Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

of the commission. When called on, applicants and speakers will come to the front podium to speak. Only one person at a time should come. Please do not approach the podium until it's been vacated by the previous speaker. Please speak into the microphone and identify yourself and provide your address for the record when you begin speaking. Address your comments, questions, and testimony to the commission. Please limit your comments to three minutes. It is unnecessary to repeat testimony previously given by others. Citizens may address the commission on agenda items by responding to the chair's call for speakers during discussion on each item and signing the speaker's log at the podium. All comments must be relevant to the item. The chair or presiding officer may in his or her discretion prohibit a person from addressing the committee and or remove that person from the council chambers if that person commits any disorderly or disruptive behavior. Please see the agenda for more information about these requirements. If you parked in the Sheridan Walker parking garage north of John Rex Elementary or the Arts District parking garage immediately south of City Hall, staff can provide a parking validation ticket for you. The agenda and documents are located at okc.primeggov.com/portal. Then you would then select the urban design commission meeting. Then click on the agenda item relevant documents and come up with that below the item. Please see the agenda for additional information regarding meeting procedures in the review process. Keith, will you please call the role?

Appetum here. Black here. Cal here. Taco here. Here. We have Corum. Uh

oh. Sorry. I'm get my attachment to come up. Okay. We need approval for this minutes um from the August 27th 300 PM.

I'll move to approve the minutes. I'll second. Okay, it passed. Am I approving for July 23rd as well? Uh, no. I don't believe so. That might just be an error in your script there. Sorry. Okay.

All right. Sorry. Where do I go next, guys? Do I have the Can you check this as I'm sorry I just do I have the correct I did this I think you're on the minutes from last time. I'm sorry.

This is where I'm supposed to be. Yeah,

I'm having technical problems.

Did you hit the script? So, we did minutes. So, we just need to say weird. Okay. All right. Number three, the case is withdrawn. We do not have any. There are none. Uh number four, continuence requests. There are none. Number five, we have a consent docket. Um I need this to get bigger. Okay. So, there are three items on the consent docket and um staff's available to answer questions uh or if anyone would like to pull one of those items or we can take a motion to approve the consent docket. [clears throat] Okay. Does anyone have any questions regarding any of these? Anything we need to discuss? I will move to approve the consent docket.

Okay, it's unanimously passed. is not showing up there, but it has passed. All right. Number six, cases for individual consideration. We do not have any. Number seven, in other business, we have Scenic River A. We have Spud 1780 at 1940 Southwest 9th Street. Give me a second. My monitor's not working. Okay, it's tech crazy in here today. Let's see.

Laura Griggs, planning department. This item on your agenda is u a resoning application that's currently located in SROD and you would be providing a recommendation that would be forwarded to the planning commission. Uh, previously you had another spud resoning on South Portland and at that time staff had provided some information about uh a future proposed revision to the boundaries of SROD. The previous application was adjacent to the south boundary of SROD and so in that case staff recommended that that item be removed from SROD. you all supported that. It went through the process and it got removed from SROD. The current application before you is actually four separate parcels uh within a a neighborhood um and they are not adjacent to a boundary of SROD. So, um, staff wants to keep the contiguousness of SROD intact until such time as we're able to complete the process that it's going to take to be able to change the overall boundary. So we had a lot of discussion in here that you saw previously and we expanded on it for this particular location and the fact of the more logical location for the boundary would be the southern boundary of the park. The city has a park river park uh which is down um north of the of the subject property. And so what I probably should should do is just kind of run through this. Um, we have the four parcels showing up and to the north of all of this is where the park is.

And so in this neighborhood, some of these are vacant parcels of land. Some of these that had houses on them before and they've been torn down. Um, one of the parcels actually has um a couple of houses on it and then the neighborhood has houses as well. And so um they're kind of different. some there's sidewalks on some of the streets. Uh obviously when they build uh new stuff, we would end up with uh additional sidewalks. So from that perspective, this is, as you can tell, a much older neighborhood, smaller houses. Um the applicant's desire is to come in and build some duplexes in a neighborhood that has not had any improvements in it for quite some time. um which from the perspective of staff that reviews SROD things feels would be a very uh beneficial to this neighborhood. Last meeting wasn't which was in August and I forgot that because it's been a few months since you guys have met. Um so with that staff reviewed this proposal we feel it is in keeping with SROD guidelines and regulations. Um and we recommend that you all provide a recommendation of approval to um the planning commission. Um the attorney and the applicant are here in uh the audience. Um but do you have any questions for staff? And this one you're going to be hearing this from me a lot because we we're starting to get more spuds in the periphery area in SROD.

[clears throat] I don't know if this is a question for you or for council, [clears throat] but in the in the actual PUB document, it's referencing a 20 foot minimum lot size, but in the all the graphics and the build in the the exhibits within the PD, it talks about a 20 foot building or a 40ft duplex on a pair pair of 50 foot a pair of 25 ft lots. Okay. So, if they if they wanted to sell off the individual sides of the duplex, right?

That's where the 20 foot would come from. But it's a 20 foot building than on a 25- foot lot. But the building under building setback line, it says building setback line shall be in accordance with the base zoning district. But the minimum lot width shall be one dwelling unit per 20 feet. So is that 20 feet of dwelling on a 25 foot lot because it says minimum lot width. I I'll let I'll let I'm just curious if no and if nobody has any other questions if or if it's okay if he Caitlyn goes ahead and answer that question.

Good afternoon. Caitlyn Turner 525 Northwest 11th Street on behalf of the applicant. Uh, so to answer your question, that's going to allow for the duplex on a lot that maybe isn't compliant with the current bulk standards for minimum lot width for the R2 district. So that would be per dwelling unit. So one half of the duplex would be the 20 ft, the other half would be 20 ft. In total, it would be a 40 foot lot width. And again, that's as Laura stated, that's in the event that we were going to go plat and sell these units. So it gives the opportunity for them to either be rentals or to be owner occupied. The total lot width would be 40 feet or 50.

Well, so the way that it's drafted would allow for a duplex on a 40ft lot. So each unit would be allocated 20 feet each. Yeah, that's right. Well, I I think that there's a a slight because in order for the lot width to be 20, the duplex width would have to go down to 15 in order to be compliant with the code and have a sideyard setback. It may be down to 17, but it says the minimum lot width is one dwelling unit for 20 feet. They're mixing the two together. I think it should say minimum lot width should allow for 120 foot dwelling unit, but it's saying the minimum lot width is one dwelling unit per 20 ft. It just seems like there's a there's something here that could be maybe it could be interpreted multiple ways. Doesn't quite seem correct.

So, we could go ahead and modify that to 25 feet. That way, it's allowing for the setback and the actual unit itself. So we can go ahead and seek to add a TE just to revise that to 25 ft and that would be perfect. We don't norm we we don't normally do TEES but we do would do conditions. So yeah so that would be so it's a item number five. So section five. So you're wanting to change that instead of per 20 ft. It could be minimum lot width is 25 ft. Minimum lot width shall be okay. So you want So is that five instead of 20? But he's saying minimum lot width shall be 25. That's the wording you want to use. Is that I think that it's the lot width not not referencing the dwelling unit.

Then they can put a dwelling unit on it that meet that's in accordance with the ordinance. So just minimum lot width shall be 25 ft. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. That works. Per 20ft dwelling. Was there any other questions? Other questions. So that would mean um obviously staff tries to provide you with the motion so it makes it easier. So if you if you support this and you would make a recommendation of approval subject to the condition that number item five five.

Sorry I looked at five and it said dumpsters but I was on the wrong page. You were tell you were talking on page two number five building setback lines that the last sentence would be revised to read minimum lot width shall be 25 ft correct. Okay for 25. All right. Do we have a motion to move to approve with this? You might want to ask if there is anybody else in the gallery that wants to speak on this item. Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Any further discussion? Thank you. Okay.

Do we have a motion to approve with the updated language? I will move to provide a recommendation of approval to the planning commission on the basis that the p proposed reszoning to SPUD01780 complies with the intent of the scenic river overlay design district zoning ordinance as referenced in section D of the staff report contingent upon with the condition that with the condition that item five page two building setback lines the last sentence be revived advised to state minimum lot width shall be 25 ft. Perfect.

We have a second. I'll second the motion. There we go. Motion passed.

All right. Item B, we have the 2026 Urban Design Commission meeting at submittal deadline calendar. Uh, Michael Felbrook, Planning Department. Um, this is just the uh annual ritual that we go through near the end of the year to um provide you with your calendar for your meeting calendar [snorts] for the 2026 calendar year. And along with that there are the submittal deadline dates that are set forth. Um nothing unusual about uh this year uh in terms of the days and dates of the meetings. We're still meeting on the fourth Wednesday of every month with the exception of November and December as we usually do to move that up to the third week in each of those months in attempt to keep us as far away from the holidays, Thanksgiving and Christmas as we normally do in uh our best hopes of trying to maintain uh availability of a quorum. So, um that's pretty much uh the whole um the whole idea behind the calendar. We do need someone to make a motion to adopt this calendar so that we can um have it approved and take it forward and uh advise the city clerk of these meeting dates.

I will move uh to adopt the calendar. We have a second. A second.

[clears throat] All right, motion passed. All right. Section eight, communications. We have an administrative approval report for Scenic River. Do I need just to read through every all of these? No. So, we have Michael will we have and I would say we won't read through them because there are

20some of them. So, you all are welcome at any time as you peruse this list to reach out to staff if you have questions. The actual administrative approvals are also attached here in Primev if you'd just like to look through them. Um, but unless there's something in particular that you'd like to know more about, uh, we can just continue on. No actions required on these. It's just anformational item. I was. All right. Section B here. Comments from planning and depart from planning department staff.

Don't think comment would be we have a meeting next month because Scenic River has items. So, we'll probably do an early quorum call again just to make sure we have five of you and we really appreciate you all continuing to show up tremendously. All right. Thank you. Could I get confirmation? It says Wednesday, December 1st. That's like two weeks, which is a Monday. No, your next meeting is Wednesday, December 17th. Mine says 17th and Lee says first. I don't have the year when the meeting is next month. That's so weird.

If you if you click on the actual item, it's just cutting it off side of the page. Yeah, that cut off is okay. My bad. No, that's okay. It's the 17th, right? You can come visit us on the 1st if you want to. I'll think about it. Okay. Thank you.

Wednesday, December 17th is the next meeting. All right. Comments from commission members. We have any comments? All right. D our next meeting date is Wednesday, December 17th. Uh, new applicants have to be sub had to have been submitted by Tuesday, November 18th, 4 p.m. All right. I'd like to No more comments. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. Or I can't do that, can I? like to I just like