Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the May 28th meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission. I'd like to call this to order and go over a few housekeeping items. If you have a cell phone with you, please silence or turn it off. If this is your first Planning Commission meeting, welcome, and here's what you can expect today. We'll begin with some simple administrative tasks that includes minutes and continuances. Then we move on to cases that are on the consent docket, and these are a list of cases that are pretty straightforward and can be approved as a group. After that, we'll hear cases individually. We'll call the item, discuss, and determine if a recommendation or decision can be made today or if more time and a continuance is necessary. There are certain cases where this body makes the final decision, but in most instances, we are making a recommendation to city council. and are not the final decision. For those items, no matter what the decision is, you'll have another opportunity to share your concerns again when those reach council in six to eight weeks. There are certain items such as HOA, CCRs, and agreements between private entities that are outside the purview of this commission and are not factors in our discussions and decisions that we make. And for the sake of time, please refrain from using those as any justification for your case. If you're here to speak on an item and are not the applicant, please fill out one of the forms available outside and provide it to Elena or Jared down here below. When that item is heard, you'll be called to come to the podium. Please come up, give us 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 some additional time for speakers will be considered in those instances. Where several speakers on the same item are heard, we just ask that you do your best to limit comments to concerns that we haven't heard yet. We just want to limit extensive, repetitious comments for efficiency purposes. Please direct all your comments and questions to the commission, and if needed, we'll ask staff or the applicant to respond. Finally, we appreciate everyone's presence here today and the time that you've taken away from your other obligations. We ask for your cooperation upholding the decorum of the meeting and that you don't speak from the audience. Thank you for your attention, your attendance, and your assistance. With that, we'll move to item two, which is receipt of the minutes from the May 14th meeting.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes from May 14th, 2026.

Motion to receive the minutes from Commissioner Noble Possibly if our technology cooperates We need a voice second no working on it I All right, the motion's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. and the minutes are received. Next is item three in continuous requests. We'll start with uncontested requests.

Item 23 is KC7761, request to defer to June 11th. Item 24, KCE1161, defer to June 11th. Item 25, SP614, defer to June 11th. Item 26, SPUD1830, defer to June 25th. Item 27, case CE 1156, deferred to June 25th. Item 28, PUD 2131, deferred to June 25th. Item 29, case PUD 2142, deferred to June 25th. And item 30, case SPUD 1834, deferred to June 25th.

Okay, I'll just confirm there's no one here to speak on any of those items. Seeing none, we're ready for a motion.

I would like to make a motion to approve the uncontested requests, continuous requests as read.

A motion to approve the uncontested requests as read, seconded by Commissioner Privett. Please cast your votes.

And those are approved.

New requests.

Item 7, case C7801, deferred to June 11th. And item 22, SPUD 1839, deferred to June 25th. I did see someone signed up for item 22.

Mr. Box, did you have something to say?

I had another one to defer.

Okay.

Item 21. Spoke to Commissioner Harrison earlier. We're going to defer that to allow a community meeting.

Okay. And I did have someone signed up to speak for that one as well. So for the folks that signed up to speak on items 21 and 22, are you okay returning for the new dates? You can come up to the podium, ma'am. Is this for the 50th and passing application?

Okay.

Are you okay with returning for the continuance date? What was 21? June 11th. June 11th, 21 is June 11th. Thank you. Okay, all right. Appreciate it. So I need a motion on the new continuance requests.

I will make a motion to approve the new continuous requests as read.

I have a motion to approve the new continuous requests which are items seven, 21, and 22 to the dates mentioned. It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. And those requests are approved. Move to the public hearing portion of the agenda and the consent docket.

Item one is case C7802, final plat of Chartel Development. This is located west of North Chartel Avenue and south of Northwest 70th Street. Item two is case 7804, final plat of Tract 6. This is located west of North Rockwell Avenue and south of West Memorial Avenue. Item three, case C7806, final plat of Silver Springs, phase two. this is located east of south county line road and south of southwest 15th street item 4 kc 7807 final plat of a replat of portions of deer crest marketplace located at the northeast corner of northwest or north rockwell avenue and memorial road and finally item 5 kc 7808 final plat of river bend phase one located uh south of west wilshire boulevard and east of north i-344 highway

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

I'd like to make a motion to approve the, recommend approval of the consent docket.

I have a motion to approve the consent docket as read from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And the consent docket is approved. Now we'll hear items requiring a separate vote and we'll start with number six.

This is KC7803, final plat of Coeur d'Alene phase one. And this is located south of West Hefner Road and west of North Mustang Road. There's also a variance to the subdivision regulations.

Good afternoon. My name is Gene Crabtree with Cowan Group Engineering, 7100 North Claassen, Suite 500. And yes, this is the final plot for phase two of Coeur d'Alene. And as read, the only TE that we've got, we are requesting a variance on the preliminary plat extension date. As far as that goes, the original preliminary plat was approved in January of 2018. This project went on hold for a little bit and is back. But other than that, we have no objections to the TEs and happy to take any questions.

Okay. So there's three TEs. You're agreeable to all of those? Yes. Okay. all right this is my war this is ward one um just for the benefit of commissioners i did have a little concern with the time frame that this is essentially three years beyond the five-year effective period but after hearing uh staff's explanation of there's some extenuating circumstances about change of property ownership new owner wasn't aware this is also the second and last phase of the development so i'm i'm okay with the variance so any other questions or comments from commissioners okay i think we're just ready for a motion we'll need to take the variance first

I will make a motion to approve variance to section 3.6.2.B.6.

All right, a motion to approve the variance. Seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. That variance is approved. Now the item.

I will make a motion to approve case number C7803.

I have a motion to approve the item subject to technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. And that item is approved. Good luck. Thank you. Item seven has been continued.

Item 8. Item 8 is PUD 1530 SP04, application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 1530, located at 9951 Northeastern Avenue.

Good afternoon. My name is Ryan Fersheets with Kimley Horn. It's at 4727 Gallardia Parkway. I'm here to present the specific plan application for PUD 1530, located at 9951 Northeastern Avenue.

Can you just give us a brief overview of the project?

Sure. This is a posed industrial building located north of an additional industrial building for same day deliveries. Proposed site plan is in conformance with all of the requirements of the PD There were no staff and the remaining staff comments. We've addressed them But I'm happy to take any additional questions

Thank you. Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward, and I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay, if we don't have anyone signed up to speak, then I recommend approval, and there aren't any T's or PUDs. Any other comments, questions from commissioners? Sorry. All right. We have a motion to approve the specific plan from Commissioner Harrison. I'll just read for the record. Staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with PUD 1530 Master Design Statement and the Master Development Plan as amended. That item has been seconded by Commissioner LaForge. Please cast your votes when available. He recused. All right, and that specific plan is approved. Good luck. Thank you.

Item nine. Item nine is case CE 1162, application to close a portion of a north-south utility easement on lot one and block seven of the lakes at Annecy Phase One. This is located east of Albigny Court and south of Northwest 150th Terrace.

Hello, Jessica Boyd with Johnson & Associates representing the applicant. The closure before you today is to close a portion of a platted utility easement. There are no existing utilities within this easement and this is really to just kind of clean up the lot. Our client bought a portion of the common area behind his lot and the intent is to develop a pool. So happy to answer any questions. We do have one TE and we are in agreement with that. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Noble, this is your board. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay, and then did kind of conversations with the applicant and I don't see anything with it. That I will recommend approval of case number CE 1162.

We have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to City Council for approval. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privett. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval.

Item 10. This is case SP 613, application for a special permit to operate use unit 8300.33 drinking establishment. And this is located in the I-1 Light Industrial District at 2830 Northwest 10th Street.

Hello, my name is Victor McClinton. Like you said, the address is 2830 Northwest 10th. Looking to take it from a retail space to establish one as a sit-down drinking. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, Commissioner Milner, this is Ward 6, and I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay, you don't have anybody signed up. I don't have any questions. Commissioners, any comments or questions on this one? If not, I would recommend approval of SB 613 with one condition noted in the staff report.

Yeah, I just want to, are you aware of that technical evaluation that was in the staff report that drinking use unit 8,333 drinking staff sit down alcohol per minute shall be limited to the area depicted on exhibit B? Which is?

Basically, I mean, it's just your unit. Yeah, only your unit. Correct.

Okay. Yeah, you're good with that? Okay. Okay.

All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Milner. to recommend approval of the special permit. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your vote. And that is recommended for approval. Thank you, good luck.

item 11. this is cpa 2026 5 consideration of a map amendment to the comprehensive plan changing the land use topology area designation from rural low to rural medium on a 17-acre tract located south of southeast 164th street and east of south air depot boulevard trey miller for planning staff

The amended area is the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use map changing low to rural medium land use typology. We see from the LUDA the site is located in the rural area southeast of Stanley Draper Lake. So far as the current land use, there's undeveloped to the south with the rest being a mixture of rural, residential, and residential. Onto zoning, it's primarily AA with the exception of PUD 949. Now onto land use typology. Southeast 164th divides the area within rural medium to the north and rural low to the south. The site falls within our potential connectivity area with the applicant proposing to extend water services. The site does not fall within our sewer service area. The applicant wishes to do septic. The site sits comfortably within OKC's rural response area for emergency services. Both 164th and Air Depot are both minor arterials, with Air Depot being resurfaced as a part of the 2017 bond. Our findings, this large lot residential fits Plan OKC's rural medium well. It doesn't look to disrupt the area's characteristics, and while we've talked for a time about septic, these large lots do not pose a significant risk or negative environmental impact. The city staff recommends approval.

All right, thank you. Commissioner Privet, this is your award. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

It is? Yes. I don't have any issues with this and the preceding application either. If no one has anything else to speak about, I will move for approval.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Privet to approve the...

CPA 20260005. All right.

It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes when available. And that item is approved.

Item 12. Item 12 is PUD 2139, application to rezone 7300 Southeast 164th Street from AA to PUD 2139.

good afternoon david box 525 northwest 11th street here on behalf of the applicant this is the corresponding pud we seek to take these almost 18 acres and break it up into approximately five lots we do have a minimum lot size requirement of two acres which is now compatible with the rural medium designation that you just approved there is one te that we would ask to strike it asks for sidewalks if you look at an aerial they're not sidewalks for miles and miles and miles All of this area is developed in a nature that is rural, none of which has sidewalks. It's not anticipated that there would ever be a project out here for sidewalks. So we would ask to strike that. Happy to answer any questions.

um david is there any any way to keep you from breaking us up into a bunch of two acre lots say that again is there any way to keep you from breaking this up into a bunch of two acre lots instead of the minimum being like the site plan i'm fine with but i wouldn't be so good with all of them being two acres you know across the whole 18. would it be nine knots is there

Okay, good. Bobby pointed that. Yeah, we have a max of five lots in the document. I'm good with that.

We don't have anybody signed up with this one either? No. Okay. Any other discussion from commissioners? Just about the TE. The TE, yeah. And I'm okay with the no sidewalks being in this area. There's not any for quite a few miles. And if nobody else is going to get you, then I'll move to recommend approval. Striking number one.

Okay. A motion from Commissioner Privet to recommend the item for approval of City Council striking TE1. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes.

Thank you.

And that item is recommended for approval. Item 14, 13, excuse me, item 13. Item 13 is case SBUD 1820, application to rezone 1714 Northwest 30th Street from R1.

Fallon Brooks Magnus, Jolly Bird Design, representing the applicant. I spoke with Commissioner Powers on this one. And we've made some changes to our lot coverage. And there were some TEs about not superseding. Sorry. Did someone know what the TEs were? But we made a whole bunch of concessions and talked with everyone. I was not able to get confirmation from the neighbor that they were happy with everything, but he was happy with what we told him we did.

As you requested, so the TEs, there were three TEs. TE1 was amend section maximum building height to include number of stories. TE2 was add to the section parking, garage parking may be counted toward the minimum provided each space meets design standards. And TE3 was specify that the front yard setback supersedes the platted building line.

Yes.

So you're agreeable to all those?

Yeah, we're good with that.

This is Commissioner Powers' ward and she is not in attendance today. Commissioner Noble, would you like to lead any discussion on this item?

I will and I have some notes also from Commissioner Powers. One of the things she did want to add as a TE was that there would be no signage allowed at all.

Yeah, that's totally understandable.

And then the other, she was questioning the width and need for the 16-foot wide driveway.

We can't do any less than that for a two-way. Does staff know on that? I don't think we've ever done less than 16 feet.

So you're saying that's coming from the city standard regulations?

I thought so. I could be wrong. My understanding was always that for two-way access that you had to have a minimum of 16 feet. That's just, I've been doing it for a decade. It's the first time I've been questioned on it. So I could very well be wrong.

My understanding is that she feels like, and I agree, that 16 feet's not necessary. You only need a 12-foot driveway here because there's so few units. Okay. I mean, if somebody's going to be pulling in and out at the same time.

If commission is comfortable with that, I'm okay with it, and it gets our lot coverage down. I'm okay with that.

No, I would like to see 12 feet.

Okay.

And the apron is... It's attached to the one next door as well. So overall you end up with like a 22 foot apron out in the street. So that does help to bring it down some more. So I'm absolutely amenable to that. Yes. Okay.

So we'll make that TE five. Anything else? Commissioner Noble?

Nope. I think that is, that is all. Anything else from any commissioners on this? And with that, I will make a motion to recommend approval of SPUD 1820 with the three TEs as written and the additional TE number four to be no signage allowed and TE number five to be a max driveway width of 12 feet.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to council for approval subject to the technical evaluations as read in. That's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval. Item 14.

Item 14 is case SPUD 1825, application to rezone 1220 Northwest 33rd Street from R1.

Fallon Brooks Magnus, Jolly Bird Design, 11 Northeast 11th Street, representing applicant. So I had some conversations with Commissioner Powers on this one as well and she was mostly concerned with lot coverage So we came down to 70 30 on that And we are going to have to completely redesign the main duplex in order to accommodate that so so we are

it's it was not an easy decision to come to so uh was there any sorry i'm not mistaken she may have had this commissioner powers may have had the same issue with the driveway in this one so if you reduce the width of the driveway that'll help on your lot coverage as well we're okay with that yeah

Anything else on your end? Nothing from me, no. Commissioner Noble, I know you have some thoughts from Commissioner Powers.

I do, and it's the same, too. So she does want to add a T for no signage allowed, and then the driveway width.

And then the driveway width, yeah. Those are both fine.

Okay, I don't have anyone signed up to speak, so...

With that, I will, anything from any other commissioners? No, I'll make a motion then to recommend approval of SBUD 1825 with TE number one being no signage allowed and TE number two to maximum driveway width to be 12 feet.

All right, a motion to recommend the item to city council for approval subject to the two technical evaluations from Commissioner Noble. I didn't see a second. Commissioner Harrison, okay. Seconded by Commissioner Harrison, please cast your votes when available. And that item is recommended for approval.

Item 15. This is SPUD 1835, application to rezone 901 Northwest 31st Street from R1.

Fallon Brooks Magnus, Jolly Bird Design, 11 Northeast 11th Street, representing the applicant. We are requesting a...

I'm sorry, say that again.

We're requesting a continuance on this one. Okay. We need to have conversation with the neighbors, and we are gonna have to completely redesign it, so probably not coming back until I would say end of June, or what are my July dates?

Can staff tell us what July dates are available? I am glad that you're taking the opportunity to meet with neighbors. I think we have three of them here today and even though it looks like this item is gonna be continued, if you wanna take an opportunity to let us know what your concerns are and we can make sure that that's addressed when you guys meet with the applicant.

So let's get the dates first. The 23rd is the only meeting in July.

Really?

So it's the 25th of June or the 23rd of July?

23rd of July it is. I'm trying not to come back the whole month of June.

OK. Yeah, go ahead. Come on up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Josh Farmer, 823 Northwest 31st. We would object to another continuance. There has been no attempt made to contact any of the neighbors that I'm aware of. I've spoken to three of them. And we've seen her outside several times. She's made no attempt to contact anybody. I don't believe that they've made a good faith effort given the panel's instructions when we left last time. So we would ask that the commission vote today and vote no. Okay, thank you.

Is July 23rd the only available date? Because we are not available on the 23rd.

That's the available July date.

Are we going to get notice or anything?

So just because the applicant is available July 23rd, if some of these folks who keep coming back are not, I don't know that we need to, I understand the representative and the applicant does not want to come back from out of state when she or he does not want to, but I want to hear about what dates they are available, not just the applicant.

We can certainly look at August dates Are there August dates you're available? Yes. Those dates would be, bear with us a minute, 13th and 27th. Either one.

Maybe before we decide, is there a third person that wants to mention something?

Yeah, we'll hear from Mr. Titus here.

I think the applicant left also.

He's kind of hanging out in the lobby.

He's here.

Okay. We never voted on the item.

That's good. I'm Frank Titus. I live about a half a block from there, 819 Northwest 31st, and I own a house 815 and a vacant lot, 811 Northwest 31st. And, of course, I'm against this, and the lot's only one and a half lots. That's 37.5 feet.

Mr. Tye, I don't want to cut you off, but for efficiency purposes, so we're looking to continue the item, and we're looking at an August date, and we just want to make sure that you would be available to voice your concerns on one of those two dates, which would be August 13th or August 27th. if the applicant is agreeable to that.

And I think, are you, August is good?

August 13th, can you pick one? 27th, give us more time. Okay. I'm gonna encourage you to have discussions with the neighbors. We will. And if we hear that that hasn't happened, then... then we're gonna have a difficult conversation. All right, thank you.

Mr. Chair, could I add, before we move forward with the likely continuance, to the point about maybe just voting it today, I don't know that it would get voted down in number two. Without Commissioner Powers here and it's her award, it makes it a little difficult, and it's a little extreme for us to just refuse these requests for continuances, but instead strongly encourage them to meet with the neighbors.

Thank you for that, yeah, good point. Okay, so I think we're ready for a motion to continue the item to the August 27th meeting.

I will then make a motion to continue item SBUD 1835 to August 27th.

A motion from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. That item is continued.

item 16. this is case spud 1832 application to rezone 1401 northwest 9th street spud 1407. good afternoon david box 525 northwest 11th street here on behalf of the applicant before you is an spud that would allow for a 12 unit multi-family development we have modified it since i think the original filing to put all the the parking back if you look at the site plan We think that's a better design, which also allowed us from what is zones now to increase that setback on the south, which is more in line with the other buildings that exist to the west of us. So we think from a continuity standpoint of that building line, it's more respectful of the built environment. So with that, we would ask for your approval. There are two TEs. We agree to TE2. i'm not sure what te1 is asking us for but we we specify the number of dwelling units in the spd to 12. um i guess the max number of buildings would be two but i i view this as one building given that they're all sharing walls so i'm just i'm not sure what the te is trying to get to but i bet sarah could tell us thank you

Sure, Sarah Welch, Planning Department. It was really more designed at the bulk and the scale of the development. If it's 12 right now, if you're okay with one 12-plex or an 8-plex and a 4-plex, that's fine. But we just didn't know if you wanted to limit it to any configuration or...

Think I think we're committed to this so I guess we could say a max of two buildings But this is the view of staff that this is this would be one.

I mean that that part is a little bit tricky We think there's one there's two dwellings per each of those buildings, but you're saying the buildings may be attached So, I mean if you wanted to eat, I mean the Commission might be okay striking it It was just more of a question about in the future if it wasn't designed this way Would you be okay with any way that it could be designed? I?

I'd hate to get hung up on permits, so I guess we could say six, a max of six buildings provided that they're all attached as depicted in the site plan. I just don't want to get hung up on that. If we say one and they say, well, that's six, the intent is 12 dwelling units.

just don't know what that is considered a permit Sarah can we do it on number of dwelling units they have a dwell there's 12 max allowed and then and then they have revised it since they originally submitted to like I'll flip the building and put the part the parking is required to be on the opposite side so that might be fine we just weren't sure if that if you needed anything more tied down about just like the bulk and the scale and what it could be you know so

Prefer to strike it because we limit the height we we limit where the parking can go and we limit the dwelling units so my preference would be delete t1 and We agree to t2 Any comments concerns from commissioners I

I don't have any, my concern was the original orientation of the parking in front of the buildings. So I'm glad we've got the parking behind and we've got some height limitation in there, two stories, 30 feet.

The only thing that I would bring up is the dumpster and the dumpster location and maybe put something into the application that designates where it can't be. How far away from R1? So there's no R1. Or residential.

If I'm looking at the site plan, is it currently sitting in an alley? Is that where it's currently at right now and covered?

Is the alley closed? I mean, it's an easement. It's not accessible, but it is in the easement.

The alley is low. Where it is is as far away, I think, from any structure that we could really put it on this site in terms of it's further away from the north, to the northeast, to the west. So the dumpster, we do require that it be screened. And then we indicate where shown on exhibit B.

I mean, yeah, I see what you're saying. I mean, do we...

I don't think you can just place it in the alley in the easement without additional... Well, yeah, if we have to go do something, we can. If you look at this alley... I mean, I think I'm in agreement. As far as location, that's probably your best location. It's just...

I think in the text, doesn't it require it to be with a revocable permit?

Perhaps it will, and it could be that we have to go do another step. If you look at this alley. But if he can't get a revocable permit, I just want to put it in here so he can have an alternate spot.

If you can't get that, where is it going to go?

If we can't get it, we can go close and vacate that. So if we can't get it, then it's on us. But I'm confident the architect has designed it in this way because he's confident it could go there. I guess we could say, as shown on Exhibit B, subject to approval of Public Works, and in the event that Public Works won't approve it, well... Well, I mean, I think it's on them.

If they can't get it, then they're going to have to come up with a different place for it. That's right. We can track that down between now and Council. They'd have to come back to us though, wouldn't they?

To close and vacate, it would.

Well, to put it on the site in a different location to meet just the standard, which is, I think, 25 feet from residential property.

I think Mr. Seagraves would like to say something. Yeah, Dustin Seagraves with the Peel Use Department.

We actually have a sanitary sewer in that alley, so we would not approve a revocable permit for a screening in a dumpster at that location.

Well, that answer's said.

I don't want to see what we say about parking. Well, perhaps we'll work with utilities between now and City Council on what to do there. I mean, there are structures built within the alley, so there's got to be a solution. Perhaps it means moving it into where one of the parking spaces is, and we live in a parking space, but my preference would be to move it forward and let the architect work with utilities and figure out what needs to be done.

It's open.

Do you think we need to get some language in there? I think you're coming at just making sure that it can't just be

I get what you're saying, and I'm wondering if... Yeah, so there is a standard, right, in R4, where the dumpster can be as far as against residential property.

If we're all good with that standard, then... Yeah, as it stands now, if they could not get permission to put the dumpster in the alley, they would have to put it within no closer than 25 feet from the residential.

Okay. We don't seem to modify that. Yeah.

piece of it. Since they specify where the dumpster goes in the PUD, does that need to have broader language to allow them to move it if they can't put it in the alley?

Well, I would suggest on that we say where indicated on Exhibit B subject to revocable permit approval in the event that a revocable permit was not approved. Base zoning.

Yeah. base zoning standard would then be applicable. That's what I was just trying to get at.

That sound good?

We did bring up hours of operation, potential hours of operation for service if it was at a different location. On hours of operation?

On what? Pick up. if it was somewhere else within the site.

Yeah, in other words, if you couldn't make it work, you say, well, we'll just have it empty during the daylight hours or something like that. But if the 25 feet works, that's what the problem is. I mean, I like both, actually.

I think that's fine within daylight hours. Okay. Getting no, but it's a nice beauty All right, are we ready for a motion?

We have anybody signed it we don't have anybody send us because you know, okay Okay, I'd like to recommend approval of spud 1832 We're gonna strike te1

Strike T1, agree to T2, and I guess add a T3 consistent with what Commissioner Noble said.

Yeah, concerning dumpster placement and service within daylight hours. Is that good? And that'd be T3.

Can I request that we specify the exact hours, like 9 to 5 or something like that?

Yeah, we can do that.

9 to 5? You know, the sun comes up a lot earlier than that.

It'll be like 8 to 6.

Yeah, whatever you think. 7 to 5. Just since daylight varies so widely. Interpretation.

I see the sun about 6 a.m. these days. How about 7 to 8? 8.

7 a.m., 8 p.m.?

Daylight savings time.

I'm good with that. Okay, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Any other items? Okay.

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

Thanks.

Item 17. Item 17 is SBU 1840, application to rezone 3131 Northwest 192nd Street from 01.

Good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, this is, so my client, I don't know if there's a broader view, my client owns 320 acres moving from this to the east, and they've been actively developing it for many years. There's multifamily, there's commercial, there's R1, there's R1ZL. Unsure how this little sliver of o1 existed in this spot for so long, but it does our desire is to build a duplex townhome development the Item has one te which we agree to Have any answer any questions

Commissioner Noble, this is Ward 8, and I do not have anyone sign up to speak.

Okay, and I did meet and discuss this with the applicant. Just a couple of things in the application that I would like to see, if possible, and that was to move the wood siding and the cementia siding to the 30%. I don't think we can do that. It just matches the other surrounding houses and developments more than and again, it's just a More brick You want to move the wood siding to the 30% along with the cement it's siding Let me text my client And then the other was the dumpster and the TE does get that covered. And so if you're in agreement with that.

So Commissioner, this is obviously your ward and I'm not familiar with this area. Are you seeing a lot of the homes and structures up there prominently masonry?

Yeah. There's an office development right by it and they're all the same way.

Any other comments, questions from commissioners?

So we'll just have one driveway access on 192nd Street, a private drive servicing. We can agree.

okay good so that is wood siding and the the Hardy board piece to this to the 30 anything else

Nope, I think we're ready for a motion.

With that, I will make a motion to recommend approval of SPUD 1840 with TE number one and the additional TE number two, changing the architectural standards and moving the wood siding and the cementious siding to the 30%.

Motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item City Council for approval subject to the technical evaluations It's been second by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes And that was recommended for approval, thank you

item 18. item 18 is spud 1831 application to rezone 3000 northwest 150th street from spud 848 and pud 302. once again david box 525 northwest 11th this is an item that was deferred from the may 14th meeting to allow us to have a community meeting there is a an office park that exists in this area We had a pretty productive meeting at one of the offices with many of the people that owned properties in the area. The concept for this is for those kind of garage condos that you've seen. More of a limited scale on this one, but the garage condo Concept so we worked through some of the issues with the neighbors one of their concerns dealt with the CC and ours and making sure that whatever we have within this was consistent compatible with the CC and ours because this This office park has been very true to the CC and ours since inception and so we have four te's list in the staff report and Two of which we can agree to, two of which I don't think we can. But then I have a host of other TEs that have come from working with the neighbors, one of which is here. But there was a group of probably eight to 10. Commissioner Noble had the opportunity to be there. In fact, it was maybe the most unique meeting I've been to. I think there were six people named Joe in this meeting uh it was wild and so uh anyways my client's name is not joe so they were very accepting of him despite his name so as it relates to the tes we agree to tes one and three we we cannot agree to te2 based upon the amount of frontage that we have And frankly, I'm not sure about TE4. Commissioner Noble and I and my client talked about it before, and perhaps we need some clarification from staff. But before we do that, I'd like to just get into the record all of the other TEs. So TE5 would be removing the following use units, 8300.5, 8300.41, 8300.42, 8300.43, 8300.44, and 8300.55. TE 6, modify use unit 8300.32 to be limited to the north 215 feet of frontage of 150th Street. TE 7, 8350.8 use unit limited to a garage condo development. TE 8, all residential and marijuana uses shall be prohibited. TE 9, no outdoor storage shall be permitted within any setback. TE 10, take the architectural metal from the 70% allowance to the 30% allowance. TE 11, trees shall be required along the south boundary of this SPUD. planted on 25-foot centers, and TE-12 require a masonry wall along, well, I don't know how to word this, but we are requiring a masonry wall between the buildings, but limited to the south side of the development. So where the green space exists between the two buildings, there'd be a span of masonry wall there and then the far left building and next building a span of a masonry wall there so the masonry wall limited to those two spans along the south but between the buildings south of the buildings will be landscape with the 25 with the trees on 25-foot centers as described in the TE 11 So if you could go to the aerial, Jared, if you don't mind. So I'm not sure we need access onto the arterial. I am concerned with limiting our access to the Brahms drive. It is undoubtedly a private drive, so I believe we need access independent of that in the event that Brahms says no. We have to have independent access onto the arterial. So I don't know where that leaves us with the TEs. I know we cannot agree to TE2. I think we can agree to TE4 unless used for access, the existing 17 foot wide curb cut onto 150th in the Spud North battery shall be removed. If we don't use it, then yes, we can curb and do all that. So perhaps it's one, three, and four we agree to. We do not agree to two because we have to have access onto 150th.

You wanna, I know someone signed up to speak.

We do have, I think we have one of the six Joes here. Mr. Joe Davis.

Thank you. My name is Joe Davis. Address is 3020 Northwest 149th Street. I'm here representing the owners of eight of the buildings on 149th Street. Really, they've gone ahead and hit all the concerns we have, so I do appreciate that. I appreciate the time that Commissioner Noble took out of his day, and also for Mr. Box coming by our office and taking care of the issues. Again, if there's a project where we can see that the ownership of the office buildings and the applicant we're working together this is a perfect example so again i do appreciate them taking the time thank you for your comments does anybody have any questions for us i don't think so thank you

You don't have a list of all that stuff that you gave us, right? I mean, notes. We can say as read. I didn't say where's Caitlin, but where's Caitlin?

Caitlin undoubtedly does. I could read it again.

No, it's, well, I might ask you to at the very end. Just real fast, I didn't understand, why the masonry wall in between your own buildings? Is that something the neighbors care about?

The neighbors asked for it. Yeah, just so that there's no, it's site-proof. And there's really not that much.

So it's not between the property and the neighbors. It's amongst their own buildings?

It's basically tying a building. Instead of building a continuous wall on the south side of the property, they're allowing the back wall of the building to be the fence. Oh, I see.

It's connecting the buildings. I thought it was separating the buildings from each other because you've got it connected.

But then instead of being on the property line, there is a green space that we're then going to landscape, plant trees, and maintain.

I think that you can agree to TE number two. I think that with the existing conditions that are out there, the only drive that would be approved is to use the drive that's halfway built by Brahms, and then you'd build the other half, and have sometime a cross-access agreement for access in and out of the two developments.

Are you saying that Brom built a half drive, we could widen it and make it a shared drive? I mean, that's what it looks, it's there right now.

I don't know what's preventing them from saying no other than, I mean, it is built halfway. There is no curb on their side, on the west side. Here's what I don't want. You would just have to come get a variance, right?

No, we'd have to, no, we'd have to rezone it all over again to allow the access. Because it's a spud, we would have to go through the entire rezoning process to allow the access. That's why I'd prefer to delete TE2. But that's only if you didn't get cross-access, right? Right. Well, right, but we can't go through this process and then ROM says,

No. What I'm having a hard time following is I'm looking at Street View, and they've got an inbound and an outbound lane, and so on the west side, which would border this, there is a curb on that drive.

The Brahms drive?

Yeah, now on the apron, now once you get further back to their parking, then there is no curb.

Right, and I'm sure that because it was in the easement, they had to put the curb. So I would say we strike two. If they've got it curved. Well, we can't have a drive right next to a drive. I mean, it's so dangerous out there already. I mean, traffic's, that's why you wouldn't allow it. So I know that there is a way to get there.

Except, well. but it takes Brahms playing ball, and that's just not something we can solve for. I mean, they don't have to.

I mean, is there any, can you put a condition on it, like, with a letter of, you know, with confirmation from Brahms that they won't do this, you know?

You want to make him at least try to reach out to Brahms? I do. I mean, I think for a better development, it would be better to have that cross-access agreement and one entrance right there onto 150th.

Or we could just approve the location of the driveway where you're comfortable with, further to the west, and obviously that's not what they want, but that's what they would get if they can't get.

Where would it be if it was further to the west? In the green? Oh, way over here. On the other side of the cemetery.

It's not ideal for their site plan, obviously, but it's ideal for the city's safety concerns.

Is that a public street to the west?

No, it's just a driveway.

Well, they would need an agreement from that property owner. If you go back to the site plan, thanks.

I mean, they have to be entitled to access from it. Legally, they are entitled to access to an arterial. You cannot landlock a parcel in the state of Oklahoma, period.

Right, what I was saying is if the concern of the commission is that there's not enough distance between the two drives, just grant access further to the west, move that drive that they're showing further to the west. That at least alleviates your concern to some degree. And then if they can get approval from Brahms, then great, problem solved. But if they can't, at least we have a safer situation. There's more space between drives.

Is that their parking all along the east side there? Yes. Those can't be storage on the east and the driveway over here on the west next to the cemetery?

Those are all retail buildings. First, the darker brown is retail.

Already existing or that you're building?

Proposed. The lighter is the garage condo.

Why can the retail space not be over closer to Brahms so that the driveway is on the west?

Barry, while you're here, let's hear what you have to say from Public Works.

Barry Lodge, Public Works. We would like to have the spacing on the driveways obviously meet what's in the functional classification plan. While I think that's not possible along the frontage of that, just due to the width of it, there is the existing drive opening that is on the west side of that property that could be used for access to this site. And while that's not gonna meet the spacing that's in the functional classification plan either, it is already there. And since it is there, we wouldn't object to that being used as the access. Where it's proposed right now is it's just too close to the existing Brahms Drive, but they could utilize the driveway that is farther to the west. It's already there. The curb opening is there now.

Where is that specifically? I'm not seeing it. Which one? On that other, flip back to that other screen. Where are you talking about?

It's pretty much at the property line.

Yeah, it's basically at the property line.

Which property line? Because this is so jagged up, I'm talking about which side of the cemetery?

Where it ties into 150th Street.

Right there, where he's doing the hand?

Okay. Can you go to the aerial, Jared, and zoom in on that? You can't.

Right next to the cemetery.

Right.

so right there is where that drive exists okay yes right after it's right well you can't see the grove of trees because the but it's just like a single 12 foot you can kind of see it you know curb open curb apron that's me kind of hard to see it with the border drawn around right it's like right here why not there applicant what it's better it's a good compromise they're not going to give you this It's too close to the Brahms Drive. So from a safety standpoint, the whole course is not going to allow that. And you're saying Brahms isn't going to allow us to attach to? I'm saying you can't go close on this. Maybe they will. No, I can't. But you can't close it. I hope you drew Brahms against it. do we just need to take some time to Maybe put this after the other. Let us work through this real quick. Okay. If that's agreeable.

All right. Any objections to that? No. Okay. We'll table this. Go ahead and hear case 19.

Case 19 is SPUD 1837, application to rezone 9001 East Memorial Road from AA.

Jessica boy with Johnson & Associates representing the applicant the spud before you today is to permit a Retail commercial development as you can see with the very odd of property shape. We are very limited in We have received no protests on this one. We do have two teas We are in agreement with te one and I'd like to amend te to to remove the alcoholic beverage only because our client does not have an end user in mind at this time, and so we'd like to maintain that use just to increase flexibility for when he is marketing the site for tenants. But we are in agreement to remove all of the other uses that are noted in TE2. So I am happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Does any other commissioner have any comment regarding this? I'm trying to wrap my head around how I feel about the removing alcoholic beverage retail sales from the TE. I mean, this is going to be a standalone bill. I mean, this is such a small development. I don't know. Any other comments, questions from commissioners?

My concern is the truth of being able to find an end user at this point, or we're just preparing to sell the property. Either way, I just wanted to hear the consent of the rest of the commissions before I move forward. I'm okay with removing it to you, apparently, because I just don't think that this is going to materialize into much of a development personally.

Okay.

Anything else?

All right. I think we're ready to hear a motion.

Well, can I move to approve SBUB 1837? With the removal of the alcohol beverage TE. Thank you.

So subject TE1, removing use unit 8300.5 from TE2. Thank you. All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Harrison. It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes.

Thank you.

And that item's recommended for approval.

Item 20. This is SPUD 1841, application to rezone 6017 Northwest 23rd Street from R1.

Good afternoon, Braden Schaefer with Kraft & Tolan Associates, 300 Point Parkway Boulevard here representing the applicant. This is a new application to you all from the original request for a straight rezoning that came before you in March. We've come back with a spud. It's very much tailored, similar to the property that's directly to the west of it. the the one kind of item that we added in addition to what's included in the spud to the west is there was a concern about the zoning accounting for the current use currently there is a fenced in area that stores some outdoor storage items and so we've added in Provision for that that's addressed in t1 Our concern with t1 is that it requires it to be behind a principal use structure, which currently there is no building So our request would be that we would keep T1 but strike the portion requiring it to be behind a principal use structure and then we are we're in agreement with t2 Happy to answer any questions

This is Commissioner Powers-Ward. Commissioner Noble, you wanna lead our conversation?

I will. See, I have some notes on this one too. A lot of it has to do with the screening itself. So you're wanting to do just the west and the south, or the north? and leave no screening on the east?

Yeah, so the reason that generally we would be required to have screening on the east would be because it's currently zoned R1. We've gotten a letter of support from that neighbor for us to rezone to commercial and not have screening on that side. And so I believe that the neighbor potentially has plans to maybe come to rezone to commercial as well at some point. And so that's kind of where we were hoping to keep the screening requirement off of the east side.

For me, because it has the outdoor storage on it, I'd like to see the screening on the three sides because it already has outdoor storage on it.

Well, so the outdoor storage is screened, and we're keeping that in the SPUD. If there's outdoor storage, that is to be fully screened on all sides. We're asking that if the use comes as, say, a retail strip center, that we wouldn't be required to have a fence along that east property line.

And then there was a note about the placement of the dumpster.

Yes, so right now we meet the 25 foot requirements, which is what we're showing and what we're proposing. I do know that there was a staff comment that said that they would be in support of allowing it in the front in the event that we wanted to add additional distance. We're open to making that change as a TE as long as it's permittable to put that dumpster enclosure in front of the building.

And she was requesting that no sound application of any kind be allowed. I'm sorry, say that again. So no sound amplification. We're in agreement with that. And then on the signage, there's already no EMDs and no off-premise signage, but she also wanted to add no pole signs.

I think we could do no pole sign. So we would be limited to like a monument sign, a ground monument sign, yeah.

And so if you would take TE2, basically site proof screening shall be required per the base zoning district. I think that's, To me, that's okay to do. You don't know what's gonna happen to the property to the east, and until you did, I think we need to screen it on the three sides per the code.

So even though we have a letter of support, we can't do a no?

Right. Who's to say when? Yeah, I was gonna say, we have no idea when that, and that's just speculatory.

I mean, I know it's not being rezoned currently, but the current owner has given a letter of support that they're good with this rezoning request.

I would prefer to keep the screening in.

Yeah, and if they come back and they get it done and you get it rezoned,

So it's just... Especially with some uses in there that are above what would be in C3 now.

And Commissioner Powers did want to request to remove the animal sales and service and grooming and the animal sales and service kennels and veterinarian. Okay.

I think we would be open to removing the animal sales and grooming.

WTE3.

And you're good with the current dumpster language?

Yes. I mean, we're good with the 25-foot requirement from the property line as long as that's not a... That should essentially locate the dumpsters where they're shown on the master development plan.

So just help me out on TE number one. You wanted to strike what part?

It has to do with the issue where it says that it needs to be behind the front wall of a main structure. We currently do not have a main structure. And so the reason for the outdoor storage was because when we were here in March, there was a concern that our zoning did not cover the current use. And so if we put in TE1 as it's currently written, we still would not be in compliance with the zoning that we're approving because we don't have a main structure.

so you just wanna strike it.

I'm good with changing from 8350.15 to 8300.54, but we need to strike the part about being behind a main structure, because we don't have that.

Or we could just put if, something like if and when said structure is built, I mean that way they're covered for now, and then if they do build a main structure, the storage would be behind it. I would be okay with that.

Anything else? I don't think so.

So the two additional TEs would be the sound amplification and then the pole sign.

Was there another one?

Oh, and striking the uses.

Animal sales and grooming uses.

Okay. Anything else? Well, that I will make a motion to recommend approval of SPUD 1841 with the modification of TE number one to add if or when structure is constructed. TE number two as stated. TE three, no sound application of any kind. TE four, no pull signs allowed. And TE five, striking the use unit. Let's see. Wherever they are. I can't find them.

veterinarian uses I believe that'd be the eighty three hundred point eight and the eighty three hundred point eleven yes so sorry sorry Welsh planning department did you are you a group dude is number two stain yes okay so we probably just need to say to modify the first sentence of that Staff's intent with that was that the way it was reading is that the site proof screening was only gonna be required with the construction of any building. And so without a building permit, there wouldn't be a screening requirement for outdoor storage. So our question would be for the master design statement, are we only altering the first sentence? Or are we replacing the whole entire?

Site proof screening.

If we just replace the first sentence, then screening would not be required along the east property line. But if we just say straight out it's just per code, it's gonna be the six to eight foot wall or fence. I just wanna clarify if we're striking that whole section in favor of screening per code.

I mean, that's what I'm in favor of. Because it wouldn't matter if the building was built or not, right?

Good?

Yep.

You ready for them? Didn't I already do that?

That was your motion. I'm gonna need you to repeat it. Oh, good. All right, we have a motion from committee. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. Thank you. And that's recommended for approval. That was the last item on the agenda, so we'll return to item 18.

Okay. What I would propose to do is Replace te2 with a provision that access Onto 150th shall be required to be at the existing location to meet city regs as relates to width Our goal is to go meet with Brahms and find a path for cross access. That's that's our strong desire and preference But we can't control because it's private property. So limit the access to the current location to meet city standards in terms of width and Hopefully within six weeks before get to council. We'll have a solution on cross access with Brahms And I can go over the another there's been a gap now So I'm happy to walk through all the other T's and if you don't get cooperation with Brahms, what's your they're gonna use the Existing on the west side correct got it and it may mean that our site has to have some element of redesign or something, but We'll have to deal with that when it comes up.

Okay, so Who is your seemingly unlicensed co-counsel? Does he have any thoughts?

Do you have an opinion, Beckett, on this? He did say, hey, Dad, they said five minutes.

This guy's been talking for more than five minutes.

Agreed. Agreed. Do you want me to go over all the TEs? Okay. So we are going to agree to TEs one and three. four can now go away because we are going to utilize it uh replace te2 to say i think you leave four just because if you don't use it you're gonna sure okay so we agree to one three and four te2 to be modified to say access to 150th shall be provided at the current opening with to meet city standards um te5 is removal of the following use units 8300.5 8300.41 8300.42 8300.43 8300.44 8300.55 to E6 modify 8300.32 to be limited to the north 215 feet off of 150th Street to E7 8350.8 is limited to garage condo development to E8 all residential and marijuana uses shall be prohibited TE9, no outdoor storage shall be permitted within any setback. TE10 is moving the architectural metal to the 30% allowance. TE11 is trees on 25-foot centers shall be required along the south boundary of the spud. And then 12 is going to require a masonry wall along the south side of the spa no to connect the buildings on the south side of the spud sarah do you have any recommendation on language there i mean our goal is to connect here connect this building with a masonry wall and then you know connect this building with a masonry wall i i don't want to get tripped up on getting to city council with language yeah right in that we have the authority to kind of

Massage that between now and council, but would the green space be located on the outside of the wall or fence?

I Just wanna make sure we're not putting anything on the property line. It's gonna be Connecting the buildings on the south. So maybe it's a masonry wall.

I mean if you're committed to the site plan you could just The problem

So maybe we say on TE 12, a masonry wall shall be required to connect the buildings on the south, specific language to be addressed with staff between now and city council.

And then as far as like building height, is there a maximum that you?

I mean, eight feet, six to eight feet on the wall. Because it's just intended to be a fence, not to have a solid blank wall.

And are you confident enough yet that you would be able to just modify an exhibit to show the locations? Yes, we can get an exhibit modified. So you could just TE it to say, you know, as referenced in exhibit C and provide an exhibit C. Okay, and just modify that?

That's fine.

What about the rest of the site in the site-proof screening or the fencing?

So the rest of the site is going to be like wrought iron. And that was the original intent here is to do wrought iron. But the neighbors desired to have those two spans be masonry. Right.

But I want the whole thing to be fenced. Because it does mention site-proof screening shall not be required.

The whole thing will be fenced because it's going to be a secure facility. So the rest of it will be... Which is I think already accounted for in this bud.

It is now. Anything else?

I don't think so.

I'm not capable of reading all of those.

It was read in, it was read in clearly.

We can make my son come up here and try to read my handwriting and go through it.

Okay, so I am going to make a motion to recommend approval of SPUD 1831 with the TEs as written and read in by the applicant.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item City Council, subject to the TEs. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privett. Please cast your votes. Thank you. That is recommended for approval. This is the end of the items to be heard individually, so we'll move on to additional items. Communications report, planning commission committees. All right, seeing none. Planning commission members. I'd like to just start us off, and for those of you, many of you are probably aware, but for those of you who don't, this is Commissioner LaForge's last meeting with us. So I wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for nine years of service. Yeah, it's hard to think when I first came on the commission several years ago, you know, and I was made aware that there were four attorneys on the commission. I thought, wow, that's a lot. And now we're down to just one. No, your knowledge was always very valuable, and I always appreciated your delivery and your frankness and your ability to not sugarcoat anything.

Well, thanks. I wouldn't even say knowledge, just thoughts. I never came into the meetings planning to say anything, certainly nothing specific. I just, whatever thoughts came along, I appreciate you guys just humoring them. Whatever came to my mind, I thought it was worth it, I'd say it, and sometimes it probably was too much. But thanks, and yeah, it seemed like a long time, but at the same time, when I found my document of when I was appointed, it was Mayor Cornett, which I had forgotten, and then fortunately, Mayor Holt reappointed me a couple times. So mostly thanks to the staff, You guys that are here now and back then, it was Aubrey McDermid and J.J. Chambliss, great staff. And even though it sounds like some turnover, I love the consistency amongst the staff. Really good staff. And the commissioners, there's been some great folks around here that I've enjoyed serving with. So thanks. That's it, I was glad to do it. It flew by in one respect, but the short meetings, it feels like it flew by. The long meetings made it feel like I was on this for a very long time, and a couple of you guys, I hate that I didn't get to know, but some of you guys, it's really been a pleasure, the ones that I got to know over the years, so I was glad to do it, hope I did it well, and I'll miss you guys in some ways, but I won't miss the long meetings on Thursday afternoons, so thanks.

Well, you'll be missed, and don't be a stranger.

I'll see you guys at Thunder Games, maybe. All right. Thanks.

That's all I got. Go Thunder. Go Thunder. Good to see you, Rusty. Good fun. Mr. Newman?

Hate to see you go, Rusty. I think some great comments, and I really appreciated you being on the board, and good luck with everything. Thank you. Enjoy your Thursday afternoons. Yeah, thanks. Mr. Milner?

Rusty, I'm sorry I didn't get to know you.

Yeah, really.

Nine years, that's impressive.

I'm surprised I did that.

I don't know if I can make it nine years.

I was surprised I did that long. Thank you for your service. I hope some people do. Thank you. Glad to do it.

Thank you for your service. Not chasing the nine years.

Yeah, same. Thanks. It's been fun sitting next to you for these three and a half years. I really do appreciate your thoughts and how sometimes you can get to the application and get it. More concise, maybe. I'm not going to say cut off a short. But I've been trying to take your position and do that the same. Sometimes we're here for a long time.

I think my nine years will be this October.

That is a long time.

That's for you. You would be nine years? That's for a while.

Yeah. And, Rusty, you can come sit in the pews any time you want.

Commissioner Meek, you were absent when we started. Do you have anything to add?

Thanks, Rusty. It's nice getting to know you. Appreciate you. I did have a question for the director. I have on my calendar that there's a code update meeting on Tuesday or Wednesday. Is that still on?

Yes.

Okay. I'll address that in a second. I thought you were going to give me a hard time. I was going to say I'm off this before then, so I'm not going to be there. I thought you were going to ask me to come to another code update meeting. That ain't happening. Okay.

Okay. Oh, I have one other thing for young Mr. Box. So it's very important that you do your chores and what your dad tells you, but I'd like to suggest that when he asks you to do something that you respond with to the extent possible.

Or I don't agree.

I can't agree to that. He doesn't get it.

Planning department. Couple things. First, thank you, Rusty. I appreciated your contribution always, and it was enjoyable sometimes when we would have Really good discussions. Planning commission's always riveting, but it was fun to see you and the other attorney, Mr. David Vox, go toe-to-toe sometimes. It turned just good stuff into must-see TV. But I appreciate your, I was surprised it was nine years, wow. But yeah, thank you again. Been great to work with. The other thing was, yes, code update, update, update. Right now, we have drafts of several aspects of the code. You might have seen in your email boxes or social media somewhere, we've pushed a lot on social media lately to get these neighborhood meetings and then a survey out. If you haven't seen that and would like to take the opportunity, let me know. I'll send you a link. So the survey's been out there focusing on urban medium area, the urban medium area, so we can get as many people's opinions as we can. So we're nearly done with that. Now we'll be meeting with our policy committee which consists of roughly four planning commissioners, roughly four city council members, get their feedback on what we are learning and kind of our approach for how we move forward. So that's what's going to be going on in the next few weeks. So we'll probably have a policy committee meeting once a month or so. So that's really important because we really need to, we're approaching the part of the code where there's gonna be a lot of back and forth about various important decisions. Some things are just really important to neighborhoods, and some neighborhoods feel vastly differently than others. So it's gonna be an interesting balance, but that's what's going on. Sarah, did you wanna, okay. Sarah also wanted to take a minute.

Just special thanks, Rusty, for everything. And also, although absent, I have some comments from Commissioner Powers for you. You should know not to underestimate her last name. Okay, longevity is not everything, but it does allow for an impressive learning curve, and that is a very helpful foundation for any member of the Planning Commission, especially when mixed with persistence, curiosity, and a dedication to positive change, all of which Rusty has displayed over his tenure. In some ways, the at-large seat is the most challenging, the Planning Commission and its next occupant will have some big shoes to fill those same qualities that he is displayed on the Planning Commission will no doubt serve him well as he continues to work to improve the city so thank you for Commissioner powers well said okay anything from municipal counselors office citizens to be heard I see none no other business thunder up we're adjourned