Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the May 14th meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission. I'd like to call us to order and go over a few housekeeping items. Uh if you have a cell phone with you, please silence or turn it off. Uh if you've never been to one of our meetings before, here's what you can expect. Uh we'll begin with some simple administrative items uh such as minutes and continuences and then move move to cases uh on the consent docket that are straightforward um no opposition and can be approved as a group. And after that we move to cases to be heard individually. Uh we'll hear them discuss them and determine if a recommendation or decision can be made today or if more time and a continuence is necessary. There are certain cases where this body makes the final decision. Uh but most of the items that we hear today, we provide a recommendation to city council and we are not the final decision. Uh for no, no matter what the decision is, you will have another opportunity to share your concerns. uh again when those are heard at city council in six to eight weeks. Uh there are certain items such as uh homeowner association CCRs and agreements between private entities that are outside the purview of this commission and are not factors in our consideration. We ask that we don't that you don't use those to justify your case. Uh 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. Uh when your item's heard, you'll be called to the podium. Come up to the podium, 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 some additional time will be granted in those instances. Where several speakers on the same item are heard, please do your best to limit comments to those that we haven't uh heard yet. We're just trying to limit repetitious comments. Uh please direct

all your comments and questions to the commission and if needed we will ask staff or the applicant to respond. Finally, we appreciate your time here today uh and the obligations that you stepped away from to be here and we ask for your cooperation upholding the decorum of the meeting and that you do your best to limit uh speaking from the audience. So thank you for your attendance, your attention and your assistance. With that, we will move to item two, receipt of the minutes.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes of the April 23rd, 2026 meeting. A motion to receive the minutes. It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. Are we waiting on anyone? Oh, me. It's I Yes, I've clicked yes.

It's on here. If I need to voice vote, it's yay. All right, the minutes are received. Uh, item three, continuence requests. We'll start with uncontested requests.

Okay, we have several uncontested requests for continuence. Item B18, K7, K C7761 is deferred to May 28th. Um, item 19 we'll discuss in a minute. Item 20 is spud 1830 defer to May 28th. Item 21, spud 1831 defer to May 28th. Item 22, PUD 2110 deferred to June 25th. And item 23, PC 10997 has been withdrawn. I'll just confirm there's no one here to be heard on any of those items. All right, ready for a motion? I will make a motion to approve the uncontested continuous requests as read.

A motion to approve the uncontested continuous requests. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

Yay.

And the uh new uncontested continuence requests are approved. New requests Okay, for new requests, we have item B6, which is case C781, a request to defer to May 28th. Item 12 is sped 1834, request to defer to May 28th. And then item 19 is PC 10993, which instead of being deferred as published to May 28th would instead go to June 11th. Is there anyone here to be heard on any of those items? All right, seeing none, I just need a motion. I will make a motion to approve the new continuous request as read.

A motion from Commissioner Noble on the new continuous request, seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes.

All right. The the refresh apparently helps. So those new continuous requests are granted. So now we move on to the consent docket.

We have two items on consent today. Item one is KC7798, the final plat of the Wheeler District, phase 4, located south of the Oklahoma River and west of Southwestern Avenue. And item two is KC7800, the final plat of Chateau Berry Villas. Yes, Chateau Berry Villas. Section two, located um north of Northwest 192nd and west of North May Avenue. All right. Anyone here to be heard on those items? Seeing none, we just need a motion. I will make a motion to appro approve the consent docket.

A motion to approve the consent docket from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And the consent docket is approved. Item three. Item three is KC7797, the final plat of SH, which is State Highway 74 North Development, which is located south of Northwest 150th Street and west of Lake Hefner Parkway, Portland Avenue. Good afternoon, Mark Zitzo, Johnson and Associates, 20 Sheridan Avenue. Uh this is the Shields uh project. You've seen multiple times including at the preliminary plat stage uh where you saw an identical application and it was approved unanimously with no tees. You pointing at me?

No, I think she's signaling we're having issues with the audio up here on the horseshoe. Okay. So, you need me to talk louder? Speak speak up a little.

Right. So, this is the Shields project in northwest Oklahoma City. Uh you've seen this project before, both in the form of a PUD that I did with Mr. box uh and then the preliminary plant which was identical to this application uh and there were no TEES that we had today. So I want to address those a little bit. Um I think the first TE that I want to talk about is an access easement related to block 4 lot one which is the south uh easternmost lot. Uh on the plat there's a limits of no access listed but it's per ODOT and so we believe that we are allowed to have uh a driveway off of the service road and I just talked to Jared before this. So I guess we'd like to amend the TE with a clause that if ODOT allows it uh we would also be permitted it through the city. You can see the blue line stream that comes through there would prevent a private access easement to go north to that uh public street that we're proposing. So the second TE uh that we are opposed to is uh that the the roads would become uh private. The preliminary plant noted that these would be public streets. This is the same sort of development that we did at the half that we've done at Chisum Creek. We've not seen this type of TE before. Lot seven uh of that northern block uh is proposed to be residential. The current plans for that show public street service uh serving those homes. So, we think it would be odd to have a public street tying into a private street. We're not quite sure the reason why public works on this application uh is concerned or opposed to it being a private street given the number of future tenants this will be serving. So, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Um, Commissioner Noble, this is your ward. You want to lead the discussion? I will. Thanks. Has anyone signed up to speak on this? No, probably not. Um let's just address the first the the TE number two. You're you're in agreement with TE number one. Yes. And then T number two. Uh just to make the revision to say or per the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. Yep. per the existing limits of no access agreements which are noted on our plat or per existing limits of no access no access

and we'll have that when we resubmit it to Jared we'll clean up the lines of where limits of no access are shown per that document.

Okay. And then on number three, I think what I'd like to do is have Barry come up and explain the reason why public works is recommending this TE. Good afternoon, Barry Lodge Public Works. Uh main reason for us putting that TE on there when we review this um we're not seeing this being in the best interest of Oklahoma City to have that as a public street due to all of the future maintenance that will be happening on that due to due to this development. And the the one that as as we're reviewing it that I likened it to was the ring road around Quail Springs Mall. Very same type of thing that is a private road, private drive that over the life of that that uh development out there's probably been replaced three or four times completely. And and we we see this as being something that that is just not a good investment for Oklahoma City. I mean, that's that's our reasoning for uh putting that TE on there.

Barry, refresh my memory. Um, is that you cited the Quill Springs Ring Road as an example? That's an asphalt road, correct?

It has been asphalt. It has been part asphalt and part concrete. I think now it's gone back as all concrete. the last time I drove through it. That's part of what we're getting at with it is that it's just been a maintenance issue ongoing and and and more uh frequent than what we normally see. Every street that we take over as a public street is going to require maintenance. We know we're going to have to get in there and do that. But the way that those are typically done when we have to do those improvements are going to be through bond issue projects that might hit that uh type of development once every 40 or 50 years maybe. And so that's again that that's that's kind of the reasoning on just trying to look out at the future maintenance that will be occurring on that development. I mean would it be and I don't know if these discussions have occurred or not but I mean if that paving were like heavy duty concrete you know per city standard

there could be some discussions going off that we have not had any discussions with the developer or the engineer about that at all

and that's because we get a TE on Friday when we see a staff report and no comment beforehand. Uh I think there are are multiple issues with that approach. If we want to start talking about the maintenance of of public streets, are we going to start seeing this TE on every single culde-sac in every single residential neighborhood across the city because fewer people are paying into it and the city doesn't want to have to maintain those? I guess we can start having that conversation. When you look at Quell Springs Mall, my assumption here is the tax revenue that's been generated from those developments would have paid for that street 12,000 times over. Right? So this is a significant sales tax generating project that's paying into it. Again, this is not different than the half Chisum Creek and this should have been noted at the preliminary plat stage if this was going to be an issue. But here we are at the final plat stage asking for what exactly conform to the preliminary plat. And one last thing, maybe your city attorney can uh answer this. I don't believe it's public works decision as to whether or not this city accepts a public road. I believe that responsibility is up to your city council. So if they disagree with that, when we file our plat and ask for it to be recorded, they have the ability to not accept it. Okay. Anything else from commissioners?

Okay. Thoughts one way or another? No. Could could I respond to a couple of things that that Mark said? Talked about the sales tax being generated from that development.

None of the sales tax revenue that is generated from that development goes to the improvements of the streets. It's not the way that the the sales tax collection is set up. So that's yes there there is going to be significant sales tax that is generated from that but it will not go to the improvement or maintenance uh of that street and while yes it is the city council's ultimate responsibility and decision to decide if it is going to be accepted as a public street from my position it is my responsibility to give my opinion on whether or not it should be and that's what we're doing.

Understood. Appreciate that. The city's also in the process of updating their impact fee ordinance, and this project will generate a significant amount of impact fees for streets and transportation. So, there's the possibility that if they're concerned about that, they can rewrite that ordinance to allow for it to pay for infrastructure uh like this project. Okay. All right. Anything else? No. All right. So, you just want to strike that? I do. How can we strike that but still leave that up to the city at council?

The first TE. It says approval of this plat is subject to city council acceptance of the dedications and improvements. That is on every single plat application. Right. And I'd like to see it, like you said, a conversation and maybe even bring that with the development is to create a concrete street instead of just continue the asphalt street and tie it to the parking lots. Might sway one way or another. Um T number four standard also.

Yes. in agreement. Anything else? Just title plat. Um, with that, I will make a motion to recommend approval to the city council of C7797. It's a It's a final plat. Recommend approval. It's approved. Approve. final. So, it's not going to city council other than the easements. The easements are what go to city council? Yeah. The plat doesn't, right?

Correct. We take the full plat for their signature and acceptance after everything is built. Okay. So, recommend approval of case C7797 with TE's one. You you move to approve. Move to approve. not recommend this body to approve but I do recommend approval. Um T number one T number two with the revision of perexisting limits of no access agreements and striking T3 and number four.

All right. Okay. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the final plat subject to the technical evaluations and deleted technical evaluation three. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. That is approved. Thank you. Item four.

Okay. Item four is a resolution recommending to the Oklahoma City Council to amend the following subdivision flats to remove racially restrictive language. That would be Crown Heights blocks 1- 10, 11- 16, 15, and 17- 20. And then Lincoln Terrace blocks 1 through 3, 4, 4- 6, 7- 23, 16, and 21. the Bath Second East View um and the Edgemeir Park blocks 1 through 7 8 through 20 and 10. And Emma um is here as our compliance officer for the Oklahoma for the Oklahoma City Human Rights Commission.

All right. Thank you. Yeah, Emma Wineski, uh compliance officer for the Human Rights Commission. Um this is building off of a longtime effort by the HRC to um amend plats to remove discriminatory language. we were here like a year ago um to talk about this project and it has been a long one and so I'm very grateful um for your continued support. So this is um basically our pilot project. So we have been reviewing the plat and this is our first batch that will um be sent through the process. Obviously we'll go to council and then we'll work with the county to file these amendments. Um, and so we recently hosted a volunteer event back in March where 75 residents showed up. Um, and we reviewed over 2,200 plats, which is a large percentage of the overall plat city, which is just another sort of um, nod to the community support for this project. So, um, we're grateful for that and grateful for y'all's support as well. And if there are any questions, um, happy to answer them.

All right. Thank you. Um, any questions, comments from commissioners? I did have um I talked to Commissioner Powers um earlier this week and she was um she's traveling and couldn't be here today, but she she asked if she could send me a statement for for me to read on her behalf. And so this is a statement from Commissioner Powers. Uh, I am very disappointed that I cannot be there to speak on the Plat amendments to remove racially discriminatory language. I've been aware and rooting on these efforts for some time. They deserve to be highlighted, especially now. It has been years since I was first consulted about the possibility of amending our neighborhood's restrictive covenants to remove the racially discriminatory language. This was something I considered myself. So I was able to tell people asking that unfortunately the process was so ownorous that it was next to impossible and at a minimum would take years. This is good news. Uh the good news was that the Supreme Court had long ago decided that this type of covenant was unconstitutional and could no longer be enforced in court. This was at a time I had much more faith in the finality of the Supreme Court's decisions than I do today when rulings overturning some of our most basic constitutional constitutional rights seemed to be announced almost daily. But even for me, it was pretty cold comfort that such blatant and repugnant discriminatory language was no longer enforceable. Now with a little help from the OKC legislature, uh this effort has finally paid off because these old plats have their covenants on their faces. This approach of amending the plat to remove this language is brilliant. I think I believe I really cannot praise enough the efforts that have been put into this project at a time when it seems there are examples every day that things that divide us triumphing over these things

that unite us. I am so gratified by this effort that to push back against that. Crown Heights is a welcoming, warm, and actively inclusive neighborhood that is proud of its history and its historic preservation designation. But we all have a skeleton or two in our closet, I suppose. And I'm so pleased and proud of the willingness to shine the light on the mistakes of our history and even more importantly make the effort to remedy them. I hope this will be just the beginning. Again, that's a statement from Commissioner Powers. So, all right. Anything else?

I guess W 7 is included in this as well. Um, you know, we're not going to say it's real late, but it, you know, all things happen in time. Uh, very, very unique opportunity for the city of Oklahoma City to be on the right side of history this time. So, very proud of that. And with that, I uh move the recommendation for the resolution of to be adopted. Very good. Commissioner Harrison has moved to adopt the resolution. It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. And that resolution is adopted. Thank you for your efforts.

Thank you very much. Item five. Okay. Item five is KC7799, the prelim the preliminary plat of Woods at Silverhorn, which is located east of North Kelly Avenue and north of East Hefner Road.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the uh developer. This is a preliminary plat for a site that you saw recently on the PUD. The PUD is working its way through the city council process. This plaque conforms to the regulations of the PUD. Uh we are in agreement with all the TEES except that we ask that TE number three be uh struck. We provided that proof to to staff and I think uh Miss Welch is in agreement with that. So we agree with all but we'd ask to strike TE3. Okay. Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Any commissioners have any comments? If not, I move approval with the necessary adjustment to the TE. So, Commissioner Harrison moves uh approval of the item subject to technical evaluations and deleting TE3. That's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. That item is approved. So, I think Mark Zitzel has seven, eight, and nine, and he's out in the hall. I happen to have 10 and 11, and I wouldn't hate to just get out of your hair, but it's up to you and your uh your wisdom.

Well, item six has been continued, which brings us to item seven. And if the applicant is not present, we can hear items out of order. Oh, sorry, Mr. box. Item seven. Item seven. Item, let me call it. Item seven is P Mr. Box was trying to jump ahead of you. Um, item seven is PUB 1840 SP02, which is an application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PET 1840 located at 8700 Southwest 15th Street.

Good afternoon. Mark Zitzau, Johnson and Associates, Wy Sharon Avenue. Uh, this is a specific plan that conforms to uh the PUD. It's uh for an industrial building. Uh staff in their staff report mentioned that it meets and conforms to all the regulations in the putt. So we're happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Meek, this is W three. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Y thank you. I uh I looked at it and I trust that staff uh agrees that it meets all the requirements. Anybody signed up to speak?

No. Okay. Any commissioners have any other anything to speak about on this? Okay. Nope. With that, I I move to approve PUD 1840 SPO2 with the TES. Have a motion from Commissioner Meek to approve the specific plan subject to tech evaluations. And for the record, I'll just read that staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with PUD 1840 master design statement and the master development plan. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes. That item is approved.

Thank you. Item eight has been deferred. Item nine, sorry, I don't believe we've Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no, no, no, no. You're right. That was a note. I didn't have a question mark on here. All right. Item eight. Okay. Item eight is PUD1 1915 SP04, which is a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 1915 located at 1404 North Broadway Drive.

Marks, it's Sheran Avenue. So, this is the project known as Alley North. Uh, this is for the parking garage. Uh, staff has noted that it meets and conforms to everything in the PUD. Uh, one note, I guess we'd like to add a condition. Uh, we submitted easements that were required as part of the PUB to service the what we hope is a future RTA station for pedestrian, passenger vehicles, and cyclists. We're in agreement. We provided those easements today. It looks like there's a an an error in the maybe the form that was used or language that was used. So, you could still hold the building permit with a condition on this until we give back a slightly revised easement, but we're in agreement and we provided it. I think there was just a clerical error on the form.

Okay. Um, this is W six. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Mr. Milner, if you want to lead the discussion. Sure. And we don't have anybody signed up to speak on this one? No. Okay. I think this is going to go back to staff or legal on where we need to go with this one.

Sure. And we've been kind of working in the background today. We received an easement. Um the background on this is that there when there was there's actually a closure um a street closure through the development and the city had requested that we be able to provide pedestrian access through the development. Um that we didn't have that easement in hand yet. As of this morning, we've received the easements. We've run them out. The legal descriptions are all fine. This this specific plan works and shouldn't be held back. Um but we just have to make some changes to their form and city council was actually the body that would receive them. So I think you're okay as of just like 10 minutes ago to proceed with approval of this. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you.

Okay, commissioners. Any questions or comments on this? I move a recommendation of approval of PUB1915- SPO SP04. So, we have a motion for Commissioner Milner to approve the specific plan. And I'll note for the record, staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with PUD 1915 master design statement and the master development plan. That item has been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. And that item is approved.

Thank you. Item nine. Item nine is SPUD 1828, an application to reszone 111 Northwest 14th Street from the C4 and the Heritage Hills East UC urban conservation district and the HL historic landmark overlay districts to spud 1828.

Marks winning Sheran Avenue before he was a spud to allow for a new multif family building on this block. As you can see, the majority of this block is is vacant. Uh, and it's zone C4, which is the most intensive commercial category that we have. And I don't know that I've seen a C4 application approved in the decade plus I've been doing this. So, uh, our client has proposed what we believe is a building that will fit nicely on the block, uh, to the south. If you've read the paper, you've seen multiple proposals for uh pretty much redevelopment of that whole block wrapping the garage apartments and those have been anywhere from five six stories. Uh the garage apartment building I think is just under 50 feet in height. The Aberdine to the north is 70 feet in height. So what we have proposed uh is a building that is a max of 50 ft in height uh that will sit on that on that block. So, uh, there's what appears to be a home, uh, immediately adjacent to us. That is a day-pa. It's a commercial business. It's not a single family residence. Uh, we went to the HP Commission. Uh, they've recommended approval of this. We do have one TE and I just chatted with Katie. That's that's why we were in the hallway. And we have clarification there. Uh, she brought up a good point. Um, the TE that's in there and the PUD and the Spud ultimately need to be amended. So that TE would be amends section setbacks to read south 8 ft measured from the south property line as recorded on the plat of phase edition. So that three should be an eight. That will uh take us from the property line to the front wall of the structure. Uh at HP uh and I think some folks at the neighborhood I think there was confusion about where that 8 ft was being measured from. Uh we have a substantially wider right ofway than a normal like residential street in this area. It's 100 feet. So there's an additional 14 plus or minus from our property line

down to the sidewalk. So I think when some folks heard a three or an 8 foot setback, they were out there measuring from the sidewalk going this this is way too close. So I'm happy to answer any questions. I think there are some folks signed up. Okay. Um yeah, Commissioner Milner, this is W six and I have one signed up to speak. Okay, let's let's have uh comments from the audience. Miss Eller,

Marva Ellard, 1521 North Chartell Avenue. I'm the president of the board of HPI, which is the Heritage Hills neighborhood basically. So, we're very excited about Michael and John's development. um they're known quantities to us. I guess you'd say I think Michael and I have known each other since he was 11, so I guess that counts as some basis of knowledge. So, um the main thing that I came to talk about today is the height. We still do have some concerns about height. We don't think we have all the information we need. Um we've talked with them several times. I've talked to them numerous times and they've come to a committee meeting and we do like the basic design that we've seen, but there's some concerns about the height. I think we have to be still sensitive to what is in the area. The historic house to the west is one of the only things left on that block. Um, they have agreed to keep the HL overlay as I I understand in their spud and we're very pleased with that, but we would like for the heights to still kind of be a bit of a discussion item when it goes back to HP for design. Um, we've talked about them setting back the fourth floor. So, if you're on the sidewalk, the fourth floor is really not that noticeable, but u they haven't had a chance to finish construction documents or anything like that. So, we're still a little bit unsure of what that might look like, and we'd just like the chance to bring that up again when it's when it goes back to HP.

Okay, Marva. Thank you. Thank you, sir. As it's currently written, we've got a maximum height of 50 feet. So, can you elaborate on what your your concerns on that are?

The the historic house next door, I think, is probably more in the 35 foot range. I'm not sure exactly. That's a question we've asked before is how high that house is. So if if the top of the parapit or whatever before the fourth floor is at a certain height, we don't want it just towering over that house or anything else. And so we're just wanting to make sure that it looks appropriate in its environment and looks appropriate with the rest of the the area. Um I don't I wouldn't take Aberdine as a comp for this property as far as height goes. you know, 70 would be way out of the range of possibility. So, uh there's some other multif family. There's a lot of multif family in this part of the neighborhood and we we want multif family. We just are a little concerned about what it's going to look like when a pedestrian walks down the street or how it sits on that block.

Okay. I watched the HP commission hearing and it was my understanding that that fourth because it's allowing up to four stories. That fourth story is going to be set back. The fourth is supposed to be set back. Is that correct? That's right. Now, let me ask, are you concerned that the final design might come out and that isn't set back? No, we're concerned about the sight line from the street or something like that more than anything. Okay. Okay. Thanks for clarification. Certainly, Mark, I'm assuming you want

Yeah. And apologies, that's on me. We did want to add a TE. We had a conversation I think with one of the planning commissioners who actually asked us to add that and we're in agreement that the uh the fourth floor have a minimum setback of 10 ft from the front facade. But I think it's worth noting that everything that we're proposing still goes back to HP. There's no language in here that um prevents them or preempts them from telling us to do something different when we get there. Okay. This is simply establishing a maximum height. So if we get there and our current plans show it at 45 ft, we wanted a little bit of flexibility. So if we came in at 47 and they said we want you at 42, we're still subject to their full review and approval.

Right. Because it goes back through HP commission. Correct. On the final design. Okay. Yeah. To this point, no one the neighborhood has seen more than anyone else. Staff has not been given a full set of of plans to review yet. We're just not there. Right. Right. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Do we have anybody else signed up to speak on this one? No commissioners, any questions or comments? If not, what's that? Mark, I'm sorry. Were we adding a TE? Yes, we were. Okay. That

the fourth floor be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the front facade. Minimum 10 ft. Yes.

Okay. If there aren't any other questions or comments on this, I would move approval subject to the technical evaluations. You do need to amend T1.

Yep. The amendment to TE number one, south setback will be 8 ft and the addition of TE2 with the fourth floor setback will be at a minimum of 10T from the front facade of the building. All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Milner to recommend the item to city council subject to the amended and additional TEES. That's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

That item is recommended for approval. Thank you. Item 10. Item 10 is SPD 1829, an application to reszone 5235 North Lincoln Boulevard from the O2 office district, the Lincoln Boulevard UD urban design overlay, and the HNO healthy neighborhood overlay to a new Spud 1829.

Good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th here on behalf of the applicant. Um, this is an item that would uh allow for two uses to be added to the what is now O2. the two uses limited to production of medical supplies. Uh they've got a fairly unique um product that they're going to be uh producing here. This did go before the urban design commission at some point last month, I believe, and did receive a recommendation of approval unanimously. Uh no protest. Happy to answer any questions. OneTE that we agreed to. Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. No one signed up to speak. Um missioners David, you want to tell us what they're going to be producing?

Yeah. Well, sure. So, specifically, there is a um production of bandages that are capable of detecting infection. No one else. That would be nice. It would. I move approval for SPUD1 1829. A motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item to city council subject to technical evaluation. That's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes.

Items recommended for approval. Thank you. Item 11. Item 11 is SPUD1 1833, an application to reszone 225 North Indiana Avenue from the R2 and I2 districts to SPUD 1833.

Once again, David Vox, 525 Northwest 11th. Here on behalf of the applicant, this is an SPD that would allow for a um small multif family development. We do limit the dwelling units to 10. We limit the height to two stories. This area, as you look at the zoning map before you, is fairly strange. Most of the area is zoned in some form of residential. However, there's these random spots of straight I2 uh zoning that predominantly is on on my client side. So, um the SPD would remove that and allow us to build a multif family development. There are no tees. Happy to answer any questions. Uh Commissioner Milner, w six. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

I'm sorry, we don't have anybody signed up to speak. Okay. Okay. I don't have any major concerns with this, but I wanted to make sure because I have read over it. Is there an alteration in the master design statement mentioning the two units that are abuing Northwest Second Street where entrances will those two units or entrances will face northwest 2nd Street? So the access provision says access may be taken from Northwest Second and North Indiana. Front doors. Yeah, the front doors. Oh,

yeah. Front entries or side porches shall face northwest second.

Okay. Okay. Just wanted to ask about that. Um Okay. I don't have any major concerns with this. I mean, this is quite a few units on that block. I think the only thing I looked at the other day was just these are threebedroom units with onecar garages. And I guess you've got enough room where you can park a car still. One car in the garage, one car out, cuz I I'm going to assume these are probably going to be that many bedrooms, two cars. But then again, the market might dictate if you I got one car garage. I'm a onecar household. So, I mean, that was the only mild concern I have. But commissioners, any other questions or comments on this one?

I don't see any. Okay, with that I will move to recommend approval of SPUD 1833. Motion Commissioner Milner to recommend the item city council for approval. It's been second by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes.

Sorry. That item is recommended for approval. Item 12 has been continued. Item 13. Item 13 is SPUD 1798, an application to reszone 2331 Northwest 18th Street from the R2 district to spud 1798.

Good afternoon. My name is Rob Elliot, 900 Northwest 6th Street. We're here requesting Spud to remove a single family home in the Aurora neighborhood and develop two single family homes by achieving a lot split. Uh we've met with the neighborhood. We agree to all the TEES. I don't think that our language with the neighbors is quite what they they hope it will be. Uh we we really agree in concept I believe to everything that that is wanted and desired for the development of these properties. neighbors are here to further explain their their further desires. We just don't we agree with with them. Our plans are in agreement, I think, with most of their concerns. We just don't think it's it's language that's should be in the spud. If the planning commission disagrees, we're certainly uh understanding of uh what what you want to be in the spot.

Okay. Thank you for that. Uh, Commissioner Milner, this is your ward again. And I do have three folks signed up to speak. Okay. Let's let um our speakers. Okay. One at a time. We'll start with Thank you. Ava Hinsley. Can I finish? Sure. We'll start with Andrea St. Clair.

Good afternoon. Hello again. I'm Andrea and I'm a neighbor in Aurora and I'm here uh regarding the Spud 1798 proposal. I want to start by saying that we are not against growth or development or remodeling or beautifification or anything like that. Uh we all really just want the neighborhood to thrive. Our concern is with the specific spud document and the precedent that language sets for everything that follows. A few weeks ago, uh, we met with Rob, our new architect, and we discussed several specific language updates that our neighborhood requested. We really appreciated that conversation. We felt like, excuse me, that we were moving towards a compromise. There it goes. But when the revised document came back, those changes changes hadn't been made yet. And what's been really difficult throughout the process is that many of the explanations we've received have been verbal or included in emails but not actually written into this bud. And at the end of the day, email explanations aren't enforceable. Uh the government document is what matters and that's why we keep showing up. I do want to acknowledge some genuine progress. Uh the current applicant and the architect have made time to meet with us. We really appreciate that. I think we feel better about this relationship than we had in the past. Uh, and I believe we can still reach an outcome that works for everyone, but only if what's been agreed to verbally actually makes it into the document. We care deeply about this neighborhood. We're here because we believe these details matter, not just for this project, but for every project that cites this spud as precedent going forward. the specific protections that we've requested relating to architectural

elements, roof lines, they might not maximize profitability. I don't know what those numbers are, but I can understand that tension, but we're the people who live here every day, and we're asking for language that respects the history and the character of the neighborhood rather than leaving the door open for broad future interpretation. I lived in Austin, Texas from 2009 to 2022. And I moved through eight different zip codes while I was there. I was in my 20s. I didn't own a home. I lived all over it. So, I watched this happen firsthand, neighborhood by neighborhood, and the numbers confirm what I saw. Residential demolitions in Austin rose 130% between 2010 and 2021 from 271 per year to 622. And when developers filed plans to replace those homes, they built larger structures nearly 97% of the time. So one project at a time with loose language and minimal restrictions, the original character of historic neighborhoods disappeared. And by the time residents organized to push back, the precedent was already set. We're not trying to stop change. We're trying to make sure the language in this document doesn't leave the door open for the same pattern to repeat itself. Others can speak to specific line by line language request. So, I'm not going to duplicate that. But I will close with a simple ask. If the intent has truly been agreed upon, there should be no objection to writing it down. Clear language protects everyone, the neighborhood, future owners, and future developers, because expectations are better defined upfront. We're not asking the commission to stop development. We are asking that you condition approval on the verbal commitments being incorporated into the governing document in enforceable written language before you approve the spud.

Thanks.

All right. Thank you, Miss Sincler. Uh, Jerry Steelely. My name is Steven Jerry Steelely. I live at 1717 North Billan Avenue in Oklahoma City. Um, I am a uh on the leadership team of the Aurora Neighborhood Association. I have been in my home for 21 years, but uh on my birth certificate is the address of the very first home my parents brought me to from the hospital on Northwest 22nd Street. So, I have a deep and abiding love for near northwest Oklahoma City. And I hate to see the shoehorning effect of multiple structures on what were designed to be single family lots. Um, I understand and support the need to create additional housing because that will only seek to improve uh increase our population and uh that's a good thing. But I wish to to speak for a moment on the right of continued enjoyment of your home. Um, the first issue I want to address is the uh cornering and and setback. Um, this uh spud was styled with the US Postal Service address of 2331 Northwest 18th. And I believe that that address should be continued with one structure facing Northwest 18th and the other structure facing uh Cross Avenue with setbacks equal to the existing uh structures on that block. This is not a culde-sac and uh having staggered

setbacks uh only seeks to uh crowd and and create traffic hazards as people attempt to back into the the street. Uh accordingly, if there are only two structures, uh then there should only be two driveways, one oriented towards um 18th again and one towards Cross. and there's no need for any other driveways than the two to accommodate the proposed structures. Um the next issue is on the height of these uh proposed structures. I think 28 ft is uh more than enough to support a 2 and 1/2tory structure. Um my home was built in 1939. I enjoy ambient light well into the dusk every evening. One issue I need to inform you of. I do not live within the 300 foot perimeter of this spud, but I'm on Northwest 17th in Billan and right next to me is a vacant lot. So, I'm here advocating because I do not want precedent set with this approval that would affect my quiet enjoyment of of my home. Uh, again, I should have mentioned that at forehead. Sorry. Uh, I think 28 ft is more than enough to support a two and a half story structure without limiting ambient light. Um, and that's about it. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Steelely. Okay, Miss Hinsley.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Eva Hinsley. I live at 2422 Northwest 19th Street. We have made massive progress. Um, definitely the language is the only we we want to see this go through. We want the language protection. As of right now, Mark states or sorry, Rob states that he will have a 612 pitch roof. That is not in the language. He can tell it to us in emails all day long. 35 ft allows a flat roof. 35 ft. There isn't a single 35- ft structure within more than 300 ft of this corner lot. There are existing neighbors to the east and to the north. The east will be more affected. I did appreciate your drawing of moving the windows up, but again, it's a drawing and it is not in writing and we should protect the ex existing neighbors there currently and for what our neighborhood can expect in the future because not only is his customer making an investment, we have all made investments. That's what makes your customer come to us now. I the biggest clarification I want and I I we could go line by line on the email reviews. I think if we get the clarifications on the TEES to what we've emailed back and forth, we have an agreement. My biggest thing is the ADU and I understand that based by 2020 code it has to be reapplied but we've now passed 2025 ADU that does not require planning and zoning approval anymore. This entire code when you go through what is code cited is by 2020.

I don't want to let that ADU slip through with that mis language that now it's being developed in a time where 2025 has been adopted and there needs to be no review to add the ADU. Then we cycle right back to where we were four units on a lot that does not need four units. Um, so the clarification on the the code or to just write it out if that is the intent. There has to be some nice middle there where we all feel comfortable with if it's built in 20 years, it's still protected. If it's built tomorrow, it's still protected. And I don't know what other TE's are we stuck on.

So it's it's really that it's just too broad of a language. And when when we go back and forth on the emails, we get these things we love and then we see the master design statement and it reflects none of it or little bits and pieces of it but not not what we've sat down. We felt so good when we left that meeting. We were like finally we all come to a middle and to not see the MDS change between two and a half weeks ago and today is heartbreaking. Um, we're we we want to see it, we want to approve it, but spuds are about written language and please help us get there. Any questions?

So, you have not seen do you have a list of and you keep referring to the emails. So, are you tracking a list of things that you have asked to be incorporated and that you're not seeing? So, we have gone line by line on the MDFs, which other than saying the TE's recommendation by staff have not changed because that's what we're doing today. Um, so let me find the um

is is it safe to say that the protest that was written by the leadership team of the neighborhood has all of those bullet points that you're looking for? So, the last protest letter we wrote was before the last meeting and because really nothing has changed since then, we didn't even submit a new one because I think we're on letter five or six at this point. Um, but we've been talking directly with Rob and we met with Rob. So what I did and Maria and I have done together, we broke the MDS line down line by line by line and basically said like staff notes like for instance I1 staff notes two, we'd like to see a minimum pitch um ratio or height lowered to protect existing homes and re residents privacy on the east and north sides. So he we get an answer back, but nothing's changed in the MDS. And he says his intent is two two to two and a half stories, but 35 ft with no pitch written in can really be a three-story flat roof home. Um and that we are not happy to support. Um there are no 35 foot structures within that 300 ft, including the apartment on Young's in 18th. I believe it's less than 25 ft. Um, so we get these answers and we're we're literally just line by lining it.

So, so what I'd like to do instead of you go over every one of those again and then we go all the way maybe we let Commissioner Miller go through that and with the Perfect Milner, you have those emails and we just do it once. But he should have those. Yeah. Yeah, I do. I think we can navigate through this. Yeah. And we do too. We we really think we can navigate through this. So yeah, Rob, maybe you can come back to the podium here.

Yeah, I think uh we talked about pitch some the our plan right now. Could you step in front of the mic there? Thank you. Are talking about Can we just start at the very beginning of it and just start with the whole the single family home idea and just two units and Yes, they were requesting. Yes, that's what that's in the SP. That's what we agreed to. And and there the Taff staff commented. Taff. Well, what I think I think then they're thinking is that you you got two proposed buildings per lot is that you'd build the two single family homes and then come back and get two ADUs in the back. Oh, and they So, they just want that written into the statement that that's not going to happen. So,

I think that's in I think that's in the spud now. Well, it it might contradict itself is all I'm saying. It says in the application that there's a a minimum of two buildings per law. I'm sorry, I misspoke. I think that's in the TEES. Now, it's my understanding I did get clarity from staff that the way it is written, one dwelling unit per lot according to THAAD was sufficient language.

Yeah. I think for so for staff when we're talking about the TEES if if TE4 is agreed to it is revise um the maximum number of buildings to state one dwelling per lot. Now I think that that would still allow each lot to have an accessory structure perhaps but not an accessory dwelling unit. The thing I think we're missing that that is not addressed that may be confusing later is if they didn't split the lot could they also could they then build an ADU? could they have the ADU, which is something that they could have today um under our new ADU ordinance. So, that would be I want to think about that. Um but if that's desired, if there's a chance that the applicant wants the ability to retain it as as it is currently platted on one lot and add an ADU, I think I might need to modify that TE. Does that make sense? Okay. Well, um, if if we agreed to state there's one dwelling per lot and an ADU is a dwelling, that would not allow an ADU. It's not our intent to have an ADU. However, we need to write that as

correct. I don't think there's any modification needed unless your desire is to have an ADU with a primary dwelling at some point in the future. If you're if you are simply going to split the lot with one house per lot, then I think our TE handles that. That's what we want to say. Okay. And when that happens, they wouldn't be able to meet requirements for an ADU anyways, right? I mean, it would be really really small. And plus, we've got like a dog coverage written in there. So,

yeah. I'm my my the only thing I'm trying to think through is if you approve it with staff's TE, you would not be able to build an ADU in that configuration as shown on the map today. You wouldn't be able to build an ADU behind the existing home. And that's correct. And that's what that's the protection the neighborhood's wanting. Well, she's saying if they didn't split the lot. Correct. If they didn't split. See, what you're agreeing to if you don't if you end up not splitting the lot, you could never put an ADU in the back. And so we're just trying to get that cleaned up so that you could either or if we didn't splot split the law, we would either have to build a single family home which would allow an ADU,

not if we write it in that it doesn't. Okay. Okay. Back to where we are now. Yeah. Yeah. That's however we need to write that our our intent is to to split the lot and build one house on each and that's all. Yeah. And if not, they just go standard R1 that they're currently zoned. If you agree to the TE, you can keep it one house on that lot. If you split the lot, the lot being the whole piece of property, meaning the whole piece of property today, you would only get one. You would not be you're zoning yourself out of the ability to have an ADU. That's what I guess we're saying. But you are allowing yourself to split the lot and have one house per lot with no That's what TE says. That's what the TE says. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. So, I just modify it. That's all I'm saying. And just put in if they do not lot split, then it goes to the standard R1 zoning. Is that good, Jared? I think. Let me work on that while you discuss the rest. Okay. Next second thing. Okay. The lot lot coverage.

Let me let me walk through these on my notes here. Um we would like to see this change to two stories with a minimum pitch. Right now we've got maximum height allowable 35 ft. Am I understand? So the neighborhood is preferring the language to be on stories. Is that what 28? Yeah. Yeah. Just like two stories but maximum of 28 ft. We get along. Um so what it is is just that I understand the intent of two and a half and I'm really in the end okay with three as long as it had a certain pitch. But as it's written right now,

it doesn't have pitch stated in there. It just has height. So you can do a flat roof 35 ft threetory. We need to tighten that language up and we're good with 28 feet. Okay, I prefer to see the pitch written in two, but if that's where we're going to divide is the pitch, then we got to lower the height. Okay, we got to we got to comp. So, we could say max height 28 ft. Let me ask or you can go with 35 ft and put justify the 612 pitch. Exactly. That's what I would do. Exactly. Well, my only comment is 6 and 12 is fine if if if and maybe modify the pitch even because 612 is pretty steep and

well a six the if our home is 30 ft wide and we have a six and 12 pitch and I have 10 feet to floor which isn't unusual in I my house is more more mirrored to what you're saying than you realize. That gives me a 28 foot pitch. If other homes are steeper pitch, nine and 12, eight and 12, the roof is going to be higher. There are they're, you know, they know their neighborhood better than I do. There's homes there that are tall on 17th Street, a group of them. But we don't disagree that if if the if commission thinks that we need to spe we're just going by the R1 standards in terms of our if we need to to specify the height, we're fine with that. and 28 ft would make 28 feet

make it work or if you're just stuck on the 35 we have to get like we got to pick a we got to pick a lane that's we we just can't and I agree. So, are we are are we okay with 28 doing a max height of 28 feet? 28 is what we've all asked. Sorry, we we've really been doing this in a neighborhood way. And and do we all know that that that that height is if it's a pitched roof is measured to the average. I totally understand. Okay. Which might put it to the 35, but then I get my pitch. Gotcha. Because it's on the average. I got you. Okay. Okay. Okay. Is that not to exceed or not to exceed 35? No, not to exceed 6 and 12. Um,

or minimum? I'd have to look at my I'd have to look at my pitch notes. If you let me get my phone, I can answer that question really quick. Give me a second. Okay. And then the next item I have on there is uh concerning the windows because I I'm understanding you did make a revision on your design for those windows that will be if it's twotory overlooking to the uh properties to the east there. U in our design, we have a window on the east. Basically, uh we have neighbors to the east, we have neighbors to the north, right?

And we had windows on the east side of the home, new home, and on the north side of the new home. And what we have done on the east side is made it more a clear story, a long thin window. Uh, so it's 18 inches tall, six feet wide, and so it's not a a visible to the to the adjacent property. Yeah. On that second floor, you just got them up high, right? It's just how do you word that in a and we appreciated that change and that's exactly what we were asking for by screening for We've done that before. Privacy for neighbors on a single family home.

Yeah. I mean, pit sill height and stuff like that. We we actually have Okay. because that's not normally something I see is the only reason we haven't included. Okay. Well, I just said height. Well, yeah. I mean, we've done it on a spud. It was specifically for an ADU, I believe, but it's a spud. Mhm. Can you word that again? I'm I'm keeping track of these. That would just be on the east facing windows. Second story. Yeah. So that I mean that would just be east facing windows on the second story should have a sill height of

whatever seven 72 in above okay the floor plate sense okay we've come to an agreement on the pitch 612 or higher nothing below 612 height restriction of 28 understanding it's the medium range of the pitch right Will you repeat that one more time? Sorry, I'm I am I'm writing these down.

Okay. We agreed to the 29 28 foot height restriction, a minimum of a 612. So, it could be 612 through 1212 pitch. Of course, it's not going to be a 122. Got it. Okay. uh 612 or higher pitch with the understanding that that that measurement of the 28 goes the the percentage through the just max high 28. Okay. Okay. Okay. Sight proof screening. That was that was the windows. There is an existing there is an existing fence and they're just holding strong on that. So, as long as we can get the windows written in,

to me, they'll sell it if they put a fence up for higher prices. We've got the clarification on the driveway width, 18 ft. Yes, we agree. Okay, Rob, I I have a question that isn't written down though. Is it your intention though that one of these houses is going to face 18th Street and then which and where is the front door on that rear structure? Um the northern structure. Yeah. Yeah. The what looks like a porch there on the northern structure. Yes. Thank you. So is that going to face

a little bit to the north? So that front porch isn't going to open up to Cross Avenue. There will be one that opens to 18th and one that opens to Cross. Okay. Northern will that the the entrance would really be up there on the north west corner for the garage there. Right there. Okay. I'm just not sure if I saw that written down anywhere. Curious staff if we need to get that in writing in there. The how those homes are orientated.

The orientation of one to 18th and one to cross is very important to us because we want to keep the setbacks of the neighborhood in line. Realizing that the the corner lots if we start turning them, we are a small neighborhood. We are going to lose like line of sight for traffic overall character and look. Okay.

Okay. Can I add that as a TE2 that homes orientating one home will orientate or one dwelling? You were good with that, right? You were good with one orientates to 18. Yeah. I think we agreed on that, but it's just not written in. We're literally down just to TE's. One dwelling will orientate towards cross

agreed to the setbacks. Lot size. I see we've got 50% lot coverage is written in there. Okay, that's quite a bit. Am I missing? Is there We really are so close on it. Um I mean I feel like that you you you've got quite a bit in there that's really giving you some protections there.

Okay, we just did the driveway. Um the only other thing we were going to ask and I'm just going to really leave this up to commission but a few meetings ago powers had recommended that we do the um the overhangs to stick with the character of our neighborhood. 12 to 18 or I think 12 in is what she when we were on a previous drawing. We would like to see some overhangs. It does it is part of our neighborhood character. um especially with the pitch even if it's minimum that's one thing that we would like to see in and we thought that it was a staff recommendation once it was put into after the last meeting when powers I think I think it was the last meeting February's meeting possibly

yeah and I remember that I think that when those were still so we would like to ask for that and we're good with a minimum it's more of a character thing than anything Rob do you have any thoughts on that yeah it's fine Okay. And we're so close. Okay. I think that's it. Did I miss anything? I think How would we word that on overhangs if we were to 12 inch sophets? Here we go. And power said 12 and we're good with 12. 12 in. Yeah. Minimum. She said minimum 12. Yeah. Okay. I think that's all I had in my notes. I know a lot has gone back and forth.

I do have one other thing I just want to make sure it we don't need to clarify in it. Considering that he's going to lot split, which is fine. Do we need to write in that there will be a separate water and sew remain or is that just to the code and Okay, we got it in there. We're good. Okay. Do we have any other residents that wish to speak on this item?

Okay. Uh commissioners, any anything you'd like to say before I Okay, here we go. Um, I'm going to recommend approval of SPUD 1798 with the Tees 1 through six as agreed upon in addition to Do I need to Sarah? Do I need to number these as I'm going? Yes. Yep.

Okay. Number seven. Max height of 28 ft and a minimum of 612 roof pitch to E number eight. East facing windows on the second story should have sill height of 72 inches minimum 72 inches. PE number nine. One dwelling unit will orientate towards 18th Street. One dwelling unit will orientate towards Cross Avenue.

I think we need to be more specific and the northernmost dwelling unit will orient toward Cross. Thank you. And the southernmost orient toward Thank you. Southern The southern dwelling unit will orientate towards 18th Street. The northern dwelling unit will orientate towards Cross Avenue. TE10 minimum 12in sophets. And then Commissioner Noble, if you could help me on that ADU TE how we'd want to word that. Just saying if no lot split Sarah will do it. Thank you.

I mean I I no lot split would go through the application process for ADU is what I wrote down but I think that needs to be tighter. Is your um your minimum your your lot size right now is 7,000 square feet. Is that right? The lot now is 7,000 square feet. Yes. Okay. So, I think you could probably modify four, which says that you get one dwelling unit per lot. Or on lot sizes 7,000 square feet or larger, an accessory dwelling unit will be allowed per code. Does that sound okay? She's saying if you don't lot split it, you're not hurting yourself on losing the ADU if you keep it the one lot. Did I catch that right? Yes.

Yeah. It says you can split it and get one dwelling per lot. Or if you don't split it, you have to have at least 7,000 square feet to have which would be the existing configuration. Then you could build an ADU. Makes sense. If you decided not to split and we're good with that per per the ADU ordinance. Yeah. So there's all kinds of rules about that. So revision to TE number four as read by staff. Will that work? Yes. Thank you everybody.

All right. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Milner to recommend the item for approval to city council subject to the technical evaluations as read in. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes. We will be friends. Thank you for recommended for approval. Thank you for the neighborhood's involvement and thank you for the applicant for working really. Yes. I've never been happier to not hear 1798. Thank you. Thank you Aurora Neighborhood Association. We appreciate you.

Item 14.

Okay. Item 14 is SPUD 1820, an application to reszone 1714 Northwest 30th Street from the R1 district to spud 1820. Fallon Brooks Magnus Jolly Bird Design representing the applicant. 11 Northeast 11th Street. Uh I failed to get an updated master design statement in on this one. Uh and so we're going to have to update it and come back in two weeks. But while I'm here, uh we also don't have an updated um exhibit either. So we made a lot of changes to this. We just didn't get it all in in time. So I wanted to make sure before we come back in two weeks that we sort of know what the outcome of that will be. So we reduced this from six units uh to four units and we kept the same number of parking spaces which is six. Uh and we moved the uh setback from 25 ft to 15 which puts us at about the same uh as the porches that are already existing on that street. So uh those are the changes that we're proposing. They just didn't make it into the packet today. So I wanted to discuss those. uh before coming back. So,

and I think if you want to discuss it, we will be able to show the exhibit in a second. The updated one. Okay. So, yeah, but if it's okay to do the discussion first. Sure. Uh this is Commissioner P Ward and she's not here. Yeah. Um if I believe she shared some thoughts uh with Commissioner Noble if he wants to lead the discussion. Um I will. Is anyone signed up to speak? No. Um and and then with that I just maybe well we'll look at that but uh Commissioner P does want to have a conversation with you on this. She said she hasn't had a conversation with you. She's not. So I dropped the ball. Um

so you you want a twoe deferral? Yes. That's I'll be back. That's May 28th. 28.

So, and I think you've done a lot of the things that she was already asking for. So, it just again just there will be no parking in the front. Yeah. There will be no fence across the front. I I think the only concern that I really have for what's what we're proposing with changes is really the setback. Um originally, you know, we Yeah. And you you said that it it closely lines up or lines up. So

it I think closely lines up because I think those porches are allowed what six feet of encroachment into the uh into the setback. Uh and so we would be 10 feet uh into their setback. So, we'd be a couple feet forward of that. So, I'm I'm happy to take two feet off of that and make it 17 foot setback instead of 15, but we usually do them in fives. That's why I just rounded to that. There we are. This is the updated version.

So, this is the actual building facade. And there's no there's no porch really on just an like an overhang awning or something. We can write that in there if we need to. I don't know. Commissioners, how do you how do you feel about that?

Usually you're saying it's about 10 that's about 10 feet. Yeah, the historic setback is 25 and those porches are encroaching six to eight feet some of them. So, we'd be somewhere in line with that. I'm happy to do 15 or sorry, I'm happy to do like a little more than 15. We just rounded to that.

I mean, usually your porches are going to be open, so they're going to give you more open feel. I mean, this is going to be, you know, basically a solid block that's out there. And you have six parking spaces there. I mean, if you could roost one, I don't know. You could pull that back and more line it up. I think that's kind of the the issue that it doesn't line up. It's going to stick out.

So, we're currently shown at 15. If we move it back to 20, I think we still have plenty of room to accomplish all the parking and everything that we need. Uh, and then on the open space on this one, where are you? 75 25. Yes. I think our actual lot coverage is sitting at 70. We just put it at 75 because that's what was in there before. We can also happily change that if commission wants to see a lower number. That would be good. Do you want me to bring it down to 70? Is that okay?

Yeah. Just to show what it is and just to make sure there's that much more green space. Okay. And I think just to move on, we'll just defer. Did we say that again? Just to move on from this case, just defer it right now. We will defer to the 28th of May. Okay. Then I would like to recommend deferring this case to S or referring SPUD 14 or 1820 to for two weeks.

All right. We have a motion to defer the item to the May 28th meeting. Been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. We wait. All right. And that item is deferred. Item 15.

Item 15 is SPUD 1825, an application to reszone 1220 Northwest 33rd Street from the R1 district to spud 1825. Hello, Fallon Brooks Magnus Jolly Bird Design representing the applicant. 11 Northeast 11th Street. Um, this one's pretty standard. Uh, we're just asking for three units on a I think it's like an 8,000 foot lot, so it's a little bit bigger than normal. Um, so this same contractor just built uh something very similar to this on the corner of 22nd and Ellison. So, I can tell you from experience with this particular client, he's going to build what he says he's going to build. And uh we even did the porch columns in this one to match the house that was torn down on the lot to appease Cassidy. So, I know she's watching this, so any questions for me?

Um I do not have anyone signed up to speak on this item. This is Commissioner P word again. Um, if Commissioner Noble wants to lead our discussion,

I will. And I have her notes again on this one. Um, the one thing she did want to do is try to reduce the lot coverage again on this. And I think it is a it's 8,325 ft. You only have a 3,000t building uh footprint. So, there's probably room to to do that and reduce the concrete a little bit on that or the parking like 7030 again. Oh man, I don't know on this one without calculating it. But you know, we did that so that we could provide parking tandem parking spaces in front of the garage and still have maneuvering space. So that's the reason for the lot coverage. I can't without being able to say definitively what my actual number is, which I don't have off the top of my head. I can't tell you that I can reduce it to 70. I We were probably already very close to 75 on this one. Um, yeah. And we're 16 ft. So, we've already reduced the drive as much as we could. We're at 16 ft there. Sorry.

I mean, is the 16 is the 16T drive intended to be two-way traffic? Yeah. So, that's generally the minimum. That's generally what we do for these is we'll do a 16 that widens to a maneuverable space. So, it results in a little more concrete on the back end, but makes the driveway uh narrower. Um, one, two, three.

Well, you need to you need to take some time and look at it. Well, I'm already coming back in two weeks, so Yeah. That's that's fine. I'll come back in two weeks. Okay. It's fine.

And and I know she would appreciate that and and just look at that and calculate where you can be in as much open space as you can. Uh let me see. I think that was it as far as notes. So if you're in agreement, I would like to defer this case again. So I would like to make a motion to defer SPUD 1825 till May 28th, two weeks. A motion to def defer the items to the May 28th meeting from Commissioner Noble, seconded by Commissioner Leforge. Please cast your votes. That item uh is deferred. Okay. Item 16. Item 16 is SPUD 1835, an application to reszone 901 Northwest 31st Street from the R1 district to 1830 1835.

Uh Fallon Brooks Magnus, Jolly Bird Design, 11 Northeast 11th Street. Uh representing the applicant. Uh so this one is actually kind of interesting. Uh so we have a it's like a family compound. They are essentially wanting to add a couple more units for aging parents. There's going to be a ground for aging parents and then the second floor unit is actually for um young well adult children. Uh so and they've done a complete gut job of the main dwelling as well. So now we're coming back and asking for a couple more units in the back. And our lot coverage on this one is not quite as high. I actually put the number up there for myself this time. It's 66%. Okay.

Uh this is again Commissioner Powers Ward um with her absence. Mr. Noble, if you'd like to lead our discussion. I do have three folks signed up to speak. Okay. I think we should hear from them. Okay. We'll start with Joshua Farmer. I'd like to go last. You'd like to go last? Okay. All right. Um how about Frank Titus? Uh, I'm Frank Titus concerning this property here. I live a half block away. Can we have that address for the record, please? And I Can you state your address for the record? Oh, okay. Uh, 8:19 Northwest 31st. Okay. Thank you.

And I own the property next door. I inherited it. 8:15 Northwest 31st. It's a It's a duplex and I only have one occupant. That's enough. And I've lived in 8/19 for uh 32 years. Been associated with the neighborhood, raised up in the neighborhood, been associated with the neighborhood 82 years now.

And uh I'm just objecting to it. uh got a lot of traffic going down Francis already from the school Harding and uh the property is only uh one and a half lots that's 32 or 37.5 ft wide by 140 deep. And of course these uh display of these houses, these houses look a little wider than the lot even. I mean, these aren't exactly what the one house is there now. They've redone the the one house and it looks good. And uh it seems like it's not really true to scale. These houses look like they're a lot wider and it has one, like I said, 37.5 ft uh plus by by 140 one and a half lots. That just doesn't seem like enough. And that's it. Thank you. My hearing isn't too good. So, and the acoustics isn't too good and hearing aids don't work too good. But anyway, I've got backup here and they they can probably take some questions and stuff.

All right. Any questions for Mr. Titus? Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Uh Jennifer Farmer Jennifer Farmer, 823 Northwest 31st Street. We are directly east of the proposed changes. And um I I would like to ask you to deny this, bud. This is the first I heard about it being for parents or or for family. Um no one's communicated with us in any way. It looks like investment property and and I'm sure that's what it will be eventually. But uh the character of Central Park neighborhood, it's unique and it's one of my favorite neighborhoods in Oklahoma City. because it reflects how many of us want to live. The area is filled with mature trees, natural growth, and abundant wildlife that existed long before any of us moved here. The birds, the butterflies, the bees, it's what makes this neighborhood special. Central Park along with PO and Edgemeir has always stood apart because the community has chosen to preserve nature and live in harmony with it rather than pave over it. We have the Central Park community garden right next to Frank's house. We have a little nature walk just north of there. And these spaces reflect the values of the neighborhood. Walkability, preservation, green space, and community connection. The proposal doesn't further these goals. It increases density without realistically accounting for parking, which I think is really the biggest issue. Um, increased density needs to address parking. And this plan actually eliminates existing parking while simultaneously increasing density. doesn't quite make sense to me because the driveway to the north like that person has that driveway fenced off and so is it an alley? I think they're trying to use an old alley

space and um this token like strip of green along the side just doesn't fit in with the way our our neighborhood is set up. There's very little meaningful open space or preservation of natural environment that defines this area. And the city has heavily invested in sidewalk improvements throughout the community to improve walkability. But this proposal does not meaningful meaningfully provide for sidewalks or pedestrian connectivity. The development feels out of scale, out of character, and inconsistent with the values that make Central Park special. So, I respectfully request that you deny the application.

Right. Thank you, Miss Farmer. Uh, one more thing. Uh, the backyard isn't even level or anything. I mean, they'd have to haul in all kinds of dirt to, uh, straighten it back up, but Okay. Thanks, Frank.

Good afternoon, uh, chair and members of the commission. Uh, Josh Farmer, 823 Northwest 31st Street. As my wife said, we are directly east of the proposed location. And while you have that picture up there, I would like I would definitely point out that the green space that is left over isn't usable. The front yard, um, which comes out to be, if you do the math, is 750 ft. Uh, the whole lot's 5250. So that's 14% of the, uh, green space that they're leaving open, which isn't used now. It just nobody uses it. The sidewalks you can't see here in the front are already destroyed. Uh hopefully the city comes up that block. They've done Western and Chartell on both sides, but they haven't come down that street yet. Um so we're definitely concerned about the green space. uh the density. Um I do believe that the spud said that uh let LU2A LU TA not 100% sure what that stands for but says that we should have 10 to 40 uh density per acre. Given this at 14% of that that's putting uh 25 of those 40 into a.17% acre lot. So you're taking in that acre where they said you're supposed to have 40, you're allowing 25 of that in one lot. So I think that overmaxes the density based off of the requirements. Uh my wife did bring up parking and I'll just say a few things about that. Uh if you is there a picture of 31st Street side? That's perfect. So that whole 31st street right there from Chartell all the way down uh at least to Ali the north side's no parking and that is from uh PO we have uh first Friday we have arts

festival when those things happen those overflow all the way down almost to western with parking from those events. So, by adding the density here and then alleging to take away or use the alleyway for entrance, if you can see on this picture, that alley has been abandoned. I don't know when it was originally abandoned by the city, but it's been abandoned a long time. The only uh reason that that's there is cuz they just rebuilt that driveway in the house directly north of there. Uh they sold that house and the house directly east of it. Both of them remodeled by the same company. Uh and they rebuilt that driveway. Other than that, you can see nobody. There's no development on that alley. My other concern with the alley is that reading the Spud and the city report is that two things. One, drainage. They're going to have to rip it all out and provide their own drainage. And if they build in that uh alleyway, according to the spud, the city's not going to maintain it. They're resp well the residents are responsible for it. So, what happens if they don't maintain it? who's responsible for it then. Uh so that's another issue. Um and I would reiterate what my wife said is that uh this is a very walkable neighborhood. It is very uh familyfriendly. The density is getting worse and worse. Yesterday morning we went for uh about two or three days a week. We go jogging the neighborhood with our pet. Uh we were coming up doing Oh, you can't see it on this map. Two blocks to the right. We're jogging up uh against the edge. I had to physically step out in the street to slow somebody down because they were about to almost hit our son because they weren't paying attention. We don't need any more density in this neighborhood. Harding, as Frank said, is right down at the end of that block. Every day, twice a day, cars in and out, uh dropping off school. That corner right there at 31st

and Francis is also the school bus stop for our neighborhood. So, that is also gets congested there from that. In the winter, the parents park there on the corners because it's too cold to let their kids stand outside. And I guess uh finally, I would just say that uh we're not against development. We're developing our lot. If you look on the picture, our lot's empty directly east. We have a permit now to build on that. the existing 1928 house which is 18 uh 823 825 is the empty lot we're building from the old house into the new house one story one residential unit for one family and that's what we would request uh stays on that street and with that we would request that you deny this but I'd answer any questions if you have

yeah I so you know obviously what you see in exhibits and what's been described is you know a second dwelling unit in the rear that's two stories is Is it the two stories that bothered you or the or the second unit? If it were a second unit that were only one story, how would you feel about that?

Um I I did see the max height of 28 ft. I question whether that picture is 20 that structure would really be 28t high. Um I definitely would um be against a two-story building mainly. Um if you're uh that part of the neighborhood is uh elevated that's downhill from there. So sitting at uh on top of that hill at the end western right across the street is the Catholic Church. Right there you have the bell tower. From the top of Chartell Hill, you can see the bell tower across the neighborhood. If we start putting in dual uh two-story buildings right there, I question whether that's going to interfere with just the overall sight line coming down that uh and uh I don't expect you to know this, but you stand up there at the end of the day, you see all the colors from the uh when the sun goes down, you see the bell tower. I mean, it's beautiful. As my wife said, we love this part of the city. Um so, yes, I believe that anything that goes up is going to definitely dig into that. Um, again, a single story I probably wouldn't have a a problem with, but I don't know. I think Frank is right. That is a tiny lot. Ours is 50. Each side is 50/50. So, we have 100, I believe. Isn't ours 50? Yeah. So, ours is 100 across and 150 down. So, it's a little bit bigger. Um, so I don't know that I believe that they can really fit as much as they think they can. Uh, and they're going right up to the If you go back to the previous picture with the fence line. Yes. So, I mean, that is right up to the line on both sides. And you can't see it in this picture, but the left side of that porch, uh, there's a driveway for the other property to the west of her. Um, they park in the front of that house right now. Well, sometimes they just, uh, somebody, I don't know who it was, uh, just got a ticket parking right in front of that house two weeks or last week. Um, and again, there's no parking on the north side and they're wanting to take away parking. They're getting

tickets already. Uh so I just don't think that this is a a viable build for that particular lot. May I have answer quickly? Um I think the concern is density because already even to this application there's an email from the neighbor next door saying me too. I want to I want to put a a a separate duplex or unit in my backyard and use that alley for my access. So, can you just extend the access from the alley all the way to our house, too? And so, I think our concern is kind of a snowball effect of, all right, let's everybody build a duplex in our backyard right around this area, and it's just too much. There's not parking for it.

And that comment, I believe, is your last page uh from the the resident that is directly west of them already saying, "That's a great idea. Can we do that?" And again, I would bring up if they start trying to reopen that alley, the city's not maintaining that. the residents are and I don't see any anything in there about that. Who's going to take care of that? Who's going to maintain the sewer? Who's going to maintain the road the because it's going to be concreted or well that driveway is already concreted from when they redid the house. Well, there would be if if that were to occur, there's requirements by the city for for the construction of the alley. So, they would have to abide by that. So, I'm just that's what was in the spud. It said that the city would not cover it. Okay. That's what it said. So, I'm just going off what it was in the

sure in the spud. So, um, those would be our concerns. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I don't know. Thoughts from thoughts from commissioners? I I don't think we're we can get there on this one today. I don't know. No. And I, you know, in bringing forth Commissioner Powers's thoughts are, you know, she can't be in support of the application as written. So, I think deferring this one also would probably be helping just to have conversation with her. And you say she cannot. Yeah, I'll talk to Commissioner P. That's fine. We're deferring the CL. What do we just do all this for? I was ready to vote. We're

We just did all that and now we're not voting. Okay. Well, we had people here to speak, so we needed to hear from them. Okay. Did appreciate that. Okay. I was just, so you know, I was ready to vote no, but I guess we're going to defer another one after all this time.

Okay. Just to clarify a few things, the property immediately to the north. Uh the house is literally on the edge of the alley, that is where the house sits. And they are using the alley as a driveway. And they submitted, cuz I tracked it down cuz I wanted to know how they got away with it. They paved the alley by submitting a document that says driveway permit. and it's got like a very rudimentary sort of oh here's where we're putting the driveway and it doesn't make it clear that it's public rightway that it's an alley. So that's how that happened just last year actually. That sounds like an issue for development services.

Right. So what we're proposing is completely normal and legal. We're using the alley as public as public access not only for this lot but for the lot to the north and also the lot to the west. uh which is something that they've talked about paying money to uh you know pay their part in it. Um so it's really just increasing accessibility for the existing neighbors as far as parking goes. Um you know there's currently one parking space on this lot as it is anyway that no one's even parking in. Um we can attempt to try and see if we can't get another parking space in there, but we're counting the garage as two spaces. So, we could realistically probably get a third space to alleviate concerns with parking. Um, and then as far as sidewalk goes, the right of way on North Francis is insufficient to support a sidewalk being located there. Um,

why? Because there's not enough room. There's not enough room. I mean, because it's a very small lot and you're trying to squeeze too much. No, there's not a lot of rideway. It's not I mean, sure, the lot is smaller. It's 37 1/2 ft wide. I don't know why cuz it seems like the fence is actually sitting on the 50 foot mark. I So I don't know why those people own uh footage that they're not utilizing, but it is there. Uh so yeah, there's not enough room between the curb and the property line to put in sidewalk. Uh but yes, we can go ahead and defer. It's fine. I mean, you heard Yeah. one one one thing and then I'll let you have 30 seconds. But you heard from the neighbors um

y what their issues are and I think you should take the time to go back and meet with them and you know figure out a way to see if you can address some of those concerns. Thank you. And real quick uh two things. one on the sidewalk in the uh the setback. There isn't a lot, but with our variance that we got to develop the uh the property to the east, we're we agreed to put a sidewalk in as part of our variance on Francis. So, it's not that it can't be done, it's that they're choosing not to do it.

Well, well said. Thank you. It's because it's a really small lot that we're talking about here. And if I can, since we spent all this time, I'm going to add thanks for Mr. Chair for suggesting to the applicant's representative to get with the neighbors on this because I'm going to keep it brief. My reasons for no are pretty much all the reasons that these multiple neighbors have said. So, I'm not going to belabor it. But, um, so definitely work with these neighbors because otherwise I'm I'm with them for now.

And the last thing I would say about the driveway that got redone, that is true. They did just redo it and get a permit. However, historically that was a single car driveway. Before they redid it and got it rebought, it was part it was it had been uh they may it may be a rideway, but they've been using it a rideway. Nobody's been using it as a rideway for a long time. It was a single uh partially broken up driveway uh that they were using. The house was basically abandoned anyway until they redid it. But uh that's I just wanted to clarify that that has not been used or redone as a driveway or a thorough affair uh until just they redid that driveway in the last but it is an alley easement. So it is yes it is. Okay.

But it is important on how they've been using it as the neighborhood as a whole and nobody's been using that as an alley. Right. but it would get built back to an alley per city code. So, true. And then I'll bring up all the all the other issues that we have about maintaining it. So, thank you very much. All right. And sorry, Mr. Chair, I forgot I meant to say uh I think we all know up here. I assume they know there this the com family compound and it's going to be family. Y'all said you didn't know it. It's because it's not compelling to me because it obviously does not run with the land. We can they can say it's going to be family, but the day after it's approved, it doesn't have to be family. So that that does not necessarily last. So it sounds neat, but it's it's not binding.

Yep. Okay. All right. Anything else? Can we hear as we continue to work with the applicant if one dwelling unit is should they be seeking to try to get just a single dwelling unit or is it the twotory? I I heard t twotory, right? And I'll say for commissioner powers, it's it's one dwelling unit. So lot split with with uh two single family homes and but again she just needs to have conversation with with

Is this not a good example of why we spent all this time on an accessory dwelling unit? You have a building and an accessory dwelling unit and we that's allowed, right? But instead we just keep pressing it farther to where now instead of one plus one we need three. That's my concern is Yeah. Yeah. And it's a you know this this is a small lot 5256 ft. It's very small and even they split corner it is smaller than usual. And the main house has no part nowhere to park up front. Right. Just to be clear, this one is not proposed to split two lot two dwellings on Yeah. or two buildings on one lot. Right. Okay. All right. That was it for this one.

All right. So, we just need a motion. Um, I will make a motion to defer case number SPUD 1835 to May 28th. A motion to defer the item to the May 28th meeting, seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. Council, um, I'm sorry, and I don't mean to interrupt, but May 28th, we are actually not going to be here. We are going to be out of the state. And I would really like either myself or I'll hire a representative if I have to, but I would prefer if we could defer it a little bit longer than that. Well, if they can't get to you and have a meeting with you and your concerns be heard, then it'll be pushed again. So, thank you very much.

All right. Uh, item 17. Can I ask before we start on this one, since it's same board, same applicant's representative, are you planning to defer this the end of this? I want to know in advance if that's a foregone conclusion. No, this one I think we can actually get there. Okay. I I believe we can too. I was just afraid there was some technical reason why at the end you burn it. Okay. Just kidding. No, I think we can unless something else comes up today, but read it.

Okay. Item 17 is SPUD 1836, an application to reszone 1107 Northwest 42nd Street from the C4 district to spud 1836. Fallen Brooks Magnus Jolly Bird Design 11 Northeast 11th Street representing the applicant. Uh this one is just uh it's actually not zoned C4. Uh I that's what pulls up on the map and I confirmed with staff that it is not C4, it's R1 which is why we're reszoning it into compliance because there is there are two units on the lot and we re the only thing that we're really changing is adding the proposed parking pad that is at the alley at the rear. Uh so that that rear unit has dedicated parking. Okay. Um W two again, Commissioner Powers. So Commissioner Noble, if you could lead the discussion. I don't have anyone signed up to speak on this.

Okay, good. Thank you. Um, so just to clarify, no new use units. Nope. There's currently a single family home in the front and an ADU in the back. We're adding a parking pad and zoning it into compliance. There is some language in there that says something about the setback. It's kind of that's kind of funky. And that's in case they ever tore that down and built something else, then what would be required? What new construction would be required to fit those setback standards. So that's the only real weird thing about this one. So currently at zero, if something else got built, it turned into a five on the north. No, no, just two units.

No, no, no, no. Set back. Oh, setback. Yes. Sorry. I thought you were saying it's not going to turn into five units. No, setback would turn into five. Yeah. Are you aware of the technical evaluation staff included? Yes. And you're in agreement with both? Yeah. Anything else?

Anything else from commissioners? Okay, I think Commissioner LeForge will be happy to hear we're ready for a motion. I did not have anyone signed up for item 17. I don't have a slip for it. So, if there was someone, is there anyone that like wants to be heard on this item? Okay. With that, I will make a motion to recommend approval of SPUD1 1836 subvert to technical evaluations. Have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item city council subject to the technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner LeForge

and that item is recommended for approval. Thank you. Thank you. That was the last item on the agenda to be heard. So, we'll move on to additional items. Communications report, planning commission committees. Anything? Uh, planning commission members. Anything on my right? Anything to my left? Planning department? Nothing. Municipal counselor's office. Nothing. Any citizens to be heard? All right, seeing none, we are journ. Thank you.