Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

But you know what? Jason hard copy. I'll be right back. At this point, All right. Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the November 13th meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order and I'll start with a few housekeeping items. 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, there's a form available outside. Um, please fill that out um and provide it to Elena or Jared down here below. Um, when your item is that you're wishing to be heard on is called, uh, you'll be asked to come to the podium. Please come up, give your name and address for the record, and you'll have up to five minutes to speak. If you're here to speak on an

item with a large group of people, we encourage you to elect a representative to share your group's concerns, and in those instances, some additional time will be considered. uh where several speakers are going to be heard on the same item. We just ask that you please do your best to limit um your comments to those that we haven't heard. Uh we're just trying to avoid repetitious comments and keep the meeting moving. Uh please direct all your comments and questions to the commission and if necessary, we'll ask either the applicant or staff to respond. Um finally, we just want to let everyone know we appreciate your presence here today and the obligations that you stepped away from. We just ask for your cooperation upholding the decorum of the meeting and ask that you don't speak from the audience. So, thank you for your cooperation with that and we'll begin. Um, item two is receipt of the minutes. Need a motion to receive the revised minutes from uh the October 9th meeting as well as our last meeting on October 23rd.

Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes from the revised minutes from October 9th, 2025 as well as the October 23rd, 2025 meeting. We have a motion to receive the minutes from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Leforge. Please cast your votes. And the minutes are received. Item three is continuence requests. We'll begin with uncontested requests.

Item 26 is PUD 2084 deferred to December 11th. Item 27 PUD 21108 deferred to December 11th. Item 28 uh SPUD 1613 SPO1 defer to December 11th. Item 29, case SPD 1755 defer to se uh December 11th. Item uh 30, case SPD 1785, defer to December 11th. Item 31, case SPD 1786, defer to uh December 11th. Item 32, case SPUD 1787, deferred to December 11th. Item 33, case CPA 20259, deferred to January 15th. Item 34, case PUD 21105, deferred to January 15th. Item 35, case PC 10987 has been withdrawn. And item 36, PD 2100 has also been withdrawn.

Okay, we'll just check to see if there's anyone here to be heard on any of those items. Okay, seeing none, we're just ready for a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the uncontested continuence requests as read. A motion to approve the new requests. uncontested uncontested requests and it's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes and those are granted. Uh we do not have any new requests that I'm aware of. Do we have anything to add? No. Okay. So, we'll move on to item four, public hearings and the consent docket.

We have one item on on the consent docket. That is item one, which is KC770. final plat of Whispering Ben phase one located north of West Hefner Road and west of North County Line Road. Then we're just ready for a motion for the consent docket. I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent docket.

Have a motion to approve the consent docket. It's been seconded by Commissioner Goine. Please cast your votes. And the consent docket is approved. We move on to cases to be heard individually. Beginning with item two. This is case uh C7761, final plat of Woody Creek at Westbury, located east of South Sarah Road and south of Southwest 15th Street along with the variance to the subdivision regulations. Okay,

we have an applicant present. Give him just a second to make sure he's we got we got to this item pretty quickly.

Good afternoon. Sorry guys. Uh, hi. Uh, Ron Walters, 3924 Mossy Creek. I think we're That's why I was in the hall. I think we're asking deferral till December December 11th. Is that correct? Okay.

Yes. December 11th. Okay. I'm I'm I'm good with that. I understand there's still some more work to be done. So with that, I'd like to recommend to have this item deferred to the December 11th agenda. Have a motion from Commissioner Meek to defer the item to the December 11th meeting. It's been seconded by Commissioner Leforge. Please cast your votes. That item is deferred. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry to intercom. Item three. This is case PC 10991, application to reszone 9350 Northwest 122nd Street from AA to R1.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. I'm Christian Hagen with Craft and Toll 3oint Parkway Boulevard, Yukon, Oklahoma. Uh my client seeking to reszone 3.1 acres. Um the blank area to the southeast is uh Nicholls Creek phases four and five which are currently being constructed. This corner can't uh doesn't have access to the rest of the development uh due to the creek and uh the client has decided to split it off and attempt to reszone it to R1 so that he could sell it. Um will this be this is this is my award. Um will this be viewed as basically all one development? It's just being

correct. It'll be a single lot. Yeah. Okay. Um and then is your development immediately to the east or is it just the south? We are uh to the east and south. Okay. What is going to be your treatment along 122nd across the front as far as like perimeter fence wall?

Um, we don't have a specific uh plan for the frontage as of yet. Um, but we're open to to requirements. Um, I think I would want to see Oh, okay. Street. Okay. All right. It's straight zoning. So,

okay. Yeah. I my only concern is what I was getting at is I just want to see kind of a consistent you know if it's two different developments um but it's intended to be one that that you have a consistent you know treatment across the front edge of 122nd. I see. Um so this he will keep this a single lot and won't plat it into a into larger development. Um, but I believe he would be open to uh keeping a consistent feel along the front edge if that's what's required. Okay. All right. Well, um, it's my word. I can't make a motion, but I'm in support of it. [snorts]

Any other speak? No one signed up to speak.

Anything from any other commissioners? No. that I will make a motion to recommend approval of PC 10991. A motion to recommend approval of PC 10991 from Commissioner Noble, seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes and is recommended for approval. Item four, this is uh case PUD 1532- SP03, application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 1532 located at 3833 Northwest 166 Street. Good afternoon, Mark Zitz with Johnson and Associates, 20 Sheridan Avenue. Before you is a continuation and really the final buildout of the north end of the of Alley North at Port 164. That's a continuation of a similar type of light industrial sort of development. Uh staff has reviewed it, found it in conformance with the PUD, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Um Commissioner Noble, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Anything from any other commissioners? And as Mark said, it the staff did say the specific plan or that met the specific plan meets the PUB. So, I have nothing else. I'll make a motion to approve PUD 1532 SP03. We have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend or to approve the specific plan. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes.

Thank you. That item is approved. Item six. Item six. Item five. Five. Five. Oh, I'm sorry. Item five. Item five is case PUD 1628- SPO5. Application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 1628 located at 11:04 South Mustang Road.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, also with me is Muhammad Khan, who's the civil engineer for the project. Uh, as you can see, this is a specific plan for a Walmart uh, neighborhood market. We zoned this some time ago. I think it was about a 200 acre uh, overall development and piece by piece, it has started to develop, and this is the the latest portion of that. So, staff's reading of our application shows that it conforms to PUB. Happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Meek, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. I'm gonna trust staff's review of the specific plan that it meets and is consistent with PUD 1628. Any other commissioners have anything regarding this? If not, I will make a motion uh move to approve PUD 1628 SPO5. Have a motion from Commissioner Meek to approve the specific plan. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes because you have to. And that specific plan is approved. Now we're ready for item six.

This is PUD 2026- SP SPO1 application uh for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 2026 located at 2124 Northwest 192nd Street.

Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, also with me is Mark Zitzo. You may recall this application. There was uh quite a bit of discussion, quite a bit of protest, negotiated pretty heavy here and then again once we got to city council. It is a multif family project at the corner of 192nd and Penn. Uh we have now put forward our specific plan. At the time of filing, three of the buildings were slightly rotated uh when compared to the site plan in the PUD that was committed to. Uh so Johnson Associates has rotated those three buildings, resubmitted it to staff. We have it here if you'd like to see it. Uh so once those buildings were rotated, it is now in full compliance with the PED. Happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner Noble, this is W 8. This is mine. Um do you have paper document or just a poster? What of the the orientation changes? So it was these three buildings uh seven T5 and T3. They were slightly rotated when compared to uh the PUB site plane that was approved and so they have since been re-rotated uh resubmitted back to staff and we'll be moving forward to building permit. Right. I just wanted that into the record. That was the one thing that that was changed.

I asked for a color exhibit but this is just what Mark brought. So Uh, I don't have anyone signed up to speak. Commissioner Noble, anything from any other commissioners? No. I wish it was in color, but Yeah. Yeah. Me, too. And I will say that the specific plan does match the PUD. And with that, I'll make a motion to approve PUB 2026 SP01. A motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the specific plan. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

Thank you. And specific plan is approved. Item seven,

this is PUD 21102, application to reszone 8617 South Santa Fe Avenue from R1. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. Uh this is an item that was deferred a few times to allow an opportunity to meet with uh Commissioner Newman as well as Councilman Hinkle. It's a duplex development of what we proposed, which is identical to what was approved in terms of type of use to the west, which is PUD 2054. After uh meeting with Mr. Newman and Mr. Hinkle, I believe we now have uh a product that meets with their approval. We've modified it to the point where there are no TEES. Um, Mr. Newman did want us to state and perhaps even add as a TE that any of the required parking in the PUD shall not be uh able to be utilized on on street parking. So any required parking shall be required to be on site. I think that's what the code says. I defer to staff. If it's not what the code says, we can certainly add that as a TE.

Um, Commissioner Newman, I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. Uh, could we get a clarification on that from staff, please? Sure. Sarah Welch Planning Department. So, there is a provision in the code that you can do a one for one for parking, but it really has to be delineated. So, I think that it's really fine either way. If you um really want to make sure that the parking on the street doesn't count, then you would have to just make it a TE. David, can we make that a TE because main I would suggest the TE just state that any required parking shall not be able to be counted on for on street parking. On street parking shall not be shall not be counted towards required parking. Okay, that works for me. Uh, there's no one signed up for it. No.

Okay. Does any any of the other commissioners have any comments? Okay. Uh, with that, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to recommend approval of PUB2102 to city council uh with uh TE1 as read into the record. A motion to recommend the items city council for approval subject to the one technical evaluation. It's been seconded by Commissioner Goine. Please cast your votes. Items recommended for approval. Thank you.

Item eight, this is PUD 20 uh 2112, application to reszone 3925 Northwest 178 Street from PUD 1895.

Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. Uh, this is a PUD that would allow a modification of the facade regulations that currently exist. Jar, could you show the aerial, please? So, as currently drafted, the PUD that's in place allows for personal storage use, but it requires the entirety of that use to be uh clouded with masonry product. Not the most common thing that you would see a personal storage use cloud in masonry. There we go. Um, so what this PUB would do is allow us to have uh metal except for the western uh facades which are adjacent to the existing or currently being built single family residential. Um, there's no other residential that exists to the east or to the south. And so this would ensure that that orientation of those homes and the the treatment they would see on our facade would be masonry, but the interior stuff in the eastern facing and southern facing where there is no single family residential development now or allowed um could be the metal product more consistent with what you would expect to see in a personal storage facility. Uh there are no tees. Happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner Noble, this is your word again. Um no one signed up to speak. No one has signed up to speak. anything from any commissioners on this? It's just basically keeping the PED exactly as it was except the change of the m masonary product on the sides that are not facing R1. So it it it makes sense based on the layout exhibit that we have. Um because exhibit B the the storage units are situated such that it forms a sort of a wall a barrier that if you do that westside brick you're you're achieving exactly what you say. But if the layout were to be different than that then does the west actually screen it?

We wouldn't know until we saw the layout. So are we saying is there a way to lock it into this exhibit B site layout is what I'm saying. Um, let me see what the facade reg or or word that that uh just the orientation of the building, right?

Or we could just say any um any wall immediately adjacent to single family residential shall be required to be masonry. Because what we say is exterior building wall finish on the western facing side of structures adjacent to single family residential use shall consist of masonry brick. I guess we could say um exterior building wall finish on structures adjacent to single family residential use. So that we're taking out any reference to direction. I that would be better. Yeah, cuz it's there's a northwest, you know, there's west north, you know, I just don't the intent is anywhere we're adjacent to to a residential structure, we're fine with it. So

I agree with the intent use use use. So what we were doing then the TE would be to rem under the facade rags 9.1 remove the words western facing. So it would read exterior building wall finish on take out the word the western facing. So it just says existing building wall finish on structures adjacent to single family residential use. So remove the words the western facing site of under 9.1.

So we'll finish on while we're talking about you know what's going to be screened. I mean, is is our thought process here that because there's not any residential [clears throat] on the east side to the east currently it's zoned I1 Oh, okay. Okay. Because I I was thinking that it would be residential in the future, but we don't think so. No, it's zoned to allow light industrial. Okay. I I like the the proposed language you said by just striking the western facing side of that achieves it because it just says exterior building wall finish on structures adjacent to single family residential use shall consist of masonry brick veneer. Yeah,

that's that's fine. So that it's clear the intent is the TE to remove the words the western facing side of from section 9.1 and just question for staff is that okay as written some of them are sure yeah Sarah Welch uh planning department often will say use sometimes if the houses aren't there we say zoning or use to be more clear But that's so that the requirement would kick in if the zoning were there but the houses weren't built. Oh, well that would make sense too.

What is Do we need to strike another word? Well, I mean, where we don't want to do masonry is east facing and I guess what would be southeast facing. The the the the wall that would be kind of north and south directly west and then the wall that would be facing northwest is where we're committed. I think that's what we're saying. We're not trying to trick anyone. I just I don't

Well, we're one of the comments I had is if you look at the the other exhibit, there's a there at the where it turns from north south to then northeast there is a separation in buildings and there's a corner lot right there. So, they're going to be seeing the sidewall, the north wall of that southern unit. They're going to be looking right at it. Who? The adjacent neighbor of the lot on the west. Not not there down. Go down to the left. Okay. But yeah, so that building area, but go I'm talking about that storage building. Go up to the north where it bends to off to the right there. So there that's where two buildings come.

According to the exhibit, it looks like you can see the ends of the building on both of those buildings there from the residential.

You're talking about here and here. Yes. Okay. We can and those ends of buildings if in fact there are ends can be masonry as well. Well, I I I gathered from the previous one that that you know it's viewable from residential. So it would Yeah. So what if we say we're adjacent to wring uh single family residential platted lots which then those incaps would be adjacent to that. Yeah,

sounds good. Good. Mhm. [clears throat] So, give me the TE again.

I mean, are we going to change 9.1 or we going to add a TE? change 9.1. Well, that is it. So, a TE would be to change 9.1 uh as previously stated except now add instead of the word use, it should say adjacent to single family residential platted lots. So trade use for single family residential platted lots on top of the provision I already has the wording

I'm going to clean it up a little bit but yeah [laughter] this is why I didn't want to become a transactional attorney. Mhm. Anything else? Oh, nothing for me.

Okay, that I'll make a motion to recommend approval of PUB 2112 with TE number one striking in 9.1 the western side of and adding adjacent to single family residential platted lots. All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend approval of the item subject to the technical evaluation as read. It's been second by Commissioner Govin. Please cast your votes. [clears throat] And that item is recommended for approval. Thank you.

Item nine. This is case PUD 21113, application to reszone 1800 Northwest 115th Street from PUD 1767.

Good afternoon. David Vox, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Uh here on behalf of the applicant, Jared, do you have the aerial? Hopefully, it's an updated aerial. So, this is uh well, it's not updated. This is a duplex development that was zoned uh several years ago. It is fully developed now with every structure being uh complete. And uh my it's a rental community. My client that now owns it uh owns each of the units. And so from a kind of planning perspective and endofear, property tax perspective, there are I don't know the total number, call it, you know, 70 different lots. And so he's got 70 separate tax uh ID parcels when it's one owner. The only thing that we are attempted to do with this application and the next which is the partial plat vacation is to um remove the individually platted lots allow it to be a single tax parcel so that my client can have a simpler task managing one tax parcel. Nothing about the underlying uh development changes. Nothing about what is on the ground will change. It is that simple. The way that our code works now the only way to do that is to allow the multif family uh multifamily use unit. So, we're adding the multif family use unit, limited to the duplexes that are there, and then vacating the lot lines in the next application. There are no TE's. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I do have someone signed up to speak. Okay, let's go ahead here. Okay. Uh, Angelen Carr. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Um, I'm at I'm at 11421 Bair Place. I really didn't quite understand what um represent attorney box said from when what I was looking at. There's a small space of grass that was left. Uh last year we met with attorney box as well as the developer and I specifically asked about these duplexes or a multi-story unit being placed directly behind our property and was told no. There would be duplexes only. Looking at the plans, I can't tell if this is a townhouse going in this small grass area that's 15 20 ft. Can Can someone Can you tell me?

Yeah. No, nothing is being built. What's on the ground now with the duplexes are what will stay there. If there's if there's any grass area, it's probably a common area. Uhhuh. We won't be building anything pursuant to this. This is simply allowing what's there now as being a series of duplexes to be on one tax parcel. So you're not doing anything to it? No. Oh, okay. Then I don't have anything further to say. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any any other commissions have anything? We kind go ahead.

We kind of brought it up and talked about if we need a TE or if it's baked in where it keeps the common areas common and and that it keeps an HOA and turns it into a POA. So like that. Yeah. The PUT as drafted under 9.16 says maintenance of the common areas, private drainage easements, private drives and islands, etc., etc., shall be the responsibility of the property owner or property owners association. So that's under 9.16 in the pud. But like with her concern, if you it all becomes one lot, then a common area is not platted anymore. Um so that it can't be done because what's there with common area is a drainage way. Okay.

And as part of our approved permit to build that is designated as as drainage common area. Okay. Uh, seeing the further discussion, I move approval. All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend approval of PUD 2113. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

Thank you. And that item is recommended for approval. Item 10. Item 10 is case VP1. Application to vacate the final [music] plat of Chisom Point. Uh this is located north of West Hefner Road and east of North Pennsylvania Avenue. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. This is uh the companion item that would vacate the plat. There are two tees, both of which we agree to. Any further discussion including the two T's that they accept? I move approval.

All right. We have a motion to approve the vacation from Commissioner Harris subject to the technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Goine. Please cast your votes. That item is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is item 11. Item 11 is PUB 2114, application to reszone 10201 Southeast 74th Street from R1 AE1 and AE2.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street on behalf [snorts] of the applicant. Uh this is a a very unique parcel. It's uh got a large single family home and then a large out building uh that we desire to use as an event space. So, what we're seeking to do through this PUD is to allow for the large barn to be used as an event space and able to be rented out for public use. We also seek to have and we can we can have this discussion. We also seek to have the the short-term rental use uh as a permitted use uh to avoid going to see Mr. Noble at the board of adjustment use unit under chapter 59. As far as I can tell, there's no prohibition in doing it this way. So, we would ask for that use unit to be included as a byright use. Uh we do agree to TE number two. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks. Um, Commissioner Privet, this is your ward. I have two folks signed up to speak.

Yep. Okay. Um, my only concerns probably when I saw the size of the lot would be the spectator sports entertainment general um across the whole whole shebang. Um, I know we've got um some quiet hours, but uh really the the biggest parts of Spectra Sports Entertainment when uh it could, you know, possibly be right next to residential being how large this lot is. David, um, what are the what are the plans for that?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that? The spectator sports, uh, entertainment general. My understanding is that's what we need for the ability to have it as um, an event center. Okay. Can we restrict that somehow to keep from having some big sports complex put in in that giant lot? Um, I mean, we could restrict it to sites currently developed. So, if they wanted to expand, you know, past what's on the ground now, they'd have to seek to reszone it. Okay. I think I'm probably okay with that. Um, let's hear what, um, people have to say.

Okay. Uh, we'll start with Elizabeth Pearl. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Uh, Elizabeth Pearl, I now live at 9919 Southeast 74th Street. And my biggest concern is just the increased volume of traffic in the area because eventually Tinker is going to be shutting Douglas down between Southeast 44th and 74th. So that's going to divert all the traffic down Post and Southeast 74th Street. Yep. And that's my biggest concern. Okay, that's it. Thank you.

Um, Mrs. Perry.

Um, welcome.

I live I don't know if you can hear me. I live at 10100. So I'm right across the street that direction on this um well no here. So I'm one of those houses that's directly across the street from this monstrosity when we moved in in um 2016. They said they were building a house over there. And we watched them build and build and build and there's a house and all kinds of well there's all kinds of crap there. you can see. So, we were concerned enough about it and then our taxes, our property taxes keep skyrocketing every year because of this whatever 2 million was supposed to be originally a $2 million house and the whole project ended up costing something like 4 million. So now the family that was doing this has evidently decided to vacate the premises. So now the rest of us have to worry about well traffic. the other lady was talking about traffic concerns. Um, and right now, if you've ever been down in that area, everything is torn up. So, the traffic's bad already. Um, and I I'm sure that by the time they would get done with their changes, that probably in itself wouldn't be a problem. But 74th is a two-lane road with with pretty steep shoulders in some areas. And it's there's no street parking going to be available. So, if they don't have ample parking somewhere there for whatever this venue is, there's going to be problems. Um, and I am concerned about the taxes going up again because now we have a commercial enterprise right across the street from us. Um, from I'm I'm kind of was kind of concerned about his uh other use being one of the

things that they could use it for. Um, I don't like the the whole idea of other because it's awfully wide open. So, I guess I would have fewer questions if I had a little more information about what they really want to do. Um, if there's weddings, there's an awful lot of traffic. There was a wedding venue right up north on Post Road, right against the I I40 on the west side, I believe, of Post Road. And they've folded essentially. I don't think they even do anything there anymore because they had so little business. And so I don't know why we need another event venue that close. It doesn't seem to me like a good use of anything. So those are my concerns.

Okay. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Box. heard um concerns about traffic um and just be needing more uh specifics on intended uses.

I mean, so the intended use is a um an event center, whether that's a charity event, a wedding, corporate retreat, things like that. Um we think it's ideally suited for weddings because you have the ability through the home that's on site to have the wedding party there the day of, the night of. So, we think the way that it's constructed is frankly ideal for uh these types of of events. We were unaware that there was protest. To my knowledge, there was no formal uh letters that were submitted. So, apologize. We haven't had an opportunity to to visit with these folks, but we think that the way that the structures are um currently constructed on site that it would allow for these uses to be um there in a manner that is, I think, not harmful to folks that are around it. There have been a handful of uh other events there in the past and to my knowledge there's been no complaints um when those events occurred. I think there was perhaps like a folds of honor um event that took place there at some point in the past. Um they contracted with the local church. They um were able to valet cars as necessary and park a good amount of cars on site in and around the barn and up and down the the lengthy driveways. And of course, city ordinance prevents any parking on 74th Street,

right? And you've got what, 56 spaces? 56 spaces plus driveway. So, something like that. It's perhaps more. Um, what we didn't want to do is stripe out that whole area around the barn, but I think it's somewhere probably north of 56. Plus, anytime there's an event, they will valet it, knowing you obviously cannot park cards on 74th. and was to keep you from expanding that to make it even bigger to so we could put language that the um kind of like the sports spectator general thing too. I'd like to you know keep as is and something else but limited to uh facilities constructed as of the date of city council approval.

Why are you building something? We can do it today. I mean, do it as of today, but today feels like a random date and a PUD that has a different approval date, but that's fine. All right. I'd rather do PUD approval date, but I'm kind of concerned about the quiet hours. I mean, it's midnight to 7 a.m. Yeah, a little late.

Well, it's a little late and quite frankly a little early. I think I mean having I guess you could have a daylight wedding, but um I mean that's that's midnight on Wednesday. What if we did um Monday through Thursday 11 to 8, Friday or maybe it's Sunday through Thursday. Friday and Saturday midnight to 8. Better about 10:30. How about what time? About 10:30. Oh, we couldn't do 10:30. That'd be better.

Nobody worth going to is done at 10:30. Monday or Sunday through Thursday 11 to 8 or 11 to 10:30 and then Friday, Saturday 12:00 to 10:30. You're saying 10:30 in the morning? Goodness gracious. Who sleeps that late? Oh, you mean at night? Okay. Sunday through Thursday 11 to 8. Friday and Saturday midnight to 8. Got it. Okay. Do we want to talk about the Airbnb issue? Yeah, we want to talk about that.

Yeah, we're probably going to talk about that, too. Mr. Noble wants us to just see it again. He can't get enough. Not because I want short-term rental. I think a use by right for eternity is probably too much for too big of an ask. I know it is a use unit and I was very surprised to see it as a use unit, but um I have experience in the short-term lease. You may be the foremost expert and uh so that's fine. We can agree about that.

Although my understanding is Mr. Zitzel did slip one into a PUD uh at some point and Sarah's very happy about it. So, we'll agree to both tees and then add the modification to the um quiet hours and add the modification of the limitation of the use unit to the site as developed as of the approval date of the PUD.

All right, sounds like we're ready for a motion. Okay. Yeah. Um, I'll make the motion to approve PUD 2114 with the uh talked about TE with the specified TE's in the U staff report. Um, number two, except number one where we're going to uh modify that. No, we we we agree to both of them. Okay.

Yeah. and then add a TE3 that modifies quiet hours Sunday through Thursday 11 to 8, Friday and Saturday midnight to 8. TE4 a limitation on the spectator sports and entertainment general use unit to be limited to the site as developed on the date of the approved PUD. Right. Okay. I agree. All right. So, we have a motion from commissioner private subject to technical evaluations. recommend approval. It's been seconded by Commissioner Leforge. Please cast your votes.

Thank you. Thank you. That moves forward to city council with recommendation of approval. Item 12. Item 12 is case PUD 2115, application to reszone 13200 North Midwest Boulevard from RA Yes. Yes. Yes.

Good afternoon, Mark Zitz, Johnson and Associates, 20 Sheridan Avenue. Uh before you is a PUD of a project that uh you reviewed and approved as a preliminary and final plat a little over a year ago known as Coventry Park. The project has been fully built out with all of its infrastructure and the plat has been recorded. our property uh owner acquired it zoned RA and when we came through Mr. work who's here and will likely address you. Uh the neighbors had concerns and through that platting process, we agreed to a series of notes and commitments that were made and put on the face of the plat through the uh sale of lots. And Grant Van Hus is here and he's happy to answer any specific questions about it, but some of the uh the homes that are proposed are a little wider than can be accommodated on a number of the lots. And so what we've requested in this PUD is to allow for the sideyard setbacks to go to 20 ft from what the code would require of 25. Uh we received a number of protest letters and working with uh Mr. Kelly work, we have revised the PUD to then reiterate all of the commitments that we had made at the plat stage and baked those into the PUD. So it's my understanding that all of those prior commitments have either been constructed and adhered to but now also memorialized in the PUD. Uh we would ask for your approval. Staff has recommended approval and has no TE's. All right. Um this is ward seven. I do have um a couple folks signed up to speak. So ready to hear from Mr. Work.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and uh commissioners. My name is Kelly Work and I am here representing first of all my address is 105 North Hudson sweet 304. I'm here representing the Rock Springs Property Owners Association which is comprised of the residents uh in the area that is adjacent to the south of the subject property. And as Mr. Zidzou stated there had been um commitments made when the Coventry Park plat came through the process and those actually even went back further when this property was reszoned uh to AA I mean to RA which it is currently which is back in 2020. So then I think the plat came through in 2023. So, um, we just were needing to make sure I think the you you all received a number of letters of protest from the residents within the Rock Springs neighborhood to the south. We just needed to make sure that the this PUB reflected the terms of the agreement that had been made both when the RA zoning was approved and when the final plat was approved. So, with the revisions that are reflected in the master design statement that was submitted last Thursday on November 6th, uh we're satisfied. Uh so those changes we believe do reflect the agreement that was made and uh and with those changes, we're we're uh happy with the result. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions for Mr. Work? I just have a question then just for staff. Is the master design statement that we have today what was submitted? Yeah. Yes. The one that's in your packet is the most recent MDS. Okay. All right. Uh we'll hear from Mr. Steve Mitchell. You're good. Okay. Awesome. That's everyone I have signed up to speak. Uh, is there any additional questions from commissioners? Commissioner

Novo. I'll just I'll just say yeah, just say this that the five foot taking 5 foot off of the set back and keeping it consistent throughout the neighborhood is I I don't have any problem with that. Yeah. All this is really doing is allowing for a little bit bigger house to be built on the exact the lot size is not changing. It's just how much of the lot they can use. So instead of 50 foot between houses, you now have 40 foot between houses. Okay. Okay. I think we're ready for a motion. All right. I move for approval.

All right. We have a motion to recommend approval to city council from Commissioner Harrison. That's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. And that is recommended for approval. Thank you. Thank you. [snorts] Item 13. This is PUD 2116 application to reszone 7900 North Oklahoma Avenue from PUD 1965.

Mark sits one Sheridan Avenue. Uh this is also a PUD that you've seen in the past. This is an area south of the development known as the half. Uh we are reszoning this to add in a use unit uh which is the outdoor recreation participant recreation use. This is what ultimately allows uses like chicken and pickle and mammoth that had been previously approved. It's those restaurants that have uh outdoor entertainment activities, mini golf, whipple ball, pickle ball, all of those things. So, uh we are asking to add that use unit. Uh in addition, through conversations with staff and for transparency, uh we have removed the specific plan requirement. Jared, if you can go to the aerial. Uh yeah. Uh the plat has been recorded. The streets are in. You've approved Mammoth. You've approved a a prior office building and a lot of the remaining development are the out parcels. And so in conversations with staff, you've seen the the theme, the architectural theme of the development as well as uh the road and lot layout. So with that, we'd ask for uh your recommendation of approval today.

Um Commissioner Harrison, this is W 7. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Any conversation from commissioner? Well, I just as we we start to see some some different uses um becoming more popular. I just wanted to ask staff that in preparation of the new code. Are we is there anything being considered uh including that might you know fit more along the lines of some of this you know outdoor recreation where that's the primary use but then you've also got kind of a secondary bar restaurant.

Uh so yes we have a new we have a draft set of new use standards uh new descriptions new conditions and standards. So, I'll check and see what it says about this particular use, but but yes, um and any future ones that you over the next couple months that that the planning commission wants us to scrutinize, please let us know. Okay, that's all I had. Thank you. Uh seeing nothing else, I move app for PUD 2116.

So, with respect to the ones I'd like to see staff scrutinized, I would say all of them. These these are going to be so specific um as to the uses and you know they they it's so hard to anticipate what they might look like especially if we're trying to be flexible enough for it to grow a bit. Um but it's definitely a trend. We know it's there and it it can't become sort of a blank check for any kind of outdoor use located much closer to residential than this is. I'm not concerned about this particular one, but I I'm very uneasy about the sort of open-endedness of it.

Yeah. I mean, I I think, you know, we see we see outdoor recreation, courts, mini golf, things like that. Um, and we also have outdoor, you know, music venues. And I almost we need to I would like to see those separated so that you can have the courts and the recreation that and not and then the outdoor performance or or music is a separate separate one. So I live um what nine blocks south of of um Mcinness High School and uh on Sunday night or Saturday night as I was going out just the wind I guess very unusually as I was standing going out to my car I could hear them announcing the game whatever it was that was going on there and it surprised me. Um, but I think music, yes, definitely, but almost any kind of use that requires amplified sound,

um, you know, is going to be problematic for people who live in the proximity. So, I think I think as they're coming through, we just need to keep an eye on them each one. So, and it's a good point about wind because that affects sound and any any case that comes through here where noise is a concern regardless of the recreation or music and you know sound it's not always just the pure the pure studies the acoustic studies are not based on the the wind factor

and it's not annoying you know once every you know couple of months to hear something like that for a few minutes but you wouldn't want it to be a constant thing. So, yeah, I think I can hear Tinker almost a mile away. Oh, I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Make noise with their bugles.

Okay, I think we're ready for the motion or a motion was made by Commissioner Harrison to recommend approval and it's been second by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. Are we waiting on our system? It passed. Okay, I'll take your word for it. Yeah, I guess we we need we need to see it or we can take a voice vote.

Let's just do a quick voice vote. Did I? I I don't even think I I I I I I All right. This is unanimous.

Do it again. There we go.

Item 14. Item 14 is case PUD 2117 application to reszone 10500 West Heapner Road from AA. Good afternoon, Dean Kolita, Civil and Environmental Consultants representing the owner, 4700 Galardia Parkway. And on this PUD application, we're looking to reszone to single family use. There'll be a mix of 6,000 foot and also halfacre lots on this. uh does meet the comp plan and we do agree to all the tees and you know in the surrounding area with a proximity to two miles to the elementary school a mile from the highway you know there's uh existing residential being constructed on the west side and then there's fully developed single family uh to the southeast and then there's an ex approved uh preliminary plat directly to the south of us that we'd be connecting to. So, with this growth in here, you know, with in the Yukon area, it does fit the comp plan. I uh we recommend approval. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Um I do have a couple people signed up to speak, so we'll get to them here in a moment. Um are you in agreement with the technical evaluations? Is that what I'm saying? Are you in agreement with the technical evaluations? Yes, we agree the technical. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Well, let's hear from uh Tony Pratt Reed. Good afternoon.

Hi, good afternoon. Um, I'm Tony Pratt and I just live uh which would be right on the west side of this proposed area and I want to um I want to oppose this because I feel that if anyone has driven out there on Hefner Road, it is significantly um in deterioration. It is it is an agricultural area out there. It is it is one lane each way um with a fair amount of um dips in it and putting another 250 homes out there, 500 cars a day into that area would be a significant traffic issue as well as the fact that um the side roads on this going north and south are in significant um need of repair as well. When we look at this, the way it is designed right now, there's one entrance in and one entrance out. And when you look at that for emergency issues as far as um MSA or um fire safety, that's a significant problem as well. So, I really want to think about that as well as with that school that is significantly um overgrown in the area right now. I'm not sure that it can handle it. We've had a lot of growth in that area and it's certainly something that we want to see grow. But around that are one and two acre plots as well as the ones that are on the west which are 5 to 20 acre plots. And so I think that congesting this area that we haven't built up with water or sewer or any of the other utilities that we have to really consider that to be um a concern and a hazard to the area that we're out there in. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Uh, Linda Stari. I'm Linda Star. My comments you don't need because Tony was our spokesman. Okay. I will speak to number 15. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Uh, Mr. Cleita, we heard um from Miss Pratt Reed about road conditions, emergency access.

Yeah. So, if you can pull up the site plan, the there's an existing which north is left on the the venue here. So, there's an existing on the east side, which is the bottom of the page. There's an existing subdivision being constructed that we are connecting to. So, we will have connectivity to Sarah Road as [clears throat] well as Hefner. And then in the future we will have a connection um likely to the south there as well when that uh planned unit development and that plumary plat is being constructed. So we'll have connectivity all the way to to Britain road as well in the future. So there would be three actual uh connection points to arterial streets. Um the the street conditions, you know, I think that's likely part of the you know the the future plan in there. I know that uh planning commissioner or or the city council member had has that on his radar for future bond issues, but I don't know if anything is is is there right now. Um but we do have emergency services access for this and you know the growth out there is I think it's just it's part of the comp plan. I think it's going to continue to go um in the future there.

Yeah. Uh it's it's a a popular area. Um, and I know Miss Pratt Reed and and Miss Star, they I'm sure they don't watch planning commission every meeting. Um, but you know, it's something that we hear is, you know, the roads can't take the development. And unfortunately, the mechanism that we have in Oklahoma City doesn't allow us to go in and improve all the roads before the development can go in. It's it's a little bit it's opposite of that. the rooftops bring the impact fees and and the tax base that get and and more of a demand constituent demand to get the roads improved. So, um it's not ideal, but it's it's what we have to work with right now as far as the order of things. Um and then and and we see it almost every planning commission. So

it it is definitely a timing issue and and it is always good to remember that you know this kind of approval I'm sorry this kind of approval on a a zoning case is really at the very front end of this the she's absolutely right the roads out there are a mess. Um, and you know, I I can well understand someone would be concerned that this area would not be able to handle this kind of development, but the development will be slow. It'll come over time. Yeah. Hopefully that I was going to ask that if you had any idea or could give any indication of what what we see on the screen, the number of lots over what time frame you would expect that to to occur.

And and this will be phased the east, sorry, the west side will be the first phase development of it. So, you know, going towards the w the east side will be uh in the future. So, the west will be the first um you can see where the roundabout is. That's where the clubhouse is going to go and that'll be done in the first phase. So, by the time it gets to the east to impact them, it'll be, you know, I would say, you know, part of of demand absorption in the area. You know, this is at least a two or three year for the first phase and probably another two for the for the second phase. So you're you're talking four four to five years when it's fully built out based on absorption of course and market conditions. Mr. Chair, I had a couple of questions. Sure.

Um I wanted to to first ask on the facade regulations if you would be willing to pull out the fiber cement siding and the wood from the 70% and move that to the 30%. this client is um they use these timber style homes and you know kind of the the more of a rustic type look and a lot of their their product and their facade is that Hardy board. Um so I'm not sure they'll be able to remove that from there because that's kind of their look that they go for. A little bit more of a modern modern modern chic type look. Uh so it'd be hard for us to remove that portion because it's just so part of their kind of their style of home. It's most definitely not a traditional it's more of a you know modern pseudo modern type home.

Okay. And then another question on the the screening and the fencing that's going around this property. What what's the plan there? You know, to meet city code on the screening side of things. I'd like to see it changed um to a cedar fence capped. And that's mainly for me. It's just because there's so many large parcels surrounding it that I think it's be favorable to those people to have a fence that stood the stood up to time rather than just the typical Sure. A little bit more that could be a composite or a plastic type product for more longevity. Is that what you're looking for there?

Yeah. Or or cedar. So yeah, you know, we we can write something in in regards to the this type of fencing required. uh either cedar or some type of you know because they do have the cement fencing or the kind of the composite type of fencing that lasts longer. We can we can add some language in there if you'd like to propose.

Yeah, I I like that too and I appreciate you bringing that up. Um, one of the questions I had because we obviously know the impact fee systems not working out in this area in this road is this is a lot of lots going R1 like this and I can't tell on this site plan as small it is as it is. Do we have any kind of uh in del acceleration deceleration lanes that we could pull back in so that it wouldn't just be a hard stop there all the time. part of the subdivision ordinance requires that and we would we would be dedicating an additional 17 feet of right away and then also have the XLD cells. Yes, sir. Okay. Just wanted to make sure cuz I

we'll meet the sub regulations. Thank you.

Okay. Anything else? Okay. I think we're ready for a motion. I will make that motion. And I want to make sure on the to add a TE for the fence to call out it to be a cedar 6ft tall cedar cap fence or masonry. That's that should be fine.

Uh clarification six up to eight or Yeah, six to eight. Okay. To be cedar or similar product for longevity or something like that. Yeah, similar. You want to include composite? So, cedar or composite or masonry. I like you saying cedar or composite wood or masonry. Okay. Composite wood has a wood look. Has a look. Mhm.

Yes, we can agree that to anything else. With that, I will make a motion to recommend approval of PUB 2117 with the two TEES as stated in the staff report and TE number three to the site add to the site proof screening that will fence type will be capped cedar 6 to 8 foot tall composite wood or masonry and and just for clarity where would that be? Yeah, the surrounding

the entire property boundary. Okay. All right. I have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to city council. Um, and that's been second by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval. Thank you.

Item 15. Item 15 is KC7771 preliminary plat of double of triple S ranch. Uh and this is located south of West Hefner Road and east of North Sarah Road. Dean Kita, Civil and Environmental Consultants, 4700 Gardia Parkway, representing the applicant. Uh this is obviously a companion to the PUD. Um the pulary plaid is shown, you know, 6,000 foot minimum lots as well as um there's some halfacre lots in there as well. Um, and you know, we have connectivity, and you can see the subdivision there on the left, PUD's 1972 that we're connecting to. So, we'll have connectivity to Hefner, Sarah, and the PUD 1920 to the south. That's where we'll have connectivity to uh that goes all the way down to Wilshire and we accept all the TE's. Okay. Um, and Miss Star signed up again. Would you like to speak?

Okay. My name is Linda Star. My address is 10401 West Hefner Road. I'm directly across the street from the entrance to the proposed plat. And as y'all already know, the plan calls for building 255 single family homes with five common areas with only one entrance in and out of that subdivision. We're talking about 68 or excuse me about 69 a little over 69 acres. So these are very very like postage stamp lots. My biggest concern is the traffic. For example, if each homeowner has two cars, that's 510 cars people leaving for work and school every morning and then returning in the afternoon and the evening. Not to mention delivery services like Amazon, UPS, the US Postal Service, lawn care specialists pulling trailers, school buses, and the list just goes on. There's currently a new subdivision being built south of Hefner on Sir Road and it's my understanding that it's 87 homes on 15 acres and that's in the process right now because they're doing roads and utilities. We drove by the other day. Traffic is already very heavy on Hefner Road from the Surrey Hills area. So in the mornings you have to pick and choose because you're going to have a

backup as much as a half mile to maybe threequarters of a mile trying to get over to Northwest Expressway or turning to get on the Kilpatrick. So most of the traffic from these two subdivisions plus Suri Hills will be heading and they'll all be heading to the Kilpatrick either by way of Hefner or around going through uh with Sarah. [clears throat] And then I also want to call your attention to the fact that Hefner Road is also a designated bike lane road which allows them to utilize the full road. We see that as a problem in the summertime now already backing up cars because they literally have the right to go down the whole lane side by side. Two bicycles which on either side of the entrance into this subdivision are some hills which is going to skew the visibility. And our property where we live is is kind of unique as we are the only home directly across the street from this proposed pub. So my concern is the traffic noise factor and lights at night. Our home has two front bedrooms facing Hefner Road. So, I would like to suggest that the plan be amended for them to put a barrier on our side of the road in front of our home to buffer the noise and to eliminate the car light shining in our bedroom windows at night. And then number three, safety issues. Our mailbox is currently, you know,

we're really considered rural is right there on Hefner Road. We literally have to at the end of our drive walk onto Hefner Road to get into our mailbox. You know, we could access the mailbox through our bar ditch, but that's not very feasible. Um, right now we have to pick the time of day that we actually go out and get our mail just so we don't get hit by a a car or a truck because the speed limit is 40, but they do not do 40. And I've checked several times with the postal service as this has been a problem for quite some time. Plus people hitting our mailbox to see if they could allow us to move the mailbox slightly onto our driveway, which we have a a drive into. And you can see on the plat we have a driveway into our home that's several feet. Uh it'll accommodate at least two vehicles in a row. Their go their guidelines do not allow for their delivery drivers to back out onto a road. The postal service suggested that we pick up our mail at the post office, which that's like a 10 miles to get to Yukon proper where the post office is. So those options are just not acceptable. So I would like to add and suggest that your proposal extend the width of our driveway. Like I said, we are a unique property to this this pud where it would be like a half circle where they could the mail person could come off of Hefner Road and do this little half circle, deliver our mail, and still be going forward and get back onto Hefner Road. that possibly could make us a little safer in just trying to get in and out

of our property because it's directly across the street. Our driveway is going to be right there for this one way in and out of this subdivision. I'm not sure we're going to be able to get in and out of our driveway. So, those are my concerns and u I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Star. I certainly I I can appreciate the the situation that you're in. And I think I I mean, one thing I want to say is is we can't ask a uh an applicant to do improvements off of their property. This is over across the road. It's not on their property. I'm sure Mr. included would certainly visit with you and and there's a possibility um that maybe you can work something out with the developer privately, but that would be be beyond the purview of this um commission. Um what else did I hear? Oh, I wanted to also mention that we did we did look it up while you guys were speaking and Lake uh or excuse me, Hefner Road is scheduled to get an overlay um improvements here in the in the near future. And I know Councilman Carter has been in working on that to get that into the bond. So I believe that is a confirmed uh improvement. So

yeah. So, okay. Anything else from commissioners or with respect to um uh the plat itself, I have some concerns about the fact that all the common area seems to be on the north side of the property. If there doesn't seem to be any recreational space uh or common area provided uh on the south portion of the property, it would be quite a long walk, I think, uh to get from, you know, the southern edge up to where there would be recreational uses.

Yeah, one of the tees was added that stated that we needed to have common area within 1320 ft of every lot. So to meet that we have uh agreed to add a common area lot on the south in the middle that would cover that. Uh there's some drainage going through there. There's going to have to be a drainage easement but but usable uh open space is what we agreed to. So there will be some common area on the south as well. And then on the north uh east corner there there's common area is going to be a pond and then the main clubhouse is common area C and D um as well. And then C uh common area B is the is the detention pond. So there's there's a centralized, you know, community type center area and then we'll have some pocket areas and the it'll be basically a pocket park on these other common areas that he's got. But yes, on the south side there will be a common area um that we agreed to

and you'll be able to show us that with the final plan. Yes. Yes, ma'am.

Were all of the properties served by private sewer? I mean public public sewer, sorry. there. So, the all the lots that are the 6,000 square feet will be by public sewer. The lots on the north side that are halfacre, they will be on septic, but they'll have city water. So, the vast majority will be um will be public water and sewer. I meant to bring that up in the PUD because it was written in the last one that was taken out of this one. What was the uh comment?

It it was written in the last PUD. believe that the that the lots were that were not 6,000 square ft were private sewer in this one today. I I didn't see it. So that's why I was bringing that up.

Yeah, I mean we we received all the comments from city staff and basically agreed to all their comments. So it may have been taken out during then. Um but the sewer cannot serve those northern lots. So those are the ones that are they're on septic and it's you know it's it's basically maybe 14 lots total that would be on the septic but they're halfacre so a little bit more buffered than so a little bit larger lots but they all they are on one well a halfacre lot for uh aerobic or septic for me personally is not large enough. So these lots the way they're configured are actually over the half acre if that matters. Uh no it matters. Are they 3/4 acre?

They're I believe they're they're a little over half. Um but you know the way that configuration is you know the the internal lot lines you know can be adjusted as needed um to accommodate something if that uh that makes sense. Just DEQ requirements if there's public water will be you know half open to meet the septic requirements. But due to the the I mean it's you know uh what 15 lots looks like. It appears that and and and also common area a just just as full disclosure that is an existing water pond that will likely have to become bigger to meet the detention. So we may end up losing a lot as well. So 14 to 15 lots on septic is it would be the maximum there on that north side. I'd like to put a minimum lot size.

Yeah. I mean we have a pretty strong precedent establish one acre plus on septic. So um with certain exceptions that mitigated that to go less and maybe you know there's a limited number we're talking about here but I think it's right to address it in a TE and when you say that the lots of the north cannot cannot be served by sewer what's the issue elevation there's just not the elevation to get there

yeah we're tying into so the PUD 1972 there's a sewer line existing public sewer that they're constructing now. Well, it's being constructed now. Um, so we're tying to that sewer line and due to the elevation and the topography of the land, you can only serve so many lots. So, you basically uh run out of cover on your sewer line. So, we decided just to, you know, make it more of a rule half acre minimum to the north per the current layout. So what what is the it's served with public water, so it can be less than if it wasn't served with public water, but again I just um I mean I I'd love an acre.

Is it is it 3/4 acre men or a 1acre man? I think that's what we're talking about. Yeah. 3/4 DEQ, right? Yeah. And that's a minimum that we've been you know educated. It's not really sufficient when you have a concentration of them. Um maybe if it was a oneoff in rural areas, but agreed. So where at what point do we say we have too high of a concentration? You know, this is right. Is it 15? I'm after about 10 lots or so is when I start turn. So we've had this conversation just two or four weeks ago of

and and this is mostly all the stuff on the on the east is draining to a pond. M with the Are you basically recommending 3/4 acre? Is that kind of what you're shooting for? That's what we're discussing. I'm recommending one acre, but I I think there's some other other factors that may maybe 3/4 is okay in this case with the with the city water, but I'm it's a Yeah, because the city water, I don't I don't mind the the 3/4 acre. Yeah. My bigger question is did we just approve the PUB that didn't have anything about aerobic in it? Well, it can't. I mean or septic, right? But now that we're

we're at the plat. So if we we make the change the plat we make the change to the sizes of those lots, they're platted 3/4. We're fine. Um but I just in the putt it said that in the putt it says that everything will be served by private everything served by public sewer. That's what I I saw those words and I thought okay it's it's public sewer. I didn't realize there was a So the minute we got that answer, the putt's no good now. If he's trying, he's going to have to come back if we allow aerobic. Period. No matter what the lot size is, the pud's no good now. Is there something we're missing there? Well, that language must have I mean staff had some changes. I didn't realize that they'd stripped anything about the

I believe we did have it in the in this in this wastewater section. I believe there is um statements about and the existing warrant is within me commissioner Noble we do have the opportunity to reconsider the previous item. Okay. Let's yeah let's do that. Okay. So thanks that would that would help. That would help. We would need a motion to reconsider it.

I will do it right now in the middle of this. Right. All right. So, we can table this motion to table this item and reconsider previous item. Okay. I will have put forth a motion to table PUD 2117. Right. Table the plat the plary plat C7771. A motion to reconsider and then a motion to reconsider SPUD or PUD 2117.

All right. So, we have a motion to reconsider PUD 2117. We need our motion to table first. No, we don't. The t the table is not it's just tabled. It's just tabled. We we only need the motion to reconsider. So motion to reconsider PUB 2117. I need a second.

I think I think we've thrown a curve at our system. Um so I'll just need a I'll do a second verbal second from Commissioner Meek. Um all in favor? I I I opposed. No. Okay. All right. So now we'll reconsider PUD 2117 specifically the uh the comment that the developer will be required to extend the city wastewater collection system to and across each lot or within the subdivision in accordance with standards. Obviously that's not good anymore

cuz it's not each lot. It's it well if if by that wording or I mean that wording is each lot but that's not what this re right could could we just add a TE stating that for lots larger than 6,000 square ft that have a minimum or not served by public sewer that are not served by public sewer would have a minimum of 3/4 an acre in size. We can agree. I haven't yet. Help us.

While she's doing that, I haven't heard the compelling reason for less than an acre yet, especially when you point it out. It drains to a pond. An acre seemed appropriate to me, unless there's extenduating reason. The one caveat is that it had public water. So, that the EQ does allow a smaller lot if it has public water. And that I think that was the comment. But I mean I I was a oneacre guy. I think the with the rate of road the only reason I'm anywhere close to an acre is because of the water availability. Without that I wouldn't even consider at all. But even we'd want to be larger than an acre if we could be. But right. So

yeah wouldn't we normally be starting at 2 and 12 acres and getting ourselves down to an acre and suddenly we started bargaining at 3/4 of an acre. Right. Well, that I agree. I thank you for I could go for two and a half acres. And the only or maybe an acre if we if we keep with what the direction we've been going, the only time we considered 3/4 of an acre is when we put the spray field easement in the back. Do you remember

for future if there ever was for the depth of these lots there's there's going to be plenty of area to do aerobic if need be. So we can we can put something there in regards to aerobic systems if we need to. And you know DEQ is you know you can have three quarter acres if if you have water or if you basically don't have public water. So we have water. So we're you know threequarters acre. We can definitely meet that and and put in there some aerobic. Right. But you understand our concern because after it's put in nobody controls that you I'm going to build a pool or I'm going to build a ADU and next thing you know you don't have any room left. That's why if we do go that small we like to put an easement where nothing can be built there. Gotcha. Yeah. And the 3/4 acre that would cover the additional, you know, quarter acre for any if additional improvements were made.

Well, and and you know, HOA maintenance of the uh septic system is also a topic that we've we've been discussing and in this particular development with a mix of city sewer and and septic, it seems like that's a stronger case even to have HOA required maintenance of the septic systems. if if we're even particularly considering a smaller lot size because that that's the the part of the concerns is people just don't maintain them and and then you get the fluence and and issues. So, I don't know.

I'm I'm okay with, you know, max with this this number of 15 and and if we were to require an easement and HOA maintenance at the I think I can get my head around 3/4 even though I think one acre would be better, but we haven't asked yet with the applicant. Would you agree to one acre lots before the 15 due to the shape and you know the depth of those lots? you know, we could most definitely agree with three um you know, acre I think would just cut those lots in half basically. So,

but with the with the shape and how deep they are, you know, the septic concerns I think would be met. Obviously, their improvements going to likely be on the front of the lot with it being 3/4 acres, DQ minimums a half, it gives you that half a that 3/4 acres of of if they built additional pools and like you were talking about it still cover that um septic field that they would need if it's traditional aerobic and we can put in speculation for aerobic systems only. That's that's totally fine. And these are going to be likely custom homes there, you know, so each owner will have their own. Um, you know, if there's a stipulation for HOA to maintain that, I mean, that's great for the homeowner. You know, that and with the HOA this many homes, you know, it's it's not much of a cost. So, if that's if that'll get us over the hump, I think we can we can deal with that. Yeah.

If need be. I don't know. It seems like requiring the HOA to maintain the the few people's septic systems that have septic systems a recipe for lots conflict in the HOA to me. You mean all the other people don't want to offset the cost of their dues of of few septics? I I wouldn't be happy about it if it were me. Um but I I also think that we need to um hold the line on the size of the laws. I'm halfacre. I my faith in DEEQ's ability to regulate this issue is none non-existent. So

yep. Well then if if And it's it's 33,000 ft to 44,000 ft basically is the difference. And it makes a difference. Yeah. Well, if the HOA um you know maintenance of septic is not desirable in this case, then then oneacre lots would be more desirable and that would deal with that concern. Absolutely. or I hate the word down here in this HOA thing, but um I think if we just require the HOA to do it within the HOA's own documents, they can specify that those lots incur the cost of it. While it would be the responsibility for the whole HOA, they [music] can within their own documents separated out.

Yeah, the cost of maintaining the septic will just be on those lots, I think. Yeah, that could be. We say stick it on the HOA, they can figure it out. Or don't stick it on the HOA and have bigger lots. Mhm. That could be done with CCRs or deep restrictions on the lots. Yeah. I've seen all kinds of crazy stuff. And we I mean, we could add a note to the plat too that certain lots are required just, you know, this many minimum with septic in the HOA. Just like we have common areas, the HOA is required to maintain all common areas. Then we could add a note to the plat. I know this is the PD of this one, but for the plat, we could add it there as well. Um, I think that'd be reasonable. Sarah, did you want to add something while I whip up how many

No, no. Sarah, well, planning department. I was just going to read to you what what the applicant had first proposed that staff deleted. Is that helpful at all? So, for me to read what you had originally proposed. Originally, the PD said um sanitary sewer services will be provided for lots smaller than 1/ half acre from public mains located within dedicated utility easements. Lots one half acre or larger will be served from private on-site sewage treatment systems on each lot. So if that language is almost there then and you're going to tweak the lot size um and maybe not instead of say um shall be you know could be then I just wanted to give you a starting point.

Yeah I apologize I didn't catch that we' taken that out. we originally had it. So, it's my bad. Again, I I had a note in my previous one and I didn't put that in there or I didn't ask. So, so sorry about about that, too. Again, I just want to know where we are. One or three for me. And my question would be how many of those lots? How many I mean, well, if it's 15 at Well, yeah, it's 15 and a half acres. So, now we're talking seven at an acre. To me, it's easiest just to say any lots not served by public sewer shall be, you know, one acre or and not even bring up the sewer. Agreed. Yeah. Y

I mean, if we can agree on that, we can propose that if you if you are willing to uh want someone to make I think that's going to work if you did. Just don't um don't talk about the septic being maintained by H. That's what you guys want. But with the acre I think it probably meet what your requirements are, right? Yep. And I think Yeah, I think we can agree to that. I think the one acre is better than the HOA maintenance anyways. Yeah. Okay. Legal legal advising against the HOA requirement anyways. Yeah. No worries. No worries. All right. We're going to take another run at this. I got to go. Let's do it.

Okay. I will make a motion. Yes. Make a motion to recommend approval of PUD 2117 with TE 1 and two as written in the staff report. TE3 as previously stated for the site proof screening and TE4 being all lots not served by public sewer to be one acre minimum. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Noble subject to the four technical evaluations to recommend approval of the item of city council.

All right, we can we can do this. Yeah. So, I'll need a a verbal second. Seconded by Commissioner Powers. And then uh vote Commissioner Powers. I I I I I I I All right. It's unanimous recommended city council. Thank you for working through that.

And then we will go back to item 15. Dean Kolina, Civil and Environmental Consultants, 4700 Gardia Parkway, representing the applicant. Uh, companion item to the previous PUD, the preliminary plat as we as we discussed and u, you know, if you have any questions, be happy to answer them. Okay.

Anyone sign up to speak? Well, we have already heard from him. So, with with the last item, do we need to address that here as well or just is it is it implicit that the the plat has to be revised to preliminary anyway, right?

Recreational space on the south. So, yeah. Yes, we will submit for review for the city on that.

Sarah, are you good? Yep.

Ready for a motion? I'll make a motion to approve C7771 with the six TEES. A motion to approve the preliminary plat C771 subject to the technical evaluations.

And we'll need a second verbally. Second. All right. And then verbal voice vote. I I I I I I I Let the record uh reflect that Commissioner Privet is absent for the remainder of the meeting. Thank you very much.

Item 16, this is case PUB 20 2118, application to reszone 7300 South Sunny Lane Road from I2.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant, uh, Mr. Dick Tannibal who is here with us today. Uh this is an application that would allow both commercial development at the hard corner and then a multifamily development east of that. This would be I believe at least the third project that Mr. Tannibal has done in this area. Uh the most I guess the closest to this site is directly north and east. You may recall that some of you were on the commission at that time. Uh this is an area of the city that's obviously fueled by uh significant aerospace and tinker uh folks that live in these. So this is the the latest example of wonderful development that Mr. Chan Bomb has brought before you. It is recommended for approval with no tees. Happy to answer any questions.

Um this is Ward 4. So Commissioner uh Privet has had to leave. Uh anyone like to lead our discussion on this item? I don't have anyone signed up to speak. Uh just a question, David. What's the screening on this? Uh what you'll see along the frontage of uh I guess what would be the the east west street would be decorative iron and uh masonry as well as landscaping all the way around it and then the commercial property. I'm sorry. All the way around the R4. Yes, sir. Keeping that intact. And then the probably the the hard corner probably doesn't have anything.

Yeah. You wouldn't screen the commercial corner, of course, but um the multif family. Yes. Anything else from anyone? I don't have any questions. I think it's a great spot for multif family. Yeah, I I was curious about the the grand lawn, but not not as a concern. I just um think it's an interesting concept for uh project like this.

Yeah. So these are non I guess they would be different types of tenants right these are folks that um oftentimes are here for you know contract periods of time one two three four five years like that so these are not like perhaps traditional multif family tenants these are people that are in Oklahoma City for a short period of time oftent times directly related to either Tinker or some of the aerospace stuff going on so if you go back to the aerial jar if you look I just say this is close to that same concept that he did to the north right yeah so if you look at to the north it's it's it's Uh it's a concept that's kind of different from a traditional multif family, but it's been very successful and uh drawn a lot of interest.

Yeah. No, I'm I'm good with it. I not trying to be the bad guy, but on previous applications like this with multifamily, especially that abudded the railroad tracks, we did upgrade that screening to be a masonry or CMU wall on a continuous poured footing for security purposes. also

I don't believe that was required northeast which again was the same developer which actually abuts the railway on uh perhaps at least two if not three sides if you if you're familiar with the products that he has developed out there both this Liberty Point to the east uh they're all very well done the fencing the landscaping all of which is is immaculate so we're not concerned it will be fenced just in a manner that we believe to be consistent with the product

kind of okay. Yeah. And I would assume if there was a problem with those railroads and the noise or anything else then he would probably pick that up here. They wouldn't be full and he wouldn't be building another another set. All right. Ready for a motion? Good. I will make a motion to recommend approval of PUB 2118. We have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to city council. U I'll need a verbal second.

Second by Commissioner Harrison and then we'll voice vote. Commissioner Powers. I I I I I I I I. Thank you. unanimously unanimously recommended for approval. [clears throat] Item 17. Item 17 is case SP 603, application for a special permit to operate use unit 8300.33 drinking establishments. Um, and this is located at 2120 Northwest 23rd Street. How y'all doing today? Hi. Doing well. Good.

Welcome. What can you tell us about your project? What we want to do is make it like a a pregame kind of a bar with all the restaurants around so you can come in and watch the games and things like that. Okay. Um, Commissioner Goine, this is Ward Six. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. Are you Mr. Shaw? Yes. Okay. Normally, we you state your name and address at the podium just for the record. Okay. My name is Ricky Shaw. The address is 2120 Northwest 23rd, Oklahoma City 73107. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah, it's special permit for um to serve uh serve alcohol uh drinking established sitdown alcohol permitted C4 commercial districts right at Classen and um or sorry, Penn and 23rd. Um look, I'm I'm in support. But I'm glad you're going to take that building on and and and operate a business there because it's been sitting empty attracting uh vagrants and and socials for a while. So I I wish you luck in your business um

plan and and uh look forward to seeing you get open. That's my support. But is there any other questions from others? Okay. Well, I do have one question for you though out of curiosity. It looks like your site, the site in the plan has got the um the little box that used to be the donation center. There's like a Salvation Army donation kind of it's not anything now. It's just empty right in the middle of that parking lot. Are you doing anything with that or is that just going to stay empty? No, that's just going to stay right there. But I know the um the guy that owns it. So, uh I told him I'll make sure that everything is okay around the building. So, we got to So, you don't own that land. That is that a separate lot or is that part? It is. Okay. It's It's shown on the site plan. So, I was like, I guess you're you're sharing the parking,

right? Share parking. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Operating the business, not owning the building. Yeah. Okay. Okay. You're the operator. Well, thank you. Anyways, I appreciate answers to questions. Any other questions? Okay. Uh I'm going to move to recommend approval of uh item number 17 uh which case SP 603. I'll second. We have a motion to recommend the item for approval of city council. It's been seconded from Commissioner Harrison. We'll voice vote. Commissioner Powers. I I I I I I

unanimously recommended for approval. Good luck. All right. Thank you. Item 18. Item 18 is case SP 604, application for a special permit to operate uh use unit 8300.18 automotive and equipment auto dealerships and malls. This is located at uh 908 Southeast 44th Street.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mike Ratis, 5717 Northwest 132nd Street. Um I know this is Ward 4 and Commissioner Privet, so I'll be a little bit more descriptive than usual. Um, essentially, uh, I'm here on behalf of Chinchilla Properties, uh, and they're seeking to put back in an automotive dealership that was formerly there back in the 1990s, uh, formerly Rubicon Auto Sales. Um, it's our understanding that property has been empty for quite some time now, and the Chinchilla family is going to open a 15 to 20 lot car lot there. It sits directly next to Boat City as well as um additional automotive uh repair shops directly across with Dollar General sitting on the street um on the corner of High Avenue and Southeast 44th uh less than about a half mile from the off-ramp from I35. Uh with that, I'd open it up to any questions. All right.

Any comments, questions from commissioners? Do we know um exactly how many display spaces that you're going to have? Um we have right now we can have up to two. It looks like we have room in the front of the property as well. We have a large sign sitting on the building that currently sits on the property as well. Well, and when I say display, I'm I'm talking about like basically parking spaces for the the vehicles that you'll be selling.

Correct. Correct. Okay. Um I think just when we've considered these in the past, I think we looked at make sure that there was appropriate number of customer parking spaces versus um you know display spaces. So I want to make sure that we uh address anything there that we we may need to because I'm seeing 15 + 4 plus three actually shown on the site plan. And then if you look spaces, correct?

And then there's room for an I've been told a room for an additional 20 spaces if you look to the southwest portion of the property. So, is that I mean, are you suggest the the are you suggesting that the spaces that are striped are required parking spaces that you're going to have to show that you have for customers to get a building permit or are these that's how many cars I'm going to put on the site? I believe the ladder, sir. Jared, do you have a site plan? So are you saying from the

are you sir are you saying from the storage container down from there south you could that is your outside boundary of your property you could stripe and have parking all along that? Yes sir. Okay. Um I believe is the last business that was there. Was it a car dealership or is this going to be a change of use permit? Do [music] you know? No. The last uh business was a car dealership there. Correct. Okay. So he wouldn't have to have a change of use. He may not have a need a permit. So yes. So the only thing that can be put on today is what we do

cuz he could just open. I I don't have a specific concern other than we we just want to know that there's enough space so that customers cars can navigate safely onto the lot, have a place to park, that the cars on the lot are, you know, orderly, organized, and don't look unattractive to the the surrounding neighbors. We get a lot of protests on some of these small dealerships of neighboring businesses that they just don't want to see cars just stacked every inch of the lot and nowhere for customers to get in and out. And it's not our intention to go bumper to bumper.

Yeah. So, I think maybe that's what we're going to we're discussing here is just do do we do we need to put a limit on that or or are we going to are we because I think 22 spaces striped you got a lot more concrete and paving on this lot where you would you would potentially have cars for sale. Yeah. I mean, you can get like 30 just catching them out easy. Yeah. So, and I don't have a problem with that. I just would just kind of like the clarity.

I'd like to put a number. I I heard it. You you mentioned a number of 20 in addition to what striped. Did I hear that correctly or did I? Yes, sir. Okay. So, that would be 44. If we added up 15 plus 4 plus 3 plus 20 more, that's 44 total. Is that too many? Um, it's hard for me to see just differentiate between customers and I don't know sale question. That was the question. Yeah. Yeah. Or just number of parking spaces.

It feels like you just you want to really stripe the whole lot and show what you can fit and then say there's there's sale parking up front and customer parking by the building. Well, I know in the past we've asked on and they were smaller lots and tighter lots, but we've asked for more more specifics on the actual plan, how it was going to be laid out. I mean, this is basically a survey of what's existing, not necessarily a a site plan of what can be done with it. That's a good point. And also, I don't know that we have the the information on what is the required parking count for this square footage of building and use, right? And it it would be

probably low. Well, it'd be 200 uh one per 200 for office [music] and one per thousand for, you know, if it has overhead doors and warehouse. So, I believe a little bit better of a site plan would help a lot. Okay. Do we want would would you be willing to come back, take a deferral and come back uh December 11th? Absolutely. And so really all we're looking for is this is a better striped plan. Some indication of where landscaping will go and you know that kind of thing. So

yeah, if we have landscaping requirements for city points that's indicated and then just you're indicating your your required customer parking based on your building square footage and then everything else can be say for sale, you know. Okay. So, we'll just need a motion to defer this to the December 11th meeting. So, move. All right. I have a motion. Second by Commissioner Meek. Voice vote. Hey, oh, did Paula fix us?

Maggie. All right, that item is deferred. Thank you. We'll see you again next month. See you next month.

Item 19.

This is SPD 1760, application to reszone 4904 Southeast 104th Street from AA. Hi, my name is Aaron Hail. I'm with a civil engineer with Engineer by Design. Uh, address is 10700 Meyers Lane, Chalkaw, Oklahoma. Um, I'm representing my client here who is desiring to do something with this piece of property that he purchased in 2019. Uh, it is a 1.22 acre piece of property. Um, the tract directly to the east of him is 2.7 acres. when he bought the property in 2019, there was no other uh residence on the tract to the east, but that tract has now been built with a residential home and it is zone AA. Um he is desiring to put a basically a building on his on this property for his personal storage, not a storage unit, just a per his personal storage, not to be rented out. Um he does have a 66 ft easement uh on the property going diagonally across the property for uh um an easement uh for petroleum use. Um he's basically trying to get the best use out of his property. This will not be a grow facility. This is just for personal storage. Um accessing the property probably once or twice in a two week or a month period depending on the usage of it. So pretty varied. uh visitation to the property. Are there any questions?

Okay. Um any questions for the applicant? This is this is Ward 4, Commissioner Privet. Um I do have a question for you. Um how do you see what you're doing to be in compliance with the existing CCNRs? Uh well, the existing CCNRs, if I'm not mistaken, have expired if uh if I do believe so. Uh, I think they had a 20-year period and I think they've expired uh 10 or 15 years ago if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, we and we can't even consider that. So, um I do have several folks signed up to to speak if we're ready to hear from them. Okay. Uh, Anita Stroop.

Good afternoon.

Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Nita Stra. We reside strictly west of the property they're talking about. The concerns are of them putting commercial equipment in there and then does that make it residential [clears throat] if you put commercial equipment? Um then uh the hours of coming and going and then we worry about if it's zoned residential, are they going to want to use pesticides because we have bees within half mile of the area. And that's our concerns with a lot of that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Um Brian Deubberry, how are you? My name is Brian Dubberry and I got several things I want to bring up and I live slightly south of Anita Group. The first one is what's going to be stored there? Are they going to store hazmat? Are they going to store flammable materials right next door? You know, what kind of potential is there to contaminate our drinking water? Because we live on our our residents are all well water. So, what's this? What's these people going to be storing? Uh the next one is uh my major concern with this is is it going to be a building on a vacant lot with no residents on it? So what happens when these people shut it down? They close it ends up being this empty building in a rural area on an empty lot and it's going to be a weed grow. And then we're going to have a weed grow right next door to where we live at. And that's going to invite in a criminal element into our neighborhood, into our community, you know, at uh imagine if you will, you live in a neighborhood, say you live in Crown Heights or Jefferson Heights, and there's a vacant lot next door to your house and somebody is here trying to put a storage building next door to your house. We all live on five acre lots out there. You're required to have a five acre lot. you're required to have a residence. We all abide by that. How are these people above that and they're able to come in into our neighborhood into our community and put a storage building on a 1acre lot which is going to inevitably inevitable it's going to end up being a weed grow and it's going to be right next door to where we live at. And that's the things that I wanted to protest about that I don't want that building there because it's required to be a fiveacre lot and it required to

have a residence and that's all I got. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Mr. Bear. Ronald Whitefield.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I'm at 4101 Southeast 104th. And uh my concern is, you know, I've long been out there for 50s something years. And I've tried to get permits for put a building on five acres and I've was denied. And the rule's always been that you had to have five acres to build on and you had to have a residence before you put a barn on. And that's my concern right now is if you're going to make it where he can, can we do the same thing,

sir? because I have other property up there with that's acres and that's quarter section north too. So, okay. Is that everything? Thank you. All right. Thank you. [clears throat] And James Stroop. Hello.

I don't hear, so this may get real tough. I just want to live out there. They said it was 5 acres when we moved out there, and that's the way I would like it to stay. I don't know whether what else to say in my defense, but that's it. Okay. Can I have your name and address for the record, please? Oh, I'm sorry. No, that's all right. I I can get somebody up here to But it's Somebody's got to be right here to James. He wants to know your name. Oh, address. James Strap. S T R O U P 4900 Southeast 104th Street.

Okay, thank you. All right. Okay, that's everyone I had signed up to speak. Um, so maybe uh if we could get the applicant to come back up and address anything that we heard from the neighbors. Uh, I heard um, you know, nature of the materials being stored um, and just other activities on site if you could elaborate a little bit more.

Yeah. Yeah. No, no problem. I may have the applicant come up and speak more to what's going to be stored there as far as the materials are concerned. As far as becoming a weed grow, I believe we wrote into the spud that this would not be a re it wouldn't be allowed period. Whoever owned this parcel. Um but that is the intent. We specifically stated that no weed grow allowed. So um you know as far as the five acres again he's got he owns this 1.23 acre parcel. just trying to figure out what to use with this parcel. Um, again, the parcel to the east is under 5 acres as well, but yet has a residence on it. So, we're trying to figure out what's what we can use for that property. Um, do you want to address what you want to store?

I believe it's office storage type stuff. But,

how are you, Seth Tenig? Uh, Country Lane Investments. I own the property. Uh, that's subject property. Uh, yes. When I purchased a property, um, sorry I didn't give my address. Yeah. 15712 Southeast 119th Street, New Oklahoma. Thank you.

Um, when I purchased a property in 2019, the subject property uh, and the property to the east was vacant lot. The property to the east was 2 point is 2.74 acres. That lot was currently vacant as well along with mine at the auction. Uh since then, the property has uh property next door had a permit was approved to build a house and there's currently a house located on that property to the east. As far as storage in the building, I have a tractor, uh a couple cars, um whatever we need to do to the amendment, I believe it's on there. We don't plan to put a grow there, nor would I allow it. So, whatever documentation we need to sign to not allow grows there, that's that's fine by me.

Okay. Any questions for the owner? the I mean if this I'm hearing a lot of storage you know is the is the reason but the TE number one says modify the master design statement to allow one [clears throat] dwelling inside slash integral to an allowed storage building. So, is is this a storage plus a dwelling unit is the real question, I think, because that's a kind of a a different Yeah. I mean, that's recommended for by staff to

Yeah, staff put that in. That's what I'm saying is is I'm trying to now reverse back to like is that what you guys are intending because and is that why they put that there? It is an option. Yes. the it would be the living quarters would be an option but the initial is the storage to begin with but yes if we have the option to put a you know a barnaminium type situation that would be ideal. Um, have you read you've read through the architecture facade regulations presumably the applicant like you can't put a metal building up on this from based on that architecture interpretation in section two?

Yes, we're aware of it. Well, I mean, and what I'm curious about is just what current zoning, you know, I I heard one of the neighbors say that you can't build an out building without a primary residence. So, I wanted can you can zoning or staff comment on that?

Sure, I can. Sarah Welch, Planning Department. So, um that is true. You cannot have an accessory building unless you have a primary structure. The only um exemption or the only yeah exemption to that would be if you have an AA zone property which would then be 5 acres. You can have a barn um for agricultural purposes, but otherwise you can't get a permit to build a um accessory structure without the home unless you approve it by a spud or unless it's approved at the board of adjustment with a varian with a variance [clears throat] or by or if it or if it's put into a spud

or or the zoning could could do that. our understanding while trying to talk through the vision for this site and try to help the applicant lead through something that clearly the lot size doesn't conform to the comprehensive plan, but we're trying to get the SPUD to a place that that they could do, I guess, something with the land. um was that not to leave out the opportunity um for if you're going to store like your own vehicles, like your cars and stuff if you want to come have like a little place to sleep or whatever. That's what that was intended to do.

Sarah, I have a I guess somewhat related question. It looks like the lot to the east was at one point in time maybe part of this lot. The lot to the east looks like it may have been part of this lot at one point in time. It looks like it's less than 5 acres. Was that zoned AA? And how did they how did they permit that? Right. Because it says we have AA all the way around, but this lot has been split. Well, I can I can check that. The legal description for this lot is a portion of a platted lot. So, I can check the east lot if that's what you're interested in.

Well, I'm just curious because that kind of created this whole situation with a five acre in the lot split and you know, I'm just curious how that happened. And then I believe that property probably came and got an SPUD to put a house on it. DoubleA right now. Well, on Yeah, on Google Maps here it says Cornerstone Veterinary Hospital is what that building is. That Am I seeing the right Hold on. Maybe I got that wrong. Sorry. I'm in the wrong spot.

Never mind. I'm going jump in here. I guess our commissioner from this word didn't hear, so we're all just kind of chatting. Um I think we're all trying to find a way you can do something with this property. We try, but um sometimes you can't. I understand you bought at a tax resale and I've been to those two and sometimes you can't build on a piece of property and you got to find some other creative thing to do with it. Um, not sure what you're going to do with it, but so far what you're proposing here, in my opinion, is not something we should permit. And I don't know how much more time we're going to spend trying to find something for you to do with it, but I I'm against what you're applying to do with it, and I'm sorry if you can't figure out anything else to do with it.

Okay. So, would a residential period option be uh something to consider even though it's in zone AA? That's outside our purview whether or not covenants allow it. If you think it's allowed, then knock yourself out. If it's not, then it's not. Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Yeah. Unless

No. I mean, I do think residential would be appropriate there, though, if if that were allowed. and and able to be done. I mean, that's what's on this street and both sides. And um h yeah, having the the un un supervised storage building doesn't doesn't seem right. I I agree with the protests of of people that that is a concern. That's I'm trying to understand this period. We have a 1.29 29 acre lot as it sets right now that's zoned AA so he they could build a house. No, because why? Aa is minimum five acres.

Oh, okay. They just be back here with the spud. Correct. So, we could look at it at a zoning change for that and and but just this application agree with at that point. The reason I'm not necessarily fair, let's say it was what's too small, five acres is 5 acres. So what if it was 6 acres, it was.3 some different pieces of property get sold at these tax resales and that doesn't mean now we have to force a zoning on it to make it work for them. So to me it's too small. Um yeah,

yeah, pausing in case anybody other other commissioners want to pause for a second. Anybody else? No. Okay. All right. I'll make a motion to deny the application then. All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Leforge to deny the application. Is there a second? Second. Sorry.

It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. And remember that a vote yes is a vote to deny. and that item is denied recommended for denial to city council. So this this item will still go forward to city council uh in approximately eight weeks. Um, so item 20, this is case SPUD 1761, application to reszone 2330 Southwest 27th Street from R1.

Matthew Kelly with Ro Engineering, 3200 Northwest 38th. We're looking to reszone this to 01 for apartments. I mean, not apartments, for offices with the provision to allow vehicle and equipment storage in a back paved area and it's going to be surrounded by a screen fence. Screen fence 68t tall.

Okay. Uh, Commissioner Goine, this is ward six. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Um, I'm going to I'm just going to uh level my concerns right off. I I do not like encroachment of a change of use on these R1 blocks. I mean, the there's a clear delineation of of the Agnu um industrial corridor. There's an alley easement that runs behind these. And so far, all of these blocks, you know, northward um or 28, 27th, 26th, they're they're all intact. So, they haven't been chipped away at like that. And I I immediately had concerns that that I don't think that that's the right move here. Um I don't mind like home businesses and home offices doesn't that that doesn't bother me. It's it's the vehicular storage and based, you know, we also have some I don't know if anyone signed up to speak. Did you say?

I don't have any. Okay. We did have we did have some some letter um come in with the concern about that. Now, I understand there's been some cleanup done and and um that may not be an issue anymore, but uh it's the vehicle storage um primarily that I'm I'm not comfortable with.

Um I see that there's a TE1 proposed to add single family residential. Um I mean really I think it should just stay. It is R1. So, I I think and then that's just an that's basically just saying we also want it to we don't want to create a non-complying use. The house is um used for single family, but I think it should stay R1 zoning really. I mean, it just doesn't and I but I'm I'm willing to listen if you have some further thoughts we should be considering here. I understand you run a business there now. Is that correct? Or is this to potentially locate a business there?

No, they're already been running a business there. Um, I know that even on their taxes, they've been paying commercial taxes and so they were under the assumption that it was commercial this entire time. There was some issues they had to clean up. Uh, they were just wanting to use it for storage. I mean, for storage of vehicles and equipment, but nothing that's inoperable, not longterm, just somewhere to park it overnight and they could take it to work the next day. Mhm. Well, I certainly don't like the the you know, if you're saying they're operable and they're in use, that that's one thing I, you know, that's better, but it's still become, you know, I don't like the appearance of a scrapyard operation. I don't like, you know, derelic vehicles.

Yeah, there won't there will be no equip I mean, there will be no trash, there will be no scrap, there will be none of that. It's simply just clean parking and it's all going to be behind a privacy fence. Nobody can see it. It's not going to bother the neighbor. It's not going to be making a lot of noise. is just at the end of the day they park the car. The next morning when it's time to go to work, they'll take the car to work. I mean, is this a commercial? Are we talking this is a commercial vehicle with maybe a trailer and some equipment? Um, I mean, small light equipment, maybe a skid steer, uh, just normal trucks, nothing nothing too big. Light duty trucks, light duty trailers.

It just doesn't feel like a compatible use in in an intact residential block with occupied homes. I'm sorry. I mean, there are industrial zone lots and parking that can be used for that purpose. Um, that sacrificing the the the residential block and that that just I don't feel right about that. Um, that's where I am and I'm in agreement with that. And the protester is basically saying the same thing. They're midblock. I drove it this morning. Um, I just I'm in agreement. It's it's an R1 house. It's on R1 zoning. Should stay. I agree. So that's three.

All right. Um I can make a motion. Uh I don't think anyone's jumping to make an alternate one. Um I'm going to move to recommend denial of SPD 1767.

A motion to recommend denial to city council of SPD 1767 by Commissioner Goine. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your vote. Vote yes is a vote to deny. All right, that item is recommended for denial. That still goes forward to city council. Okay. Uh item 21. I think Commissioner Powers, are you recusing for this item?

Good afternoon. Uh Braden Schaer with Craft and Toll and Associates. 300 Point Parkway Boulevard. Um what we're attempting to do here is take existing O2 and reszone it to multif family development. Uh we think this is pretty good fitting infill residential. Um we worked with staff to get the building layout such that um the frontage along Portland uh is very much kind of a a front of house feel with all the parking kind of situated either behind the buildings or uh off of Northwest 27th Street. Uh happy to answer any questions that you may have. Okay. All right. This is W two. So, Commissioner Powers,

I don't have a lot of questions about this. There's some issue for me with respect to the um location of the dumpsters, which um the staff report tells me will be no closer than 10 ft from all property lines. Um, since you're actually um, you know, backing up to single family residential here, I think you're going to need to find a place that's a little further away than 10 ft.

Yeah. So, the challenge that we ran into with the dumpster enclosure, uh, is so we we reached out, we attempted to service this with polycarts. Uh, we were told that that would not be an option. Um, so we have to have a dumpster. Uh, and then the other issue is just where we can fit that without blocking parking. Um, obviously if we if we move it further away from the residential property lines, uh, we're we're going to eat into parking. Yeah. Which we could look at doing, but I I don't know if we want to sacrifice parking for the dumpster. This

this is one of the issues that we have with respect to trying to bring buildings forward to the street and putting parking behind that. Then not only are the uh existing single family residences there dealing with a parking lot next door, but also because you have to put a dumpster somewhere, it ends up closer to them. And that's really problematic for me.

Um I mean I can't redesign this space for you from the horseshoe. I just can't do that. I don't have the expertise. But Sarah, you want to help me? Is there something that we can do here that makes sense? I I noticed that the setbacks off of first of all, all the access is being taken off of the north and south streets. There's no access [clears throat] from the site onto Portland. Correct. And um when when this was first proposed, uh the site plan that came in had the dumpster um pulling in and off of 26th Street. So we didn't we didn't like that, correct? As an option. So,

um, they've reworked it to kind of meet some of our, um, suggestions, which would be, um, homes facing Portland. Um, they have the issue with the narrowness, I think, which requires them to get access from the two streets for the two different kind of parcels or portions. Um, the dumpster setback while the That's right. that loca, that um, lot is actually not zoned residential. I realize it is a home but it's zoned O2 if I remember correctly. That is correct. Both both of the properties I believe uh adjacent are actually in O2 but they are single family houses

I believe. I need a setback [music] of a minimum I mean 25. A minimum 25. I you know I'm I'm happy for some help from my architectural um planning commissioners here if you can give it me some. But I this is just not okay with me. This is it's 10 ft is way too close for a dumpster to be from anybody's bedroom window. Well, if you and I agree, but I mean, if you look at this, this is 50 feet from any residence from any home structure.

Yeah, that's a it's a property line distance. So, the the home set at the traditional kind of where it would you would expect it on the lot. So, even if those were R1 zoned properties, they they have their rear yard setbacks and then the the homes are actually further away. So I agree you got we got to have something finite. But in in the event that in in the way I see it though to you know if those properties were redeveloped with the more intense use that put a structure closer to the back of the property well then they have they're probably going to be doing the same type of thing. You you know I mean then there's a there's a they know where the dumpster is so it's not a surprise to them. Now if it was just a regular R1 home you know I'd still be concerned. 10 ft's pretty close, but I feel like 15 if if it were 15 and maybe even 20, there's a possible that you could make your site plan work still. 25 starting to get tough.

Is the dumpster where the tea is? Yes. Yeah. So, the the dumpster is located there uh basically in the in the furthest backyard of of all of the adjacent residences. So where where the dumpster sitting right now is is probably the furthest away from any residence that you can make it. If we if we change the setback and increase it from the property line, I think we're actually going to end up shifting the dumpster closer to a house, which I mean, if that's what we want to do, we can we can try and rework that and make that happen. But I don't know if that's really achieving the the

at that point, you're moving it you're moving it closer to the dwelling. Yeah, cuz we're going to end up probably shifting it closer to 26 cuz there's there's no way to fit the dumpster on the on the north half of the property that abuts 27th. So the width of that paving that's immediately to the right of the dumpster is 24 ft. Yes.

So that's that's half of the 50 ft that we're talking about that distance. So if you take that and you, you know, kind of extrapolate that out between the the structure on the southeast, I mean, you're probably close to 70 feet from that one and I bet you're close to 90 going over to the west to that one. So I I mean, I agree. I think where it currently is is probably the maximum amount of separation that you're going to have from anything. And and I I would like to add the the the original use when that was an office. Uh the building is no longer there, but I'm pretty sure that the dumpster was located in a in a pretty similar vicinity to where we're located.

Yeah. I don't think you're going to do a whole lot better than what he's done given all the conditions you've got. I mean, realistically about the only thing you can do is move it closer to the the the uh apartment building you're building or create an access off of Portland in between them. You're going to have to back out. Yeah. I I And I've had actually dealt with some of this at board of adjustments where you're trying to find a an enclosure spot on a lot that doesn't have a great spot. Okay. It's a tough one. Yeah. I mean, okay. The point's still valid, but it is kind of the least it is.

And it is, but redevelopment of those two lots into something else and they put another building behind it. I presume that you can't like you could shift those buildings over um and and put the dumpster between the two, but I don't think uh I presume that radius is, you know, you couldn't take a trash truck up and make a turn there. Yeah. And and we've also got overhead power lines there. So that that would run into an issue with uh spacing clearance if we tried to fit a building. Uh and we really don't have much room that we can shift either of those buildings north or south. They're they're essentially maxed out on the on the building limit line. That's per the plat.

It's going to impact the occupants of the building that's being built more than the neighbors.

But they pick those things up at like 5:00 in the morning. you know this. So, yeah, it's the neighbors I'm worried about. Okay, if this is really the best we can do, that's what I'm hearing you guys say. Um, then I'll let go of that. Um, the only other thing that I have a question about, I guess, is why you have varied the architectural finishes from the 70, the usual 7030 split to a 60/40. you have some kind of specific design you're looking for here or is that just a random variation that you'd like to see?

No, that was just something that our our developer had asked to put in just to allow him some flexibility um depending on what he wanted to choose for for ultimate um finishes. I I believe the intent is mostly to use um masonry and cement uh Hardy board sighting. Okay. any anybody else. I would definitely want to put that the dumpster be according to the site plan. Yes, definitely that. And it's still fully screened as usual per normal, right? Yes. Dumpster would be fully screened. Yeah, that's important.

Okay. So, we're going to add a TE indicating that the placement of the dumpster will be in accordance with the attached site plan and that attached site plan will be this attached site plan. That works for us. Okay. Anything else? Anybody? Is there anybody who signed up to speak on this? Nope. You know, we just had a discussion during our uh capital improvement projects study session today about improvements that are going to be made to Will Rogers Park. So, do a nice job on this.

Okay. Um, and if nobody has anything else they want to say, I'll move for approval. Item number 21, SPUD 1778. A motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item. City Council. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. Thank you. That was recommended for approval. All right. Item 22. Item 22 is case beauty 1789 application to reszone 1220 North Gardener Avenue from PUB 1131.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, uh, this is an SPD that's a bit strange, I guess, in that what we are reszoning from is actually more dense than what we seek. Right now, you could build two structures that would allow 13 dwelling units. We're seeking to have six dwelling units. It would be six single family homes but on an individual lot. So a reduction in density by more than half. One te we agree to it. Happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Meek, this is your ward. I do have two folks signed up to speak. Okay. Let's hear from them first, please. Okay. All right. Miss Terresa Lewis.

My name is Teresa Lewis. I'm located at 6700 Northwest 11th Street, which is just a block down the street from them. And I've got duplexes directly across the street from me that are have been there that the street is too thin. It's too It's not wide enough for it. I'm They're backing into my my fence all the time and I just see it that that much more. It's the road is not wide enough for do multif family housing in there. It's just too small of a road. I mean, they're backing in my fence all the time and it's just constantly. I mean, that's my biggest deal is that we don't it won't handle the traffic. It's it's got the uh [snorts] it's not it's I mean, there there are big lots out there that we wanted to keep it that way with families for the big lots and everything. is just too much with more rental houses. No.

Can Okay. Do Do you have a question for her? I I'm just trying to understand what in relation to this site that we're seeing on where where is the backing up and hitting of the My house is is located on the corner down like Yeah. Right there where that cursor is. That's my house there. The house is across the street is exactly what he's proposing up there. And I have all the traffic. They're parking in my lawns and everything all the time. There's no curbing out here. It's it's just the streets go in there. And so you you got the them multi. Okay. With that many more streets in there, you got that many more cars going down there. And it's it's just it's too much traffic. It's it's too much and everything.

I just want to make sure I understood where you were. And the streets are not wide enough to have that much parking on it and everything. Thank you. Uh, Jan Jones.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jan Jones and I too live on the corner of 11th in Gardener. I've lived there since 1978 and we've seen this area try to be regenerated in 2006 with similar to the same thing. As Teresa said, these streets are very narrow. Um, they will never be fourlane. Uh, there are no curbs. U, you were talking about trash. Let's talk trash. Where will the dumpsters, the trash carts be set? If there are going to be six units, they're not going to be duplexes. Is that true?

These will be single family homes. So, what's allowed now are 13 units and two multif family buildings. This will be six single family homes. We are reducing density by more than half. Right. So, these are individual homes with driveways with traditional single family setbacks. They're actually per per home is about 7500 square ft, which is bigger than an R1 residential density. So, it's actually less dense than even a traditional R1 single family zoning. Are they going to be for sale or for rent? Are they likely for rent?

Okay. because the trash carts then will be set out on the street again impeding traffic. Um there are no curbs so they often blow over. Trash gets scattered everywhere. Um earlier I heard the citizen talk about bar ditches. I hadn't heard that word forever. I still wake up to roosters crowing and we hear the farm animals. We love that about our neighborhood. We all know neighbors blocks around us. Um the pecan trees that are in front of this lot, are they going to be taken out?

I I have no idea. I mean, presumably if they can keep the trees, they will. Those are typically selling points for homes. There perhaps will have to be some trees that are removed for the construction of uh a single family home, perhaps less than what would be removed if it was developed under its current zoning. See uh the the bar ditch, if you will, because this is still considered agricultural. They flood all the time. If we cover this with cement, it's going to to cause the flooding to be worse.

Okay. Is that all that you have? I think that's it. Okay. We do have signatures disputing this, but we would like for that to be considered as well. Okay. Okay. Someone has asked me to mention the water table that there are several homes in this area that are still on wellwater. Um so [laughter] one one but that is a concern as well. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Box. Are these going to be on city water and sewer? Yes. Uh I am yes

I'm confirming this but yes these will be served by public water public sewer.

Okay. Um Commissioner Meek you want to lead the discussion? Yeah I'll uh I'll start by responding to the uh business that got up to speak. Um, what really matters in this case is that if this goes away that someone could come build 13 units and now we're looking at six and I do agree that they will be single family residences and there will only be six of them to where in with their existing zoning entitlement right now it'd be double that. Um

I uh I you can't make comments from the audience. You had your time to speak. Yep. So any other commissioners have any comments regarding this? I uh I don't I studied the previous uh uh PUD that this was under looked at this case drove the area and have no concerns with it uh because it's I believe going to make it a better they're downzoning it to

they're Yes, they're downzoning what they have the right to do. They're taking it by more than half to a less intrusive uh issues for your neighborhood, I believe. So with that, I'd like to recommend approval to city council of SPD 1789. Right. I have a motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend the item to city council for approval with the one TE subject to the technical evaluation. Right. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. Thank you.

That is recommended for approval. So for the neighbors, this does move forward to city council in approximately 6 to 8 weeks. So you have another opportunity to reach out to your council person. It does look like from the site plan that the mature pantries are shown to remain. There's nothing that would prevent those from staying. So hopefully that'll be the case. Right. Okay. Item 23. Item 23 is case SPUD 1783 application reszone 16207 North Pennsylvania Avenue from PUD 940.

Hi, I'm Tiffany Layman. I'm with Nikk Engineering 306 North Market Street, Mount Carmel, Illinois. I I represent the client or the applicant and O'Reillys Auto Parts. We're looking to reszone the property to allow for retail auto parts store. Um staff is recommending approval on this. However, they are asking that we reduce one. We currently are showing two drives off the north private access road. They're requesting that we reduce that down to one. However, we are seeking to keep the two as currently shown on the site plan. Um, O'Reilly's Auto Parts needs the two access drives due to ease of movement for delivery trucks and trash trucks. We align the two driveways with the driveways to the north. I believe the concern is the distance of our driveway from our eastmost driveway to North Pennsylvania Avenue. Currently, the ordinance states that uh our drive driveways need to be located 100 ft from intersections of local access roads and arterial streets. However, this is not a local access or a local road. This is a private access road. So, we did try to keep it as far away from Pennsylvania Avenue as we could, but it's 80 feet instead of the 100 feet. And so, we're just trying to keep both of them again so that there's ease of access throughout the site.

Thank you. Um, Commissioner Noble, this is W 8. Thanks. Um, and I will say that as far as the two drives on that private access road, I have no problem with I would think that that would help for traffic and movement within the parking lot. The road's not very busy and still one access onto Yeah, it goes back to storage units. Yeah. And there's a car wash to the north. Anyone sign up to speak on this?

No. Anything from any other commissioners? I think it's a good use for this property. With that, I will make a recommend recommendation of approval for SPUD 1783. We going to delete TE1. Yep. And you're good with that? Deleting TE1. [clears throat] I'm sorry. Deleting that TE1 which was the private drive. Yeah. Yeah. Limiting it. We would like to keep the two pri the two access roads off the private drive but and good with TE2 no access on depend. Yeah.

All right. So we have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item city council deleting TE1 keeping TE2. It's been second by Commissioner Leforge. Please cast your votes. Not items recommended for approval. Thank you. Item 24. Item 24 is case SPD 1784, application to reszone 1821 Northwest 122nd Street from 01.

I'm Scott Sprdling. I'm with Hartzog Conger and Kasein and I'm here on behalf of KB Investments which is under contract to sell the property to my client uh Leo Ventures whose principal is Lynn Jock who is a young entrepreneur who's relocated Oklahoma City and conceived the idea for this project. Um, also with us is Braden uh Schaefer who's with Craft and Toll, our engineering outfit. And uh, we there's one technical evaluation which we agree with. We anticipated this and we will have a shared access agreement u executed before we in conjunction with the acquisition of the property. So, we're agreeable to that. Okay.

Happy to answer any questions. [clears throat] Um, Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. and commissioners. Do you all have any questions regarding this particular project? Okay, seeing none, I recommend approval for SPUD 1784. Good. Yeah, he was he agreed with the T. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item to city council for approval subject to the technical evaluation. That's been second by Commissioner Leforge. Please cast your votes. That's recommended for approval. Good luck.

I'm think I'll donate some cushions for those. Uh, item 25. Item 25 is SPUD 1788, application to reszone 13327 North Rockwell Avenue from PUD 907. Good afternoon. Colton Weman with Walls Design representing the applicant 410 North Walnut. The existing PUD here allows for fast food, but it does not allow for the drive-through component. So, we're simply just asking to to reszone to Spud just for that small portion of the PUD uh for that for that drive-thru. I don't believe there's any tees, but happy to answer any questions.

All right, Commissioner Noble, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Good. I did talk to a couple of the well the one written protest and another protest that came in uh concerning the location and and talked to them about where the call box would be and it's it's going to be quite a distance from their houses and it's going to be behind that building and another building that will be built into the future. Um I didn't have any anything else. Okay. Is there residential in pod 907 behind it?

No, there there is to the south of it. There's a road separating this lot from the next lot, too. So, it's it's going to be 100 plus feet from the Yeah. And and the in behind the building by the way it's set up. Good. location where that call box is going. We can set it up. Let's do call box would have to be north side

on the north side of building. Just put a TE in there for that. Okay. Do you tie it to the side chain? But either way, does I mean indicates? Yeah, it does kind of indicate it being in that island. But I'll put it in there. We'll add that to just keep it call box to be on the north side of the of the building.

Okay. Anything else? With that, I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval SPUD 1788 with the addition of the TE to call out the location of the call box to be on the north side of the building. All right. I have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item city council for approval subject to the technical evaluation. It's been seconded by Commissioner Go. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Um that brings us to the end of items to be individually heard.

Apologies. I've got to run. I had to be in Tulsa, so I tried to make it to the end, but I'm going to run. Okay. Thanks. See you. You'll you'll miss out on [laughter] our calendar. Safe travels.

Um, so we'll move on to additional items. Uh, planning commission committees. Okay. Planning commission members. And are you going to be here next month then? going to be here for the December meeting. All right. Nothing from Commissioner Meat. Commissioner Newman. No. Commissioner Govin. Nope. Harrison Noble. Nothing there. Nothing for myself. Uh planning department. Um well, we Sarah will be giving us a presentation here shortly, but other than that, I don't uh think I have anything else.

Okay. Municipal counselor's office. Uh, any citizens to be heard? Okay, other business. Item A, adopt the 2026 meeting calendar for the planning commission.

Hey, Sarah Welch, Planning Department. We don't usually do this, but um, I wanted to just kind of give you a short briefing about some process changes that we're proposing for the next calendar year. And, um, [music] it's tied to your adoption of the calendar for next year. So, um, our process, just briefly, when someone applies for a planning commission, uh, case, our our process, it takes the applicant about six weeks to get through. Generally, in week one, we're doing all the application intake. We're checking for completeness. We're looking at legal descriptions, creating case maps. Around week two, we start routing everything to um other departments to get their feedback. By week three, we're needing to do our public notice because we have to not mail notice three weeks prior to the to this meeting. Um around week four and five is when we're still sort of working with the applicant specifically with Puds and Spuds to try to um negotiate. We did a lot of negotiation for today's meetings. I hope you could tell. Um but we're working we're going back and forth with the applicant. And then um in in week five, we are finalizing and publishing the agenda and the staff report. you're getting your packets and then around week six is when we're coming to the meeting. So for staff the internal deadline is about 36 days to get through a whole cycle for someone in a planning commission uh case. Um go ahead. There are some challenges with that. Specifically, we have overlapping tasks in week two and three and four. So while we're sending information out for pro for comment from other departments, we're already noticing um sent mailing notice to our neighbors. And one of the um things that we do for our neighbors is we publish online u master design statements for puds and spuds when we mail the notice. So you can see where if we've if we're still trying to get comments from other departments and we are already telling our neighbors to go online and read what the applicant has submitted and is

requesting to do while we're still negotiating with applicants. it's not quite as transparent for our neighbors um because they really have to kind of wait and see what happens and what shows up on the agenda before they know what is actually being considered. So then we of course um still do the staff report and we come to the planning commission meeting. So one of the challenges is those overlapping tasks. One of the other challenges is we have those overlapping timelines. So that six week process is overlapping. So, while we're still finishing up staff reports, we're taking in um we're taking in new applications. And when we're at the tail end of that round, we are then taking in new applications. And if you're Elena or Mr. Noble or a mapping specialist or intake staff, you can just weave in the board of adjustment right in between there because it's the same process just on alternating weeks. So um other challenges include of course the potential for delayed or conflicting interdep departmental feedback. We kind of get um comments from other departments kind of towards the end of the process. We might have to go back to the applicant and hopefully not surprise them but sometimes surprise them with a TE on the staff report. Um, we then of course have challenges like I mentioned with um the neighbors, our neighbors not knowing exactly what is being proposed because they're seeing what the applicant submitted to us and not what has kind of been um vetted a little bit and which that can lead of course to continuences and tees. So, what we're proposing is um is more of like a step process. We're we're proposing that you submit your application. If you are complete, and that's just kind of like did you provide the deed to your property? Do you have the proper letter of authorization? Does your legal description close? Um then we will you'll proceed past that first step. What we're trying to get to, what I'm trying to get to is that we send out um we send out applications for preliminary comments from other

departments. We get those back and we send those to the applicants. Once we get their first round of comments back, that's when they can proceed and that's when we'll publicly notice them. Um, and because once we do that, now we're getting kind of a more complete picture and the neighbors are of what's published online. Um, of course, we'll still go through the staff report finalization and agenda and we'll come to this meeting. We think that that would probably um if everything goes great then we think that'll probably extend the applicant's timeline to 56 days and internally to 50. So um with those goals I think that we'll if we the goals of this process if you if you agree um with our calendar proposal then we're going to separate those steps out. We think it'll be clear expectations for our applicants. So we think we'll get more complete applications um improved transparency for the public enhanced interdep departmental communic coordination hopefully lot fewer continuences and last minute changes I mean we're accepting people's changes up to the Friday that your packets go out because we want you to have the most recent information when you're making your decision. Um so ideally that's going to lead to fewer technical evaluations to work through at meetings and it addresses um a recommendation of um there was a consultant study that was done last year um finalized this year for um our private development review and permitting process and included multiple uh departments. Planning was one of them. And one of the feedback some of the feedback we received through that process is that we're sending you incomplete information when when you're making your decision. So that we think that this process will um hopefully address all of those concerns. So the the calendar that's in your packet today um it actually removes the filing deadline from the published calendar. So before we were given a six week filing deadline and people would expect to be on the agenda, you know, if they filed

by that date. What we're going to ask for instead is to just add a disclaimer and um recommend an 8week lead time for processing and docketing of the item. and we'll provide an internal schedule for our applicants so they know kind of those milestone dates they have to hit. Um the um calendar that's in your um packet today for adoption has um two January meeting that's kind of confused some people. It's on the third and fifth Friday or Thursday. Usually your meetings are on the second and fourth Thursdays of every month. Um we changed it in in January because the first Thursday is the is New Year's Day and by shifting everything down um we were able to get two board of adjustment meetings in. You're welcome, Mr. Noble. Uh we returned to two meetings in June. We have previously asked you to allow us uh both June and July off uh an extra meeting, but with this new process, we're we'd like to reintroduce the two meetings in June, only have one meeting in July, and then of course it's two meetings the rest of the year except for holidays. So, I think that's it. What's in front of you is the proposed um uh meeting calendar, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, that's the uh calendar we're asking for.

Sounds like it gives you all kinds of more extra time to get our packets done early. I think that was a great presentation, Sarah. Thank you.

I like the new plan. The one the one thing as someone who I on the the back side of this of uh consultants and the people that that handle these cases dealing with clients chasing them for decisions and sign off on our stuff. It always gets right down to the wire of we have to submit today to get on the agenda for this planning commission and it forces them to like okay we'll sign off on it. Well, oh yeah that's good. You know what I mean? So there's there's the the process for the applicants as well. And I I think it looks clear. I'm just reading that what would be published which says applicants should submit a complete application at least eight weeks prior to the planning commission date. So we would interpret that as

if it's on Thursday, September 10th, it's eight Thursdays prior to that in the business. Yes. I think it actually could benefit like there's been some puds and spuds that you've had lately where they needed to change one thing like whoops we forgot to put architectural metal in our spud or oops we need to ver we need to just change this one the setback or whatever you know I think there's an opportunity that they actually this actually benefits them because there if there's not a lot of back and forth then we'll put you on the first agenda that's possible

and th this is one of the key recommendations from that consultant study that Sarah mentioned that that the office of innovation is now uh spending a lot of time trying to implement over the next year with us and public works and development services and utilities, everybody that touches the development review process. That's one of the key things they were like, you guys need to do a make sure that that you don't move forward unless the application is complete. And we just have a big problem with that. We think roughly about 20% of our cases are just actually not. We're just really nice people and we let people, you know, they they race in at the deadline so they're technically, you know, okay, well, yeah, you can get on this commission meeting, uh, but it's kind of dragging them along every step of the way. And we end up rewriting staff reports because they'll submit information late. That changes things. This is going to make it more efficient and just better all around for everybody. And once they get the right information and complete application, they'll get noticed and we'll move forward. Uh the other thing that it recommends is that we have be a little more formal about pre meetings. Um so we're going to be doing a little bit more of that internally with staff that Sarah's, you know, making sure that we're getting people together in a in a timely manner staff that is to get feedback back to the to the um applicants. So um yeah, we're excited about just trying to get things more efficient in terms of the process. Well, I agree and I'm I hope that you end up with better applications. I think I've said that from up here a few different times to the applicant that a better application then you wouldn't have to negotiate so much right here. Um to Jeremy's point on when we get our packets and the sooner is the better. Um, and then the right information because if I'm reading an an entire case and then it comes back and it's different, it becomes kind of

frustrating that I spent that much time already going through something, then then it's going to change a lot. And so club that meet every every other Friday morning. [laughter]

I might need to join. Well, and I it's true, too, that the it I feel bad for people that come to protest a case and they've they've worked on their, you know, their speech for the last week and they've everything they're talking about's already been negotiated out and I feel bad for them and we have to listen to them and it takes time. So, it seems like a great plan. I think it's going to also improve as Sarah knows that in my ward I've got people bird dogging when they post the uh puds and spuds on the website where I haven't even thought of them yet but I'm start getting phone calls and I think before it post it'll be a more complete application. So thank you. [clears throat]

So I'm all in favor of this. I think, you know, it's been a while that we've been working under this system um with a whole new set of staff and um you know, there have been a lot of uh squeaky wheels about this and that and what's working, what's not. I think, you know, obviously there's been a lot of thought put into what would be better, what would work better, and I'm all in favor of giving it a try. I mean, I I yeah, I have no concern at all that the mom and pops who are coming here for the first time ever and probably the last time ever on a particular case will not get the kind of attention that they need and deserve. I I have no concern about that. with respect to the people that we see week in and week out. They just need to get on board and you know quit complaining about this or that and

and they have they have the opportunity if they create a good application and it's done timely they can beat the eight weeks. I'm all for it. So go for it. Thank you. I'm not so crazy about two meetings in June, but I will say this about that. I think if we can be u just cognizant of the fact that it is difficult for us to find people to attend to meetings, you know, every month um through the summer holidays as well as the winter holidays. It's just it's just a reality and we'll have to deal with it. I don't think those of us who show up can complain too much about those of us who don't. I

I mean I don't really think that there's been I can't remember a time when we've really had you know this this board is good board of adjustments is a struggle. Yeah. Well and I'm happy to amend the schedule to remove the second June but um but I think last year what happens is we you pay for it anyway. You end up with a huge long agenda. Yeah. And so and so kind of in my mind the tradeoff of like it might take a little couple weeks longer to get your application through. One of the trade-offs is we have that extra meeting in June, you know, and we don't have 35 items of five people.

Assuming that's not even more difficult for staff than it is for us, but you know, I'm I'm [snorts] okay. Oh, I bet you didn't want to put that extra meeting in in June. I said you probably didn't want to put the extra meeting in in June, but I it was just fair. I mean, I see it every week. They're so overworked. It's amazing what they get done and I mean they're producing these telephone books every week and it it is commend you for everything you do. Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. Great job. We need to adopt it. We need to Okay, we need to need to motion to

adoption of the uh proposed 2026 meeting calendar. Have a motion to to adopt the calendar. Second. Second by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. What did that do? Okay, there we go.

And it is adopted. Thank you all. We are adjourned.