have so one of the things mentioned by our neighbor across the street was the parking spaces are we then are we then going to start a discussion about having more than one parking space per unit? So we're so four would be acceptable and one parking space per unit. Let's not assume four would be acceptable. Okay, in the theory that it were acceptable then you we would solve that. But okay,

we talked about continuing this if you want. I can emphasize even further than all of them. It's not appropriate in this location in the middle of this block. You said students that don't need more than 400 ft. That sounds like me a long time ago when I lived in an apartment. Sure. And trying to squeeze a whole bunch of people in a residential lot in the middle of this block is inappropriate. And the one neighbor that showed up might be okay with four. There may be some neighbors that are not okay with four. And so let's not say four is acceptable either. Yeah. But it would be acceptable for me in four spots. I'm just saying that that is more in a consistent pattern that we've seen before on in Phil in this area. Yeah.

Four would put us closer to 30 dwellings per acre instead of 37 and a half. Yeah. Yeah. No, we did the math on all of them. So, we're willing to have that conversation. Let's have that conversation. Shall we continue this? And you indicated you're not available at the next meeting. So, I am not unfortunately. So, the first meeting in May, what day is that? 12th. Um, or excuse me, 14th.

Okay. And Mr. Raj, if you would please get with Miss Brooks Magnus and give her your contact information and or I guess I have it. Do I? Did you put a phone number on the slip you sign so that we can be in contact as well? Let's arrange something and and maybe invite some neighbors and see what we can make of this in the next month. Um, and then after asking I didn't pay attention. The 14th is it? What's what's of May? That can't be the first meeting in May. The 14th, is it? Yes, it's the second. It's the second Thursday.

Okay. Okay. So, um I uh would move to continue item number 14, SPD 1820 till May the 14th. All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Powers to continue the item.

And you have my number. I know that's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. We'd make sure Mr. BR has Please cast your votes.

Thank you. All right. Next is that item is continued. Next is item 15.

Item 15 is SP1 1821, an application to reszone 1320 West Reno Avenue from sped 1309 to sped 1821. Good afternoon, commissioners. Uh, Michael Tibbitz with Express Development, uh, 7318 Northwest 106th Street. Um, we have been working on this uh, development site for since last July. Um, funnily enough, through one of the OFA uh, funds. We were actually allocated some of that money already. And, um, working through the development design. It's currently zoned for 129 units, minimum 40 foot setbacks from all property lines. Um, over the last three months, we've tried to configure the building in a way that just is a feasible development that doesn't feel overbearing to the neighboring houses. And what they've come up with, the design team, I'm just not happy with. Um, part of the issue is the shape of the site or the property lines. But that is the reason why we've come before you with what I thought was going to be um a few modifications to the existing zoning. Uh clearly from some of the feedback from the neighborhood um they don't feel so. Um this is the site plan we're prepared to move forward with. It does allow for four stories. Um we've increased the setbacks uh significantly by by raising that next story. Um we've established the parking amount and I believe we've reduced the um green space by 3% uh from 30 to 27. Um we think this is much more feasible design. It puts us much further away from the single family around us. It allows us to push towards what is uh storage units and uh retail or commercial up on frontage. And um we see we've got two tees. I believe we agree

with both of those. Happy to answer any questions uh you may have. Okay. Thank you. Um Commissioner Meek, this is your ward and I have about nine folks signed up to speak.

Okay. I uh I do want to hear from them and u I will say that I want to say a couple things real quick. This one is different than the last apartments we just heard because they currently have the right to build apartments. Um, it's a existing spud 1309 and uh there's nothing we can change about that. So, you you all got to understand that apartments are coming to this location. They've already been approved by planning and council. Um, with that, this gentleman reached out to all the protesters and I've I I believe I've received 48 protest letters. I've read every one of them. I've been involved in the email chains going back and forth. Um, I did appreciate Mr. Tibbitz trying to schedule three Zoom calls for 6:00 on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Unfortunately, no one wanted to bite on that. I uh if this was a new apartment R4 uh application on something that was zoned other than R4, I would be demanding a in-person meeting. But because we already have apartments going to apartments um request, I thought with him outlining the only four differences in the only four differences in that this application versus the old one, I thought the Zoom meeting was sufficient to get on and ask questions. Um I really did. If that's the case and the deferral still needed, I believe Mr. Tibbitz would uh would give us a deferral and um we could rehear this at a later date and we could all meet at a church nearby or Canadian County Vote or or something like that. But no matter what, apartments are coming to this location. He has the right with that. I wanted to say that with the right that he has to

build the apartments right now, he has the right to build them much closer to your uh neighbor neighborhood fences. Um, so this the change off and and and I'm telling you right now it's going to be 60 foot. If I have anything to do with it, it's going to be 60 foot. That's what he's telling people and that's what we're going to do. Um, so you would get from 40 in a threetory to 60 in a fourtory. That's that's the main meat and potatoes of this case, guys. Um, it's not about vehicles. It's not about traffic. It's not about schools. He is holding the same am he is limiting himself. He was limited to 129 units on the previous case and he's limited to 129 units if he goes a taller building. So he's trading off three stories for four to give you bigger setbacks with the same amount of apartment units that he has the right to build right now.

Commissioner Meek, I'm sorry. So I'm so sorry. Just for everybody in the audience, Sarah Welch, you know who I am. Okay. Sorry. Um our to have it. Um, our I just want to correct our staff report because our the existing SPUD does allow 129 units and I did not catch until after we printed the staff report that that was a mistake. So, there is not an increase in density requested for this case and I just want to make that clear. That's our fault.

Right. It is and I did verify that it's 129 to 129. So, you can't uh it's not worth arguing that there's going to be more apartments because that's not true, not more units. Okay. And then the last thing, the current zoning uh would require him to have up to 258 parking spaces, allowing up to 258. And he's limiting them now to 175. So, not as many uh not as big of a sea of uh asphalt and or concrete in parking. So, I know you're all you're all signed up. I hope that I've addressed some of your concerns. Um, I hope we don't have to hear the same thing over and over and I welcome your opinions. Your opinions do matter to me. That's why I became a planning commissioner. Um, so with that, we'll hear from the first person.

Okay. Uh, we'll start with Diane Jameson.

My main concern Oh, Diane Jameson. I live at 309 Derky Road. My main concern is the same thing that happened the last time they put it in to be apartments. What's going to happen to the people that are living in the apartments? That's where my background comes from. And in our particular area, we have no public transportation. There is no public parks or um libraries or recreational stuff anywhere in our area other than what is in the different subdivisions that are put up by the HOAs. Also, that there is not a lot of employment opportunities in our particular area. now you're gonna have and with no public transportation, how are the people that are living there going to get to jobs? Um, I just think that there's got to be a little bit more planning and look at the big picture before you know what's going to happen to the people that you're going to want to live in those apartments.

Thank you. Thank you, Miss Jameson. Daniel Gazarro. Good afternoon, council members. Good afternoon.

I'm a resident of uh Oklahoma City living. My name is Daniel Kenzer and I live at 312 Derky Road in Oklahoma City, Yukon, and Summers Point. And I'm here with a lot of my neighbors today. We're finding out about this. Some of us have been here a long time, Kathy, and some of us been here one to four years. So, we do understand that it's been reszoned from bud 1309 to now to 1821. We do understand that people will be living all around us in the future. We do understand that ward 3 is one of the larger wards on the perimeter and we need we need it has capacity to handle a lot but being out on the there isn't there isn't that much on the perimeters right now I don't know how it's zoned but there is agriculture there is commercial all one story it's discount cigarettes and and chain pizza and a pharmacy is two miles away with no sidewalk connection right now. So things like that. So that said, I know I know the they have to make con some concessions with uh the spacing of the parking lots or the the driveways actually. Oh well. So I I understand in this in the city report they they need to expand that to the safety of the 200 feet. I'm not sure about base zoning and setbacks, but I was I I I do understand there was a threetory apartment complex slated maybe a

warehouse for that or or part of that zoned up to R4 which is unlimited four stories. I know they want to do 50 feet or 50 ft 6 in and we're not happy about that. We're happy about, you know, it's going like gang busters out there. A block to the north in Settlers's Ridge corner, they built modest dozen plus two two family duplexes, twotory duplexes. which probably have about 80 or 90 cars going to be in those driveways to uh Mustang Road. The closest fourstory building to us is the Parkplace Senior Living, which is very well done. It's it's it's offset to the laundry room from not not even a a stained cedar one-inch picket fence. There's there's a small rod iron fence. The existing homeowners are there. It's 106 feet to the laundry room and to the residents it's 160 ft to the fourth story. I know we're in a three-story building right now and I I could see the bus stop from here. So, we have homes that are right in this parking lot. It looks like the spots are facing my backyard here. And it looks like there's, you know, I know I know there's less parking 175 the zone the zone for 258. I don't know how many apartments are going to be there. 11 or you know broken down 60 single families 11 three story or three families you know with with with children and teens driving. So 175 spaces. I don't

know if there's going to be overflow onto the Reno Avenue, which doesn't have access to parking. It's very narrow. It's a wellused street, a wellused corner. You know, there's gas, there's some types of food, there's, you know, jujitsu, there's things to do, but not really. Not really. If I had a child, we do have a city park, not connected by sidewalk. Maybe maybe a few feet they'll have it so they could come through the neighborhood that the new residents are not going to have enough open space outside of their apartments and the new residents aren't going to have 30 seconds remaining

enough space inside of their apartments. So, we do we I have seen how the commission works. very very thoughtful, very very with my gentleman farmer neighbor on on 29th Street. We we uh stand together and ask you to go as you're about your business and and plan wisely. I want I want a YMCA there. I want to play pickle ball in my backyard, but I don't because that'll annoy the neighbors. So, uh thank you for your time. Thank you for the lesson in civics and I hope we get to stand and and present something down the road that Thank you, Mr. Gat. Thank you.

All right. Uh Cynthia Gatzero. No. Okay. Thank you. Uh Curtis Kantenburgger.

Hello. My name is Curtis Cantenberger. I live at 305 Derky Road. Uh I've been living in that house uh since 2013 and uh I'm not directly affected or on the line uh but I am within 500 ft of the proposed uh spud. Um I uh privacy is a big issue for me. Um I'm one of the few in uh the Summers Point uh subdivision that has the backyard pool. I spent a lot of time in the backyard and uh a fourstory behemoth will be looking right down into our backyard. And it's not just the people that are along the uh um the boundary that are affected. I think a lot of people in the subdivision are going to be affected. And as far as apartments coming, um I wasn't even aware that uh it was approved for apartments for three stories. So definitely I'm opposed to four stories. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Campberger.

Uh Robert, is it Merryweather? Mary Reed. How y'all doing today? I'm Robert Merryweather stay at 208 Steins Drive. My house is right in the middle where they going to build those apartments. And and my biggest concern is some of the apartments they're going to build is a threetory or four story. So soon as they build it, my privacy is is gone. And and and my biggest concern is my privacy. Also, how is going to affect my resale value when I want to sell a house when those apartments is back there? Another concern is Cemetery Road and and Reno Road. They not a multi-lane road. It's already a lot of traffic on coming out of those neighborhoods. Even on on cemetery at the intersection. So it nowhere in the plan I seen where they're going to wide widen the roads or make the drivability any better for the people in that area. And and those are my my biggest concern. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayweather. David Ray still with us? Guess not. Um, Michael Tibbitz. Oh, that's the applicant. Oh, good. We're getting rid of some of these. Uh, Kathy Dogquist.

Good afternoon. Um, I'm Kathy Dquist. I live at 300 Partridge Run Road. I live right my house is going to be one of the ones that are just adjacent to the fence. I think our biggest concern here today is the fact that we didn't know any of this was going on. We had no ow notification. I purchased my home in January of 21. I don't know when this spud was passed.

I was not notified. Um I got no notification. Um it is a big uh shocker and I think that's why there's so many of us here today that is um not happy about the proposal. I understand Mr. Meek's um comments about we don't have a choice. We always have a choice and it's called we'll sell our homes. Um you are taking away our privacy. We have nothing against you for building. It's a process and we do understand that. But we also have the right to expect privacy in our homes. I don't want a trash dumpster right outside my uh fence to listen to them dump the trash at 4:30 in the morning. And if you don't think that's true, Dollar General's across the street, I hear that one twice a week, 4:30 a.m. So, I think that's our biggest concern was we were not made aware of this. We were not notified this was going in. So, uh, we just want to express our concern to you that we do not feel comfortable with the process that's gone on and, um, hoping that some concessions can be made between the areas that maybe re results in um, good public um, welfare for all of us. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Miss Douglas. This one doesn't have a last name. It's just Daniel. Daniel.

Sure. Sure. Sure. I'm just going to ask you both give your name and address for the record. Hi, I'm Becca Calhoun. Um, we live at and your name Daniel Calhoun. Um, we live at 304 Partridge Run, which is another property that is directly opposite of the new build. Um, Kathy said it best. I think she really summarized what I was feeling. I wanted to also add that we have one small child, another one on the way. And really, one of the things that I'm most uncomfortable, we didn't know that the apartments were already approved. We bought our house in 2025. 2023. Yeah. Four.

Four. Yeah. 2024. Sorry.

Um we're not notified that this was already approved years past. Um and really the we didn't love that it was apartments to begin with, but now that it's four stories, we have going to have two small children um playing in our yard, swimming. like I just don't want to be thinking about who's looking down into our yard while I'm in this very small already privacy box that we have. Um, another concern we had was just with the parking in general. We already live next to the storage unit, which obviously we were aware of when we bought the house, but what we have realized now is anytime a car drives through, their headlights are poking into our house. Um, so to have that from essentially all sides of our yard is a huge problem for us personally. We already deal with the flood lights from the

storage the storage unit at night. Our house is not fully dark ever. So, um, just thinking about the people coming in and out and the headlights. And so, you know, if if this does move forward, we would really like to talk options about a new fence or landscaping to create a bigger buffer so that we're not having lights coming in through our house. And um yeah, just just to add to it because our our house sits a little bit higher so we can see more into like the property that they're looking to build into. So, the lights were like the fence would have to be pretty high. Okay. It's currently an 8ft fence. Yeah. And so, yeah,

no, it's okay. Um, but yeah, I mean, and mainly as a mom, I want to make sure that my kids are safe in the yard. I don't know who's watching. Obviously, we're not I can't go meet every single person living in the apartments who have who has view into my yard. Um, and I just want to make sure that my kids are not victims um of creeps and whatever else. Okay.

Thank you. hit it. Um, just as a note, so the storage place to your to your right is PUD 1068. And so it's it's fairly old, but we're we're looking it up. Um, one of the things that you should look into is the requirements of that of that 10 PUB 1068. It's possible, I don't know how old it is, but it could have lighting restrictions on it. So, your issue with lighting, they may or may not be compliant with their with with the lighting standards that were in that. So, that's something that you could look into.

Okay. Well, since I have you, they also have had two trees die. There was like big trees planted and two of them have died since we moved in. Do you know if there's any I I don't know. Yeah. Action call the action center. Okay, cool. Yeah, we didn't know that we could talk to them about the lights. We just kind of accepted that. Yeah, it is what it is. So, yeah. Okay. Research research that PUD um and it's possible. Yeah. Go ahead.

So, that sorry uh that PED was approved in actually almost 20 years ago. 20 April of 20 2005 I guess 21 years. Um but the there there are specific regulations in there that um say the the lighting has to be installed so that the glare on the adjacent residential areas is restricted. So we can you can get with Gabriel over here and we'll get your information and we can tell you how to access the copy of that PUD. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful on a personal note. All right. Thank you. Thank you for coming down. Thank you.

Uh all right. And I had the last one was Becca. So we are that concludes all of our speakers. So all right. Um, is there anything that we heard from neighbors that you want to respond to?

Um, yeah. I mean, we've got a few few comments. We're we're still happy to meet with them. Some of their concerns are also our concerns. Um, one of the things I forgot to mention from the various site plans. That four-story version eliminated an entire row of windows facing south. We weren't able to do so on the west side functionally, but it gets it down from having like 30 people facing that way to six. Um, but we are more than happy to uh especially focus our landscaping there, place trees in a in a way um improve the fence um between us and them um between the single family and our development. I think that's mutually beneficial for everyone. I I understand their perspectives of not wanting people to see in your backyard and we're more than happy to try and um work work with that as much as we can.

Do you mind telling me more what you're saying about the windows on the south side? What did you say? Uh if you go back to the building layout. So the to make it easier, we rotated at 90 degrees where there's uh all those units facing west, there was just as many units facing south. And so with this layout, there's only four stories of two on the left side and uh two rows of units on the right. So it's I see what you mean. They they all have windows. There's just only a few lots on the south side as opposed to an entire wall of units. There's eight total windows facing units facing south instead of I don't know how many on that side, but Okay. Substantially more. Okay. Right.

So how many windows are facing south? Uh, if I'm 16 guessing right, I really think it's 16. Yeah. Yeah, I would say 16. Four and four uh or four units and four units. For me, I'd like to either see them dampered, sight proof, or not there at all. Yeah, we've um we've had several developments. One thing we've done is we've tinted the windows um so they're they're not you can't see through them, but they're significantly um reduced visibility. um we're happy to accommodate that, but the bigger thing is probably putting trees along those boundaries. Um which we plan to do anyways,

right? It's written, uh it's baked in under uh C uh number six, sight proof screening, it's it's required, um in addition to the sight proof screening, it says trees will be required to be planted along the western and southern boundary of the spud on 25- ft centers. And one thing we could because this is being renegotiated, we could upgrade the caliper requirement to where the trees that we're g that that they're saying they would put in, we could move it to 20ft centers and we could make them be like a 4-in caliper so that they are minimum of 14 to 21t when they're planted. Um they're they cost a whole lot more money. You don't want to go bigger than that because as our landscape architects uh have told us, they they don't survive. The bigger tree you plant, the harder it is for it to get going. But the 4 in is a safe bet. Correct, chairman?

Yes. Um so that is one thing that I spoke with the applicant about that if we started heading this direction today that that's an increase I would be requesting and he's already agreed to that. So, um I will say we have what what if we increase the sill height of the windows on the south side also? Well, if they're bedrooms, which it looks like on the south you have two bedrooms on each floor. Um that it you can't adjust the sill heights to it's an aggress window. It's it's emergency egress. It's an emergency egress on a dormatory. So we we have done it before if it's a living room we had higher transom windows but when it's a bedroom you can't mess with it. So

but you you I'm sorry. You can do either etched windows or um opaque windows. Yeah. I mean rather than tint them but uh yeah I mean there are things you can do to make them less right transparent.

I mean I'm going to I'm talking to these guys now. You all are listening. I'm speaking openly. He has a site plan here in front of you. Um, we could make it match what's on this site plan because the site plan really he could change. But what we would tie him down to is the 60 ft set back on the west, the 60ft set back on the south, the uh windows only facing south and no more than 16. We could bake that in. Um, we could give him what he's asking for by and also adding more requirements to it as you know we did on the previous case. Um, or we could just say you guys have fought this from the start. You don't want fourstory period. You don't matter that he could build it closer, that he could put windows anywhere he wants. We can't change the old PUB, the old SPUD. We cannot change it. It's non-negotiable now. Um, it happened in 2021. So, that that's uh commissioners, what's your thoughts? So, let me ask the I know he's given a lot and there's all these things that he gets already. What is he getting in addition now that he doesn't already have? Is it the fourth story?

That's it. Okay. With that, is there an idea that maybe the higher floors should be the ones where the windows should be addressed? Whether it's opaque, whether it's whatever, that's the main issue I think here. He's getting higher, right? He's going to be looking over trees. That's that's what he's getting by going higher. So maybe there's something that needs to be done more about the windows. Maybe not on the first floor. Maybe not even on the second floor, but maybe third and fourth. I would just I would just mention it's complicated like the 35 foot 45 degree plane. a threetory window at 40 foot setback versus a the where the four story is at 60 foot setback is a lower angle um vision threetory vision

side of vision and

and uh that's man just lost what I was going to say I want to tell you guys that are here to speak on this I was a no I thought this cat is trying to do something and I spent so much time dug in to what you guys don't even see the full design this full design statement, which is a whole lot of reading and studying thinking, what's he trying to get that we're not catching? Um, because you don't see very often an applicant out of the kindness of his heart, see a set of prints and go, "Man, that three-story building's really close to the south and the west. I will pay what $2,700 and go back through this whole process to try to move it to 40 feet or to 60 feet. But in but to keep the same number of units, I have to go up one more story. That's literally the story here. I thought there was something I you know and I did a whole lot of digging to make sure I wasn't missing something. Um and that's legitimately I believe what Mr. Tibbitz has done. Now, I want to go, you know, I want to go with the majority um of my commissioners, but I think all of us take into every account everything y'all have heard um or y'all have said. I

I just want to I want to interject. I I kind of see this as an opportunity because like everyone said, this is already an existing spud three-story apartments. We can't change that,

right? But this application, we have the ability with this application to mold it, manipulate it, work with the neighbors to make this something that you can live with. And that's I actually think that's in your best interest is to work with this application. And my recommendation would be that we defer this. If the client is or the applicant is in agreement, there is a neighborhood meeting with everyone uh and and some commissioner members can attend that. But there is a an effort to basically lay out all of your needs as a neighborhood and what you want to see, what you need for you to be able to have this be an acceptable uh development um that you're going to live next to.

I I agree. and you guys all sat through that previous case where the apartment buildings were right up against the fence and the parking was in the middle. He's showing the opposite because of the setback. But on the old case, if we if we deny this and he gets but to go back to the original pud, he can put those buildings on the property line 40t away. So, um I'm okay with the deferral if you are, Mr. Tibbitz, and I would attend a meeting if you set it up. I know that we found three different places in churches that are there's three churches out by you guys within two to three miles. He would have to call and speak to the pastors or secretaries and get a church to donate said space. But

so we've reached out to three of the places. We're waiting for the two churches to call us back. Um there's a I forget what the um school is over there. They're only available from like 9:00 to 4, right? So, we're we plan to send out a meeting invite, but the only meeting they can do is on the 30th and um I don't know what the next commission date is. Um but we've done quite a bit of outreach. We're happy to go do some more that would if if if you're looking at the 30th, then we would have to go to May 14th for the next and that's a four-week. That's what's going to be an issue for us. Then you're probably then you're going to have to find someplace available sooner.

That's what we'll do. We'll send out an email out right after this meeting scheduling that. Um, we would love for the neighbors to reply and let us know a day and time that works. Thus far, we've been able to unable to do that. Um, but we're happy to be deferred once, but if it gets pushed, I I will say that if we're going to defer this for a neighborhood meeting, then it needs to happen. And if it hasn't happened by the time we get back here, um, based on, you know, neighbors availability, then we'll address that. But um if you make every effort to make it happen um we'll move forward. We'll take that into consideration. So we could have a twoe deferral to the 23rd

or to the 14th. That's our only two options right now. The 23rd of this month. Yeah. Yeah. It'd be Yeah, it's April 23rd. It's two weeks. Okay. Yeah. We'd have to find a place in two weeks that you guys gather your neighbors and come talk to him about molding this application because most of y'all didn't even know there was apartments already approved. So now you get to out of the kindness of his heart with a new application make some uh some ideas come to life. So if you're in agreement with that. Yep.

Okay. With that being said, stand by. I would like to uh defer this item, recommend a continuence to April 23rd for spud 1821. Okay. Have a motion to continue the item to the 23rd. And then I was going to say while they're vote while they're voting, um we we put the agenda out again a week from tomorrow. So we would like if you have any changes that you want to incorporate into the next report, then we just want them back in a week. Okay. Um, so that's that's I mean you got to get the changes in in a week. So that means that it has to happen.

You got to get the changes in a week for it to be in our packet and on the agenda that goes out to us. But I promise you if he didn't make that deadline, whatever is agreed upon, um, he would agree to and we would make it happen here at the next meeting. So it doesn't have to be you don't have that hard deadline of a week, but she's just saying if we do have a meeting in that time frame and you get it to her, it'll be in our packet. Be clear, we can just read it in, right? Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. So, we have the motion from Commissioner Meek to continue the item that was seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. That is continued to the 23rd. Thank you. Our last item is item 16. Item 16 is PUD 2133, an application to reszone 800 East Britain Road from R1 Single Family to the PUD 2133 district.

Last one. Caitlyn Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant who is also here with me. Uh so the PUD is to reszone this tract uh southwest of East Britain Road, North Kelly. There's the existing People's Church that's right there within our tract three of this PUB. They've been there for about 22 years. They own this property. They obviously have an interest in seeing this area continue to grow and improve, which is why they're bringing forth this PUD application and will be involved in the development as well. Um so we have broken it up into three tracks. Uh the first one being for um it's you'll notice we have restricted the uses. So now it's more of a commercial designation with a couple of light industrial uses uh that are permitted in tract one. Track two would be for the allowance of commercial or multif family product. And tract three, obviously the church, and we since it's included in this PUD with our legal description, we added some uh additional commercial and office uses that we think would um be compatible with it being on a major arterial. The site is kind of surrounded by predominantly office and commercial. To the south, we just recently reszone that parcel for a commercial or multif family product. Uh we do have a recommendation of approval from staff with a whole slew of TEES. Uh most of which we agree to. There are a couple of um well one modification, one specification if you will. So TE1 it's broken down into different subsections. Regarding E, it just states establish a maximum number of dwelling units and or density for the multif family residential use. So we would seek to uh cap it at 30 dwelling units per acre. Um

the multif family use unit is now only going to be allowed within that track 2 uh per the TE just right above that um number or item. Let's see. B removes the other multif family where it was in the tract one. Uh we also would seek to modify TE3. We don't anticipate this being developed ever for a single family or lower density multif family product again because of the surrounding area because of the location along a major arterial. So we would just seek to modify that to um the following will apply to any single family attached or detached or two family residentially developed parcel. That's that 1,320 foot verbiage that you you know have seen with the single family products. So we would seek to modify it in that manner. And then you will likely have seen that we had some protest letters on this application. We did have a community meeting. Uh it was mostly the um office complexes in the surrounding area. They had a list of items. Um we went through kind of line by line. Uh answer their questions, address their comments. Um there's still some concern about Philips A to the west. It is a public street, but it is not improved. So we would seek to add TE8 that would read in the event Phillips Avenue is utilized for access. No certificate of occupancy will be issued until Phillips Avenue is improved just to address any concern with that street. Our tract one does have access from Kelly. So that's where we anticipate traffic to come off of. But we wanted to include that given the current state of Phillips Avenue. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all have and we would ask for

your recommendation of approval. Um, in the absence of Commissioner Harrison, this is Ward 7. I'm going ask our vice chair to take the lead on this one. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Thanks. I guess sometimes it's good to be last. Sorry. I'm sorry. I do have someone signed up. Oh, okay. Let's hear from them. Okay. John Meek.

John Meek with uh First Commercial Management, address of 3719 North Portland Avenue. My firm uh sets up and operates business parks. So, we handle the associations and we usually come into the developments after the first two, three buildings are built up. um representing as an agent for the two associations over there, the two business parks. Um I'd like to make a complimentary that we did have the team meeting with Caitlyn. Um it went well. She was very um appropriately answering our questions and giving us some guidance there as to what could be done and not be done. Uh there are restrictions on the uses uh which helped us quite a bit. um speaking to Cedar Creek Commons which is to the west of the church facing actually the east side faces Philips Avenue and with that street being undeveloped currently uh gravel uh it's groomed from time to time u but it's still a dust bowl basically because of what comes in and out of it the church uses it for eress after their uh meetings often rather than going up to the um Britain Britain road exit Uh we can we have two lots there that the association has an owner that would like to develop them, build on them and with the street un un completed or not in paved condition he's not in a position to be able to build on them because he would probably have to have access to Phillips and unfortunately uh the original developer defaulted bankrupt u went away and now you have a private owner of two lots and the original plat called for the developer to pave half that street. Now you're placing that on an owner of a a lot which doesn't have that kind of money and they'll remain empty and undeveloped

until the street is paved preferably by the uh by the city with the um track one down at the end down there for industrial once that um I like what I appreciate the comment um of allowing the street to be paid at some point before an occupancy permit is approved for buildings back if they're going to use that. Uh that solves one of our problems as far as getting the city involved and also the developer. So, um that was our biggest concern from Cedar Creek was how fast would the street get developed to allow for further growth back there, allow the track um one to be developed. It would also improve further down the lots that are agricultural back there to be improved. Uh speaking from uh the overall industrial standpoint, we've had a bad experience with the Tower Lake Association with the um reszoning and allowance of what's happened to the north of that property. We have a mulching operation up there. So, our different owners and our million-doll buildings and their type of businesses, we deal with ongoing smells and from the mulching operation. We would hope that uh the industrial being industrial allowed that we wouldn't have something coming from the west and so we'll be watching this project much more strangely than we did the other one to ensure that we don't have an odor problem coming into as the wind blows over to our project. So you have a business park on both sides. Um we're just concerned that we proceed with the communication with the developer and the church. church has been a good neighbor. We've been a good neighbor to them. Um the multif family R4 that could go in will potentially cause us some traffic

issues and other things with the Tower Lake project, but uh we'll wait for that to be per, you know, presented for permitting and the things that occur on that. We'll address anything that we see out of the ordinary there. But uh overall, I think if we just uh work together on it, both associations can come up with a resolution. Hopefully with the city spending a little money on Phillips, it'll allow them to develop that area a little faster and complement the track one back in the back. So, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Me. And just yeah, just a point of clarification, the developer would be improving Phillips if they choose to take access on it, not the city. Correct. Yeah. Well, it would have to be improved or so, right? Hope it would be great if it was the city, but if they're using it and they want to speed that up, then yes, that's correct. Okay. Um, any questions, comments?

Um, no. I I mean, yes, I do have some comments and and went over some stuff, but uh just a couple of things on the facade regulations, remove the architectural metal from the 70 to the 30. Could we um keep it for track one, but then for track two, remove it to the 30%. Since we do have that lighter industrial use that we have contemplated for tract one, I knew you were probably going to ask that because you want a metal building over there. Um anyone else? It's kind of hidden behind that creek that

I mean there's not there's not a public road down there. You can't Yeah, you can't get on the west side of it. I don't I don't have a larger view to see what's going on to the west or the south. We also have a 50 foot setback from the west and the south as well. There we go. So that's that's the I mean Yeah. No, I'm good with it. I mean mainly was for the apartment complex. Okay. or potential R4. So just yeah we can add that as a TE to modify section 9.1 to stipulate that my brain is

architectural metal will be architectural metal will be moved to the 30% for tract two and tract three but shall be allowed for tract one and then next One is on the screening regulation, the type and and potential column distances on the fencing. It's kind of difficult because you have three different kinds of uses. So

So what So because this is our standard verbiage kind of across the board. So what are you wanting to see for for screening? Well, the the apartment complex would be need to be screened. And how? Screened from the

I'd like to see it off Kelly with the rod iron screen between that and the church. And then there's enough screening on the back with the creek and the trees. Well, technically if track two is developed for residential, that would require us to screen between tracks two and tracks three with that verbiage, but you're wanting it increased. Sorry. Well, I just like I said, the types and the material. So, not just the standard boiler plate screening. I'd like to see, like I said, rod iron across the the front of the apartment complex or the R4 potential.

Come on, Jeremy. Help me. Added a TE to um in the event that track 2 is developed for multifamily, an iron fence shall be required along North Kelly Avenue. Let's say rod iron or ornamental aluminum. Rod iron or aluminum or ornamental aluminum. Got it. Yep. We can add that as let's see TE 8 would be architectural metal for track one only. So this would be TE9.

And I think you probably should specify a height also just so we're not caught up in our front yard fence rules. Got it. And can we put a limit on the dwelling units per acre on track 2 if it's developed as R4? So we had included in the mod or specification I guess of onee on the TE is 30 dwelling units per acre.

That's the maximum, right? Yes, it is. So, but again, we've limited multif family to just track two. Yep. And how about height? Height we have limited to 35 uh feet. So, standard that's what it is to the south as well as just R1. 35 ft and three stories. Can you get three stories and 35 ft? We just say 35 ft B per bay zoning with a cap at 35 ft, which is also why we would seek to keep it at 30 dwelling units per acre since we're capping the height pretty low. For just for context, 30 dwelling units acre on track 2 is 447 units.

And again, we have that 50 foot set back to the south. And again, the cap on height.

Yeah. So, you'll never be able to get 447 units in that area. Yeah.

I think that is all I had noted on that one. Anything else? All this is preliminary proposed. Yep. Exactly. So, there is a lot of detail to come. It all has to have specific plan. Yep. I was going to say we've we've agreed to the specific plan. So, you all will see this again um if or when it develops in the future. No plans at this point in time. You guys talk on the record. Anything else? Jeremy, I never get called out for talking. So

got everything. Okay. With that, I will make a motion to approve PUD 2133 with the TEES and as amended with eight and nine as read. Eight pertaining to the completion of Philips Avenue and the CO and nine the fence and nine is the architectural measures. Okay, I have a motion from Hold on. Hold on. Yeah. So, removing the architectural metal was nine, I think, right? And then 10 would be the fence.

Eight is Phillips, nine is the architectural metal, 10 is the railing, and 11 whatever that was. I made up the 11. My brain is also not working. Okay. So I have the addition to TE8 is modifying the architectural metal for track one only. Nine would be requiring the 6 to 8 foot fence along Kelly. And then um we need to add something for the architectural metal on track. That's for track one only. Yeah, that's that's number eight. Okay. So then Phillips Avenue's improvement. Yes. No. That would be 10. Yeah.

No CO will be approved prior to Philips Avenue being approved. Improved, excuse me. And then the 312 units per acre. Yeah, that was modification. The modification. There was also the modification to number three to specify single family or two family residential development. Yep. Only Yeah, we have everything covered. We got we had a few flipped around there. So, I want to make sure everyone is square. I have I have my list and I can go back and watch as well. Sarah will check me if there's anything a miss.

Okay. So, we have a motion to recommend approval subject to the amended tees from Commissioner Noble. That's been seconded by Commissioner Leforge. Please cast your votes. We waiting on anyone?

Thank you. That item is recommended for approval. That was the end of items to be heard individually. Additional items, communications report, planning commission committees. I don't believe there are any meeting planning commission members. Um, two things. Um, the Heffer Golf Course opening is tomorrow, so bring your clubs. Um, at 10 a.m. I wanted to say, um, and, uh, just in case that message did not get conveyed, I think we need to be, you know, informed about the Meridian corridor plan. And so whatever

you know presentation would be appropriate whether that's study session or otherwise it's like if we're going to be you know considering it in our decision making I think we need to you know know something about it

um I agree and we still have the study session on the 17th correct next Friday. Training session training session yes about time I got trained. Yeah. All right. That's all I got. Yeah. And the top of the list is talking on record. Yeah. You and you two you two do it, too. Yeah. I know better. Uh, Commissioner Privet. No, I Well, I've read a little bit about the Meridian stuff, but Okay. That was year or two ago. Commissioner Newman, I have not read about the Meridian stuff, but I don't have anything else. That went through council. It was right before Commissioner Milner. Nothing. Nothing. Thank you, Jared. Thanks for joining us up here. Commissioner Noble, I'm good.

Commissioner Leforge, I don't have anything. Uh, planning department. Um, just the reminder about the study session. I don't have RSVPs or confirmation from everyone. So, make sure you let us know. It's next Friday. Training session. Training session the 17th starting at 8. Convention center at the at at the convention center. Okay. I've already alerted our staff that some of our commissioners might not be able to make an 8 a.m. meeting. I'm looking this way.

All right. Uh municipal counselor's office. Nothing. All right. Citizens to be heard again. We didn't get to hear from Barry today. Oh man. Uh all right. We are journ. Thank you. Wellve.