Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

City Planning Commission, like to call us to order and go over a few housekeeping items. If you have a cell phone with you, please silence or turn it off. If you've never been to one of our meetings before, here's what you can expect. We'll begin with some simple administrative tasks, including minutes and continuances, and then move to cases on the consent docket, which are straightforward items that can be heard and approved as a group. After that, we move on to cases to be heard individually. We'll hear the item discussed and determine if recommendation or decision can be made today or if more time and a continuance is necessary. There are certain cases where the body makes the final decision, but most items are applications where we provide a recommendation to city council and are not the final decision. So in those instances, you'll have the opportunity to share your concerns again with those applications when they are heard at city council in about six to eight weeks. after our recommendation. There are certain items such as HOA, CCRs and agreements between private parties that are outside the purview of this commission and are not factors in our consideration. And we ask for the sake of time that you refrain from using those as justification in your cases. 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 them to Elena or Jared below. When your item is heard, you'll be called to the podium. Please come up, give your name and address for the record, and you'll have up to five minutes to speak. If you're here to speak on an item with a large group of people, we encourage you to elect a representative to share your group's concerns. In those instances, some additional time will be considered. Where several speakers are heard on the same item, please do your best to limit comments and concerns to those items we haven't heard yet. We reserve the right to limit extensive and repetitious comments. Please direct all your comments and questions to us up here on the commission, and if needed, we'll ask for staff or the applicant to respond. Finally, we appreciate everyone's presence here today and the time that you took away from your other obligations to attend. We ask for your cooperation of holding the decorum of the meeting and that you do your best to keep interactions respectful and calm. Speaking from the gallery is discouraged, So we appreciate your help with that. Thank you for your attention, attendance, and assistance. With that, we'll begin, we'll move on to item two, which is receipt of the minutes.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes of the July 23rd, 2026 meeting.

All right, I have a motion to receive the minutes. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privett. Please cast your votes. and the minutes are received. Next is item three, continuance requests, and we'll start with uncontested requests.

Item 34, case C7761, request to defer to August 27th. Item 35, PUD 2149, defer to August 27th. Item 36, PUD 2153, defer to August 27th. Item 37, case SPUD 1826, defer to August 27th. Item 39, SPUD 1834, defer to August 27th. Item 40, case CE 1156, defer to September 24th. Item 41, case CPA 25-6 has been withdrawn. Item 42, CPA 2610 has been withdrawn. Item 43, PUD 2110 has been withdrawn. And item 44, PUD 2147 has been withdrawn.

Okay, I'll just confirm there's no one here to be heard on any of those items. Seeing none, I just need a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the uncontested requests as read.

A motion to approve the uncontested requests from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And the uncontested requests are approved. Next we have new requests.

Yes, we have item 24, PUD 2150, request to defer to September 10th. Item 25, SPUD 1838, defer to August 27th. Item 32, SPUD 1854, defer to August 27th. Item 33, PUD 2148, defer to September 10th. Item 39, PC11011 has been withdrawn. And then case number CE1158, request to defer to August 27th.

Okay. 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 request as read.

A motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the new request as read. Second by Commissioner Milner, please cast your votes. And that item, those new requests are approved. All right, now we move to item four, public hearings and the consent docket.

Item 1 is case C7805, final plat of a replat of Magnolia Harbor Phase 2, and this is located south of Northwest 23rd Street and west of Overholster Drive. Item 2 is case C7827, final plat of Quail Crossing, located south of Northwest 164th Street and east of North Bay Avenue. Item 3, case C7828, final plat of East Lake Section 2, located south of Northeast 150th Street and west of North Coast Road. Item 4, case C7832, final plat of Sooner Gateway Section 2, located south of East I-40, excuse me, East I-240 Highway and east of South Sooner Road. Item 5, case C7824, final plat of the stables at Hallmark Farms Phase 1, located north of East Memorial Road and east of North Bryant Avenue. And finally, item six, case PUD 2025, SP-02, application for a specific plan, pursuant to the approval of PUD 2025, located at 14,000 North Bryant Avenue.

Let's confirm there's no one here to be heard on any of those items. All right, seeing none, ready for a motion.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent docket.

A motion to approve the consent docket from Commissioner Noble. That's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And the consent docket is approved. Now we are ready for items to be heard individually, and we start with item seven.

Item seven is case SV00010, application requesting a variance to section 3.5.3.C.2D of the subdivision regulations to allow the final plat of J.F. Kennedy single-family housing to be considered valid. Located south of Northeast 10th Street and west of Martin Luther King Avenue.

Do we have an applicant present? I understand that they might have received late notice. So this is really a housekeeping item to resolve an issue from several years ago. Commissioner Harrison, this is Ward 7, if you want to lead any of the discussion.

Sure, is there any comments from any other commissioners? If not... I recommend we want to move to accept the variance first for SV0010.

How old is the plat, just out of curiosity?

How old is it? Yeah, I mean, how many years? Seven, maybe? Seven. Seven years. 07. 07.

07.

It's completely built out.

so Commissioner Harrison you motion to approve the variance correct did I hear that okay all right I have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to approve the variance it's been seconded by Commissioner Meek please cast your votes and that item is approved

Item eight. This is case C7830, preliminary plat of Silver Valley, located south of West Memorial Road and west of North Morgan Road.

Is there an applicant present for this item? Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. John Doyle, Cedar Creek. This is a little over 13 acre tract. The use is going to be senior living or 55 plus. On the staff report, I think there were seven TEs and we're good with them. So we're working with staff. Any questions?

All right, this is my ward. If you're good with all the TEs, I have no concerns and support, but I can't make the motion.

So I will make a motion to approve case number C7830.

Motion to approve C7830 from Commissioner Noble. Seconded by Commissioner Harrison, please cast your votes. That item is approved. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 9. This is case C7831, preliminary plat of the Peak, located south of Northwest 63rd Street and west of Northwestern Avenue.

Good afternoon. Mark Zitzow at Johnson & Associates. Address is 1 East Sheridan Avenue. Before you is a preliminary plat for a project known as The Peak. It is the former Chesapeake campus. What we're attempting to do here is plat the property so that each individual building can be sold fee simple. Mr. Beffert and his investment group purchased this property late last year. and have had interest in a number of these buildings, but for them to be owner occupied. So Tim Johnson, founder of our company, when he originally did the engineering on this, he stated that in working with Mr. McClendon, the intent was always for the ability for this to be parceled off. So utility easements, shared access agreements for parking, placement of parking garage was done so at the forefront to be able for this application to be heard today. Mr. Bedford and his team have significant interest in this And are excited to move it forward. It's a beautiful unique campus. So none of those aspects are changing again, the sole purpose of this is so that a Portion of these buildings could be sold off be simple not through a condo Association. We're happy to answer any questions. There are three te's that we agree to and

Glad they had the foresight to approach it that way back then. Commissioner Powers, this is your ward if you want to lead the discussion.

Oh, I'm sorry. The foresight to approach it. And we tried for years and years and years to get them to plat this property and we couldn't get them to tell us anything about what they wanted to do with it except piece by piece by piece by piece. So it's a little ironic to see it being platted at this late date. So I just want to be very clear. The platted lots are the footprint of each building.

It is a slightly extended footprint. There's footings of the building that's just outside of that, but yes. So everything else, the sidewalks, the parking, the drainage ways, all of that will remain in a common area.

And so what kind of control is put over that to make sure that you know, sort of the continuity, the overall continuity of the design and the open space and all of that remains as it is. Right.

So there are essentially covenants and restrictions. Robinson Park, which is Mark Bedford's group, are the property managers of it. So they maintain all of those common areas, including Some of the common areas internal to the building so the conference rooms the auditoriums the cafes and the restaurants Which is what made this such an attractive site for multi-tenant offices So their group maintains all of that to ensure it stays at the level that it is today But the ownership lies where The ownership of the common area lies with Robinson Park and the entity that purchased this the individual building footprint might go to a different owner and Right. This is what prevents the common areas from deteriorating or it being parceled out in such a way that each individual building owner ends up owning odd bits and portions of the campus.

And I think that's a good thing. because of the restraints that we have on our ability to communicate with people about plats. I have no way of knowing whether, the devil's in the details, whether that's really what the documents say. I haven't looked at those, I haven't seen them, so I have some concern about that. Who gets the underground parking?

So there's a cross parking agreement for all of the buildings to share.

To share all of it, not just the underground piece, but all of it?

Correct. So the intent is a portion of these buildings will be continued to be owned by the investment group that will be leased. And there's a number of them that will be sold fee simple. So they're not all being sold individually. The investment group will still have interest in both the buildings, the common area, and the parking facilities.

So I noticed, okay. Unlike the other parking, though, the underground parking is a lot, right?

So there's parking garage. I don't know if you can zoom in. But the parking garage and underground parking, some of those lots are what will be maintained by the investment group that own the common areas. Because as you can imagine, an investor is not likely to come in and be a sole owner of a parking garage in a campus setting like this.

So this says 16. Mine says 15. I'm not quite sure what I think about that. Do you have any sense at all of, this is a mixed commercial and office, but that's all gonna continue to be governed by the zoning, the PDs that are in place, right?

Right, none of that is changing. And post the plat approval, we're happy to sit down and have a conversation and walk you through some of those logistics, if that's helpful.

Well, since it's a preliminary plat, I guess that'd be a good idea. Let's do that. Anybody else have anything they want to contribute to this conversation?

If not, I'll move approval.

Preliminary plat, item number 9C7831.

A motion from Commissioner Powers to approve the item.

Sorry. Computer, move, there you go.

It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. And that is approved. Thank you.

Next we have item 10. Item 10 is case C7826, final plat of Case Apartments, located east of Southwestern Avenue and north of Southwest 164th Street.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. My name's Dan Tanner. I'm the civil engineer and the surveyor on the application. I'm here at the request of Case Properties and Case Ventures, who has purchased the property, and we have completed our design work. We're in the final stages of onsite permitting approvals. We have a current earth change permit in place. So what you have before you is the final plat. which is the dedication of easements and lot configurations. This property was owned many years ago, perhaps 30 years ago. There was a minor PUD amendment perhaps six months ago. So everything's in order to approve this plat and we would ask that you do so today.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newman, this is your ward. I do have one signed up to speak. Okay. Let's go ahead and hear from that person. Okay.

We just have one.

Carly and Garrett Saunders. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Thank you all for allowing us to speak. My name is Garrett Saunders, and this is my wife, Carly Saunders. We have lived on 648 Southwest 161st Street in Oklahoma City for a little over four years. In that time, which was the first home that we'd ever bought, we picked a house that had a nice little grass pasture behind it, which we knew one day would be developed. It would be turned into something, especially as the city continues to grow and more people boom into Oklahoma City, we knew it would look different. One thing that we did not know and one thing that we haven't really been communicated with about is what that difference would look like. Last It's been over a week. It's been the Monday of last week we received a letter in the mail for a final plat. And it's this, not this document, but the one right before it showing the case apartments build out. One thing that very much concerns us is that change directly to our property, but all adjoining houses that will now back up and share their backyards with an apartment complex. Not only does this have the ability to potentially detrimentally hurt the value of our home, a place that we have not intended on moving from but staying in, but this also will change the quality of life for our community. Over the years, we have seen several homes go for sale and turn from single-family residents into rental properties in our neighborhood. We are one of those single-family residents, and that was one of the major appeals to this part of the city. With a multi-family housing unit like an apartment complex being built directly behind these single-family homes, that will drastically just change the layout of that part of our town, that part of our home. We sent a letter to the commission asking to please prevent this from happening. But we'll both be very honest. This is our first time ever speaking to a planning commission. So exactly how this works and how this moves from here, Whether this is an apartment complex that has to be built or if there can be regulations put in place to protect the rights and the quality of life of the private property owners around, we ask that that be taken into account. Some things that some of our neighbors have talked about would be putting regulations on the property for those who would move into an apartment complex like this to have an age restriction, 55 and up, make it a senior living facility, limit the height of the apartment complex if that's possible so that Our private property, backyards, those types of things aren't constantly just in view of whoever the residents would be of this property. Creating setbacks or green belts to add an additional layer of privacy to these single-family homes from who may be coming in and out of the apartment complex, all things that we ask for you to consider. I hope you all did receive our email that we sent last week. It really lies out the majority of what we're asking to be considered because we do protest this. Are there any questions that we can answer from our perspective?

Does anybody have any questions? I mean, I want to respond to that. So we did get your email. This is a final plat application and laws say that it's a quasi-judicial procedure and we can't communicate on that outside of this hearing. So all the things that you mentioned, Surrounding residents have that opportunity on zoning cases when the property is zoned. That zoning for this property was established in 85. That occurred at that time. we are in basically the last step for them to develop this and plot this, so we're beyond that. What I would like to say, and we see this all again, we see this a lot, especially, and I appreciate you as new homeowners, there's just information that you're not aware of to go out and do your due diligence to research surrounding zoning. And, you know, that's something I want to just remind everyone. We need to, as a body, find a process and work with our state legislators to make some kind of law that requires that or provides that information as part of the real estate purchase process. So I know you didn't know what you didn't know. And I hate that you don't have any recourse at this time. But unfortunately, there's not much that we can do.

So our ask for regulatory things like privacy fences, green belts, that's out of the... That's handled at the zoning stage.

That was done in 1984. The zoning is already approved on this item. Now, if it ever comes up again, if this development, for whatever reason, doesn't move forward and they sell the property and a new owner comes in and wants to rezone it, you will absolutely have that opportunity if there's a new zoning application put in on it.

So I'd like to ask where your property is, if you can tell us or show us.

Yes, ma'am. I believe it's number.

Twenty-one.

Twenty-one. So very top, yep, right there.

Okay, so the final plat provides for what looks to me in this microscopic writing as an 81-foot open space setback or easement between the construction and your property. Eighty-one feet is a pretty good size buffer. And staff can tell you whether or not the zoning would require them to have a fence around the property. I believe it does, R4 to R1. Typically that is a six foot stockade fence, but in 1985 that probably is exactly what it was.

I will add to that. We have not seen this prior to right now. So that measurement is just information we didn't know, but it looks like that it is eating through part of our backyard. And so fence will be taken down. So I don't know how deep that reaches into our yard, but the setback in true distance would be less than 81 feet.

You can't reach into your yard.

Yeah, that's just an easement line. That hash line is just easement. So it would be from your property line, 81 feet further south and west. And you can get online and you can look up, what is it, PD 216. And you can read all of the aspects of that and you will learn what they can and cannot do.

And even though we don't have the ability to meet with the applicants or the opposition, there's nothing keeping the applicant from doing that.

That's correct.

We want to give them some time between now and our next hearing to do that. It's up to you, Robbie.

I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

I mean, we could give them a couple of weeks' continuance and let them go meet with the neighbors and explain what it is that they're planning, what the final plat really provides.

I don't have an issue with that if the applicant's open to that, but let's hear from the applicant.

I'm assuming the neighborhood was built after this was...

Almost certainly. I have a question more maybe for informational purposes. So on the letter we received it, I'd mentioned if we had letters of support or protests, we could send them in. So I guess what exactly could we say from a protest perspective that would actually be applicable to this particular case?

That's just the deal. That time pretty much passed with the zoning.

If it doesn't, as long as it meets the requirements of the zoning, there's not really much we can do to deny it. Okay.

So if we had a plethora of letters in protest, but they were to things irrelevant to what the zoning already addressed, those letters would be irrelevant?

Correct, yes, unfortunately. Well, I appreciate that information. Typically, a lot of times we'll see the zoning and then immediately the flat follows. Within a year or two thereafter. This is a weird case. I looked it up. It was heard in December 3rd, 1984. So, obviously, it's 40-something years.

Personally, I'd like a limit to be on PUDs like we do for plats. Right.

There needs to be... There wasn't a preliminary plat required on this. There was only final. And there should be something that if... preliminary or final plat's not put in within five years, that the PUD sunsets and goes away because it's not right that this thing's set there and the community grew around it. But this thing, as long as they meet the requirements of the old PUD, they can just start doing the work. And it's unfortunate and something that needs to be looked at to be changed.

I guess the final piece is I wish we would have had more than a week and a half's notice that it was happening, so if there's some way to notify residents prior to that in the future to help just provide a bit of a buffer or opportunities to have conversations with people developing, I think that would be really helpful for the residents living by the river.

Again, for all those reasons, we could take two weeks and let them go meet with the applicant and figure it out.

We can, but it's not going to change anything.

You say that now, but there certainly are things that can be done to ameliorate the impact of this property development on the surrounding neighbors that can be done even at the platting stage.

No, but the developer could agree to something, just to be good neighbors.

All right, so I'm going to ask Mr. Tanner if he can come back to the mic.

Thank you. I would like to reinforce that this is a final plat application. This is about the dedication of easements and rights of way. This isn't a land use question. However, we are good developers. We own and operate 40,000 units. We're going to be here. We have a full-time resident construction manager to watch what happens. And we're more than willing to listen to the neighbors. We've already conceded an 80-foot buffer against these people. What went wrong in the system, I think, is that they really weren't advised of the value of this buffer. We could build up to 20 feet away from this property line. And as you saw, the Saunders misunderstood a utility easement on their property as an encroachment. So these are pretty technical things. They're not to be sound bites. We have methodically been through the system. And we ask for your support today.

Would you consider taking two weeks and meeting with them just to give them more information on the development and on the project so that maybe they have some of their concerns alleviated?

In the face of a denial, yes, I would accept a continuance. But once again, this isn't a land use question. It's simply not.

Okay. The other approach is we can go ahead and take a vote on this, and we can just ask you in good faith to be good neighbors and meet with them and, again, explain the project and give them more information.

Well, I do not want to put my client at risk, and I would accept a two-week continuance. Okay. I can't count the votes. I don't know what everybody's thinking. But we've really done a pretty good job here. And it's going to be an excellent product. Excellent.

You don't have to do it, but if you have a layout for buildings and parking lots that we don't have in our packet here, but if you have that to speak to the... Do you have a way to see it? Yeah, we can't project that. We weren't given that, so that would help a lot of information to let these neighbors know which way the buildings face, how far apart they are. And I figured you had that, it's just on the final plot it's not shown.

Yes, we do have a complete set of construction documents, grading plans, utility plans, architectural plans. We are finished. This is the final plat.

I'll just chime in, too. I would wholeheartedly agree and vote in approval of this today, but would appreciate you to communicate with the neighbors prior to construction and just be neighborly.

I would agree to that because, again, I do not want to put my client at risk.

I do understand that a representative from the homeowners association would like to speak, did not fill out a form. If they want to speak, please come and I'll just need you to fill one of these out when you're done.

I'm Roy Richmond. I'm the vice president of the HOA. And this is Mark back here. He's the president. We just mainly want to... First of all, I don't hear real well. I'm sorry. I've been there about 25 years in that neighborhood. And we've always been aware that there's going to be apartments coming in there. So my main thing... is we wanna protect the neighbors, we represent them, and we wanna make sure that it's gonna be nice quality. And I haven't heard yet, how many stories is it gonna be? Has that been told?

That would be in the PUD.

possibly that would be you know that it's in the zoning document which we don't have you don't have that 40 year old zoning document 40 years in the making so I just I talked to this gentleman just a minute ago so I know there's a green belt going to go all the way around And so we're concerned about drainage. We have a lot of drainage problems in our neighborhood. So I'm sure you guys have taken care of that already. And it looks like there's just one entrance going in there. Is that correct? So we just, you know, the traffic is going to exponentially increase a lot there once that gets done. So we wanted to know about that. And also if there's going to be apartments facing the houses, Is there going to be obscure glass so they can't see out into the people's backyards? That's a concern we've been asked about.

That's all stuff that is addressed in the zoning and like the previous statements, it's nothing that we can do anything about right now. Okay. You are certainly welcome to visit with the applicant and the developer to see if there's anything.

And all those questions answered?

Yeah. Okay.

So then the rest of that on the outside is going to be other businesses later on? on this outside line here. Currently, it's unflatted currently.

It's not flatted, but that's what the intent of the BUD is.

All right. Well, I'll visit with him and see if we can meet. We would love to have a meeting with them if we could. It would not have to be the whole neighborhood, but the board or just a couple of us to meet, ask these questions, and then we'll be able to answer it to the community. So if that can happen, we would like for that to happen.

Well, I have a thought on this. It's unfortunate that none of us were up here when this zoning was done, and none of us have it here to look at. This gentleman and the tenants, they do not have to make any concessions. This is simply a plat process today.

We're not on concessions, we just want some answers.

Right, I'm just trying to explain that. I, like Don, I don't see why approving the final plat, it's not gonna change whether the Cedar or Case apartment people wanna be good neighbors and make changes after this. When, if they did that, if we deferred this and there was a meeting and there were any changes made, nothing would change on what we're doing right here. I'm not asking for changes.

We just want answers like what is this going to look like? I understand. How many stories is it going to be, the quality, things like that. Because they're asking us and we're their representatives. I understand. So we want to be able to get those answers. So I'll talk to him and see if we can set up a meeting for lunch or something and just talk.

And they're pretty far into their development, so they're not going to make any changes.

But you would learn everything you'd want to learn from the PUD. So read the existing PUD, and that will tell you what they can and cannot do. Right, right.

All right, thank you. Appreciate you, all of you. Allow us to separate the issues, and we'll commit to meet offline with anybody that wants to talk to us. It's going to take us a year and a half to build it, so we're going to be there for quite a while. I have the project architect with us today that has all the architectural answers that somebody might need.

And you said you've already got the paving plans, the detention plans, the W water plans, everything's done?

Yeah, we'll commit to having a community meeting. We can hear their concerns and explain to them how we've addressed all of the concerns that were mentioned today in the current architectural plans.

That's all we're looking for. Thanks. Very much appreciate it. Okay. Okay.

Mr. Newman? I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve C7826.

A motion from Commissioner Newman to approve the final plat.

I forgot. Were you good with the TEs? The TEs that were on the plat?

They were in agreement to all the TEs.

You were in agreement? Okay. So with that, I'll make the motion to approve the plat C7826 with the TEs.

I have a motion from Commissioner Newman to approve the final plat subject to the TEs. Seconded by Commissioner Noble, please cast your votes. And that final plat is approved. Thank you and yes, please do everything you can to share information with the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

Item 11. This is case number PC11005, application to rezone 8901 North Walker from R1 to R2.

Good afternoon. My name is Joe Selby with Selby Design, 2309 Colchester Drive, Edmond. I'm representing the applicant. This is 8901 North Walker. We're requesting a rezone from R1 to R2. There's an existing there was an existing single-family home there that burnt down that has since been cleared and There are others there are several other spuds that have Two family homes have been approved nearby. I reviewed this with Johnson He indicated the staff would support straight r2 zoning Happy to answer any questions Commissioner powers.

This is Ward 2. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. I

This looks like great infill development to me, the location of it. Since you're doing straight zoning, we don't really have any ability to negotiate with you about the layout and so forth. But is it your intention to do it so that one face is Walker, one face is 88?

That is the intention. The house that was there before had a garage facing Walker. So you got curb cut. Right. So we think it'd be okay to have one facing south and one there to the east.

And I'm guessing that 25-foot setback along the front is going to meet the visual setback down 88. So this looks good to me. We don't have anybody signed up to speak. Anybody else have anything they want to say? If not, I'll move approval of item number 11, PC11005.

A motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend approval to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Peaver, please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval. Good luck.

Item 12. This is case PC 11009, application to rezone 4140 North Lindsay Avenue from R1 to O2.

Good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. The application before you is to rezone the subject track to 02, which, as you can tell from the exhibit before you, is consistent with the surrounding zoning. Happy to answer any questions. No protests that I'm aware of.

Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. If you want to lead our discussion, I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay, not signed up to speak. Anyone have any conversations, questions?

All right, if not, then I move approval for PC 11009.

Motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend approval to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Peaver, please cast your votes.

That item is recommended for approval. Item 13, this is case PC11012, application to rezone 9441 West Britton Road from R1 to R2.

Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. This is an application for an R2 development, and we did have an opportunity to meet with the neighbors that live to the east. I believe it's either my third or fourth opportunity to meet with the same neighborhood group. There was talk of me becoming an honorary member of the HOA, but I haven't seen anything to formalize that yet. So when we met with them, and you'll see on the plot with the next item, they were generally fine with it. They, of course, wished nothing would happen there, but we're going to agree to keep all of these single-story, and there's also a 60-foot buffer along the eastern side that you'll see, again, on the plot. I think generally speaking, they were happy that they had a developer that was willing to work with them, make modifications, limited it to a single story, of course, is something that currently wouldn't be required given that it's zoned single family. So happy to answer any questions. We'd ask for your approval.

This is my ward. I attended one of those previous neighborhood meetings, and I know that the neighborhood, you know, previously there was a storage facility development that was considered here, and so I know that the neighbors are very happy to have residential going in. So, and we don't have anyone here. I didn't hear from anyone, so that's a good sign, and I'm in support of it, but I'm unable to make a motion.

And I'll just say one thing, that the lot sizes on this are actually a little bit bigger than the minimal standard, so it's also a good thing.

I hear that every day.

And if there's no other questions, I would like to recommend approval of PC11012.

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

Item 14. This is KC 7829, preliminary plat of Keystone Place, located north of West Britain Road and west of North County Line Road, along with the various two of the subdivision regulations.

Good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Once again, here on behalf of the applicant. This is the plot associated with the rezoning case you just heard. I do need to add a TE to this, which would be TE8, to limit it to single story. Given that it was a straight zoning, not a PUD, this is the only way to do it. But on a plot note, it has the same effect. it would in a beauty so we'd add a te number eight to limit a single story and then on the variance we do have a stub to the north so I do I'm not sure it's necessary given that we have the Boulevard entry on the south we have the interconnectivity given the small size of the site we would prefer to keep the one to the north and not to the west

Any, if they have the street sub on the north, does that comply with the intent of TE2? I don't think so.

No, because it says west. Why no, but it could just easily be to the north. North, yes.

We do have that property being rezoned that is to the west. I think there was a note maybe in that one to work with the developer on the stub.

Can we get a response from staff? Sarah, was the stub just to the north good enough?

If the commission believes so, that's fine, but you still have to give them a variance to the west.

Okay. So, no.

Well, per the subdivision regulations, they would need to stub to the west unless you vary it. Yeah. If you're satisfied, you'll see coming up soon another item where they're going to stub to the north to connect to another neighborhood which will have an access out south. So if you're okay with that one connection for the smaller subdivision, then that's fine, but then you'll need to grant the variance.

Okay. We do have that property that is straight west that we could,

We don't know what it is, right? Single family. The next three items are the next one. So our preference, given that these are duplexes, is to have the singular point of access, given what's around it in the other development is single family. So we appreciate the need to connect, but on what is a relatively small site, multiple points of access, given the nature of the use of being different, our hope would be that you would allow us to have the one access to the north satisfy the requirement for interconnectivity.

I mean, those connections are going to be so close to one another. I mean, I don't really feel a need for two.

Bare minimum pedestrian connection between the two.

There's vehicular connection that we're proposing. To the west. There will be sidewalks. To the west. We don't want to split up a lot just to have a random. No. there will be sidewalks along our street which will connect to the north, which will connect to the other neighborhood. Having a random, I don't have the other platform, but having a random pedestrian access to the other neighborhood, I don't know if that gets us anything. If this were access to some commercial development or something of meaningful use, perhaps, but I don't know what we'd be connecting to.

Yeah, I mean, we've got the street stub. We're talking... not even a quarter mile there, which is five minutes.

I think the one to the north makes more sense to me than the one to the west.

Can we make the next one connect where it goes north and then connect west, like right there? I don't know. I'm always for connections.

We're happy to connect west or north. We don't want multiple given the proximity of it and the small size of this development. If the commission's desire, I've got both engineer, well, Mark's not an engineer, but Mark and Kendall talking. We want to connect one time.

And this site runs, I mean, you'll see it's a north-south. I think the north connection makes sense.

We agree.

Okay. We still need the variance then? Yes. Yeah. So I don't have anything further. If we're ready for a motion for the variance.

I will make a motion to approve the variance to section 5.3.1D.5 of the subdivision regulation.

A motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the variance. Seconded by Commissioner Meek, please cast your votes.

And now for the item. I will make a motion to recommend approval of case number C7829.

Subject to the technical evaluations and the additional technical. And the additional one. The additional technical evaluation.

And the additional just so that it's clear, a max height of one story for all structures.

All right, so we have a motion to recommend approval of the. items city council substitute technical valuations. Second by Commissioner Peaver, please cast your votes. And that item's, oh, that's preliminary plot, so that's approval.

Thank you. Got it.

Item 15. This is case number CPA 26-7, consideration of a proposed map amendment to the comprehensive plan removing the employment land layer from an urban low-intensity land use topology area. This is on 106 acres north of West Britain Road and east of North Kilpatrick Turnpike.

Chair Miller, planning staff, presenting for CPA 26-007. The site is located on West Britain in Kilpatrick. We're looking for about 106 acres there. If approved, we'd like to extend this by about 10 acres, just clean up the area. You can see right there up in the northwest corner. The site is primarily undeveloped and residential. The site is zoned AA and R1 with APUD to the north. The site is entirely employment. The site is well served by water. And the site is well served by sewer. We are well within the urban response time for emergency services. City staff does find that we should deny this CPA we are In desperate need of more employment or we have enough employment land up in the northwest corner It's slowly getting chip away over time the site is The site is well served by transportation and it would be a shame to lose it and

Okay, thank you. This is my ward. You're familiar with these applications that have come before us before to remove the employment layer, and this is the last section, I believe, in the areas developing as residential. So I'm in favor and support of removing it, but I can't make a motion.

And just one question to make sure that everybody is in agreement to add the 10.28 acres to that northwest section to complete so that we don't have one more.

Was that noticed, the extra? Because I don't think we could add it was part of the notice.

Why don't they do comp plans?

Benary can answer the question whether it was noticed or not. Okay.

But any week a planning department the area that was noticed is the area the extra area that you see in the blue So after this application we will still remain with two areas To the right and to the left that are over 30 some acres each one So the ten eight extra acres is to kind of complete To the left and that little out not to the south.

Okay, so we're gonna add those

If they were noticed.

Yeah.

That was noticed.

That was noticed.

Yeah.

I think that, well, yeah, never mind.

Okay. Okay.

Any other questions?

No.

With that, I would like to make a motion to approve CPA 260007 with the additional 10.28 acres, making the amendment total of 116.21 acres.

All right, I have a motion to recommend approval of the CPA to City Council. That's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval.

Item 16. Item 16 is Case Beauty 2140, Application to Rezone 9601 West Britton Road from A.A. R1 and PUD 731 to PUD 2140.

David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. This is the item that is adjacent to the previous item that you heard with the duplex development. So this is a three-track proposal, track one being R1, track two being townhome, and track three being multifamily. Again, had a neighborhood meeting with the neighbors to the east. They were generally fine with it, especially given I think we only are adjacent immediately to two of the homes. And if you look at the, can you show the site plan, please, Jared? Can you show the pretty colored one that Kendall made? Well, that'll work. There we go. We have secured access to the north, the Northwest Expressway. So that was a big relief, I think, to the neighbors that we weren't going to be putting a lot of the multifamily or any of the multifamily traffic onto Britain. So there are two TEs. We would ask that we... We would ask to strike TE1. Our desire is for this to be private so that the multifamily traffic is pushed up to Northwest Highway rather than down to Britain. We think having it private and allowing us to gate it will be a better scenario for the neighbors that are in this neighborhood as well as the neighbors to the south and east. We agree to TE2 and then we need to add TE3, a limitation that no more than 50% of the lots within track one shall be permitted to be 40 foot. And then we need to add a TE4 to remove the last sentence of section 9.17. In the back and forth on the master design statement, we left in a sentence that now conflicts with other portions of the PUD. Section nine point one seven the last sentence says a minimum of fifty percent open space shall be provided we would ask to strike that We now handle open space on a per track basis under nine point one And so we'd ask to strike that being te number four happy to answer any questions

All right. This is my ward. So I've had several conversations with the applicant. I would like to get everyone else's thoughts on the connection because I can see it both ways. With all the residential to the south on Britain, And I wasn't at the meeting with that neighborhood, but I don't know how they felt about the apartment traffic, whether they had concerns that if it came to the south or not. I get the feeling that in general they wanted to see it all go to Northwest Expressway, so no connection to the south. So is that...

Correct. I think there's also a concern that people through time figure out that that's connected and use that as a way to get to Britain and avoid having to, you know, do county line or, you know, further to the west. And so keeping these bisected given, you know, the multifamily is a more intensive use and Northwest Highway, of course, is a fully developed former state highway, that's probably the better path from a traffic standpoint than putting it down to Britain.

And playing devil's advocate here with, I know it's a boulevard entry. That's no, with 520 families and 970-something parking spaces, if we didn't at least have a crash gate, boulevard entry or not, if power lines were down across Northwest Expressway, there'd have to be another way out. I don't see why. Could it be a... public service access only?

Sure, yeah, that's fine. We can do emergency access, that's fine. We don't want people to be able to shortcut through this neighborhood.

Oh, I agree. Everyone would shoot through the apartment complex to the north, and that could get dangerous with speed. But just worrying about natural disasters, you've got to kind of plan another way out. We're fine with that.

I'd like to say something on that, too. I mean, for me, I'd like to see it a public road. You have a public road all through the R1 single-family neighborhood. Tie that all the way through. It's just better access. There's so many homes in there.

And actually, the access onto Northwest Expressway any access onto Britton Road, neither one of those is really a great option. So for something that is going to carry this much traffic.

I agree. It just gives a lot more options for a lot of traveling public. I can see you can still keep the Track 3, the R4 separate in itself, but that flag would be public.

But then gate, you're saying gate it off of there. So Kendall, what they're saying. I'm not.

No gate.

No, gating the front of the apartments, but that. Yeah, you can gate the apartment complex.

That west street that would have to cross through the detention could be a public street all the way to the north.

All right, let's just, we'll agree to T1 and figure it out. We'll tell the neighbors that their desires were rejected. So we agreed it you wanted to add a te3 no more than 50% of the loss within track one shall be 40 foot and then Te for the removal of the last sentence of section nine point one seven Forty foot wide You're welcome

All right, anything else?

Yes, just a couple more things too. We talked about the facade regulations. We can delete EFIS, sorry, TE5 deletion of EFIS. On the whole thing? Yes, across the board. And you want to just still keep that the same for all three tracks and not make a separate one for the single family? You don't want to do that?

Good point. Keep the facade as is, except the deletion of EIFS.

On all three tracks, though?

Yes. Nowhere in this PUD would be allowed to have EIFS. So 9.2, we would strike EIFS.

The TE3 and the how to figure that as a 50% that no more than lots could be 40 foot in width. In talking to the subdivision regulations through those, it's really hard for them to figure that out and to not know a number. I know getting a number is also very difficult.

Because we don't have a plat at this point, right? So perhaps within that TE, it's on the engineer to call out by number at the time of the preliminary plat stage to assist staff in their review.

And the other part of that, I mean, the width or the depth of these lots are all different, right? So I just would rather see something that said something that there'd be... you know, a minimum of 50% of the lots were 5,500 square feet, or something like that. Getting to the same definition and meaning.

Okay, we can agree to that.

50% of the lots shall be required to be minimum of 5,500 square feet. Okay.

Same meaning, just... Sure.

Can I ask a question?

Sorry, there was a lot going on and I understand is there there's a change to the open space The open space is handled through on a track by track basis and It's conflicting with what is in nine point one seven we failed to remove that and all of the back and forth on this item and And so if you look at Section 9.1, Tract 1, Tract 2, and Tract 3 have independent requirements for open space on a per-dwelling unit basis within Tracts 1 and 2, and then a percentage in Tract 3. Okay, so we're just saying that 9.1 governs?

Correct. Getting rid of it in 9, okay.

Correct. 9.7 is the one that's just that last sentence, that's right. That's right. And then we're good on the street stubs, the one to the... Yeah, we'll just agree to TE1. And the access. Oh, you're right. You want to have Barry come up and talk about... No, we don't need to do that. We don't need to do that? No. Okay.

I'm curious. What do we want to hear from Barry?

We just want to make sure that we're right on the drainage portion of the... Something tells me that the staff will ensure that whatever drainage is required happens.

Okay. Anything else?

Anything else?

I think we're ready for a motion.

I will make a motion to recommend approval of PUD 2140 with TE's number... One, number two, the additional number three, as stated.

Well, as stated, we said it a couple different ways. So as a minimum of 50% of the lots shall be required to be 5,500 square feet. Or larger. A minimum of 5,500 square feet. Right. Okay.

Within tract one.

What's that? Within.

Tract one.

Within tract one.

Within tract one. Yep. You got that? And then TE number 4, you want to restate that?

Remove the last sentence of section 9.17. And then TE 5, the deletion of EFIS as an allowed building material. In all tracks.

Can I clarify something? Sarah, can you help me understand? So on the open space, as governed in these tracts, the required, so for example, tract one, the required recreational common area in tract one shall be 143 square feet per dwelling unit. Is that something that is the base code, or is that something, in other words, is that conflicting with what we deleted?

No, that's part of the subdivision regulations, and it's just a little bit more than what the subdivision regulations would require. for track one and for track two. And then for track three, it's switching to a minimum usable open space of 10%. And then elsewhere in the PUD, it talks about the distance that the usable open space has to be from each lot.

Kendall tells me that it's a 10% increase from what would otherwise be required.

I wanted to make sure that we didn't lose something in there because these lots are substantially smaller than normal. And in developments like this in the past, we've requested additional open space to compensate for that. So you're saying that's additional, it's more than what's normally required? Correct. Okay.

And it has the 1,340 feet between the parks? We have the distance required. Thank you.

All right. So we have a motion subject to TEs, and the TEs is read in. Go ahead. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. Okay. Thank you. That item is recommended for approval.

Item 17. I'm 17 is KCPA 26 that dash 12 consideration of a map amendment to the comprehensive plan removing urban future layer On an urban low area and this is on approximately 150 acres located south of Northwest 150th Street and west of North Piedmont Road Trey Miller planning staff Thanks Jared

The CPA is located on Piedmont Road and Northwest 150th on the border with Piedmont. It's approximately 150 acres. We see it up there in the northwest corner. The site is undeveloped with residential to the south. The site is zoned AA with R1 to the south. The site is urban future with rural low surrounding it. The site is served or close to serve with potential connectivity up in the northeast corner, but we're not gonna worry about that. The site is fully served by sewer. And the site receives urban response services. Planning staff recommends approval.

Great. This is also Ward 1. I have no questions or concerns, so anyone else have anything?

Anyone else?

No?

With that, I will make a motion to approve CPA 2600012.

Motion to recommend approval of the item, seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. That item is approved.

Item 18. Item 18 is case PC11008, application to rezone 14599 North Mustang Road from AA to R1.

Good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. This is a companion item of sorts to rezone the AA to R1, consistent with the development pattern that you've seen probably the last five years, specifically to the east. There's been a tremendous amount of new development. Obviously, as you go south, there's a bunch. So now we have all urban-level services, so we believe R1 to be appropriate. We'd ask for your approval.

All right. This is Ward 1. I am in support of the application. I don't have anyone signed up to speak. Any questions or comments from commissioners?

Straight zoning to R1. I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of PC 11008.

The motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to the City Council for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. Thank you. That item is recommended for approval.

Item 19. This is case PC11006, application to rezone 12042 Northwest 150th Street from AA to R2.

David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Application before you is to go to R2. Happy to answer any questions.

Ward 1 again. I haven't heard from anyone from residents, so I'm in support of this.

Anyone have anything else to offer?

No?

I will then make a motion to recommend approval of PC 11006.

A motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes.

Thank you.

That item is approved. Recommended for approval.

Item 20. This is PC 11007, application to rezone 15,000 Piedmont Road from AA to C3.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here today on behalf of the applicant. This is an application for C3 along Piedmont Road. Happy to answer any questions. Would ask for your approval.

I think this is a very good application, and I think the residents out there are going to be happy to have more commercial options. So I'm in favor of it.

Anyone else? Anything? No? Couldn't all of this all have gone together as one big PUD, though? But look how easy this was.

I think he charges by the item. It's a wonderful example of not everything has to be in a PUD. Is it appropriate?

Yeah. I mean, because, and we can talk about it later, but if this were an SPAD or a PUD, those lots would have been way smaller.

That's right.

So with that, I will recommend approval of PC 11007.

A motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. Thank you. And that item is recommended for approval.

Item 21. This is case PC11010, application to rezone 15020 South Sooner Road from AA to C3.

Hi, I'm Jessica Morris, Morris Engineering. I'm here for the applicant. My address is 617 Northwest 27th and Moore. I'm just representing Mr. Davidson for his rezoning request. okay you have any questions we're happy to answer them and he is here if you have any questions for

Thank you. Mr. Privett, this is your ward. I don't have anyone signed up to speak.

All right. And this one's very similar to the one we just passed, except for a residence that's adjacent to it. That'd be my only concern. I'd like to hear anybody else's concerns about that. I'm mostly okay with it because it's on the hard corner and across from other C3s. But, yeah, it's next to a property, an AA property, so...

And let me ask, did we hear from any of the residents? I haven't.

I assume that they're mostly okay with it because of the proximity of other C3s there that they'll like it. They were happy the Sonic came in. They were actually, you know, some of the others at the gas station and all that stuff. Thank you. My main concern is just for the person next to it. And he's pretty far away, you know, so, I mean, and that's, you know, he's going to meet the speaker box threshold probably, but that's another problem, too. It could be right there facing his house, so that's my only concern, mainly, if it was to be a restaurant or drive-thru.

Well, I mean, even if it were to face west, I mean, you've got a road there that you're going to get traffic noise that's going to... be more of an issue.

Yeah, and very similar to what's at the north.

I'm just curious, on an application like this, what's the noticing distance notice goes out to? How far is it? 300 feet. Okay, thanks.

So, yeah, that one house should have been noticed right next to them.

Yeah, and then it goes further if they don't meet them.

Okay. I mean, I got a little bit of concerns about it, but we didn't hear from the resident, so... Yeah. I think I'm okay with it.

Okay. Well, that said, I'll move to recommend approval of PC 11010.

We have a motion from Commissioner Privet to recommend the item to City Council for approval. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. Now I am recommended for approval.

Item 22. This is case PUD 2136, application to rezone 4499 South Sarah Road from AA.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. This is an application that would allow a three-track development, one being commercial, one being R2, and one being R1. And there are... 40s we agreed to all of them except we'd asked that we modify te to to replace the word vehicular with pedestrian and then in talking to Commissioner Meek we would add a te number five that would require a six-foot masonry fence along Southwest 44th Street where it is along the residential development within tracks two and three I Happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Meek, if you want to lead our discussion, I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Why wasn't this all just straight zoning, three different cases? I don't know. Just kidding. Had to go there. I did meet with the applicant. We have worked through adding the pedestrian corridor and the masonry fence. As Mr. Box read into the record, any other commissioners have any comments regarding this?

Nope.

Okay, if not, I would like to recommend approval of PUD 2136. Subject to the TEs. Yeah, subject to the TEs as read in by Mr. Box.

A motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend item for approval of City Council subject to the TEs. Seconded by Commissioner Powers, please cast your votes.

And that item is recommended for approval. Thank you. 23. Item 23 is PUD 2146, application to rezone 3200 Northeast 23rd Street from R1, R4, C3, and I2 and SPUD 1409 to PUD 2146.

Once again, David box back to 5 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. This is an application. Well, I think we first focus on The nature of the area so it's an interesting area along 23rd Street here you have Really kind of some heavy industrial uses that exist up and down 23rd Jared. Would you mind showing the aerial? so you have There you go it's kind of dominated by auto salvage uses in the area. So we have a PUD that is kind of industrial in nature, but what we've tried to do is require all of the industrial use to be to the north. It's sheet metal fabrication. And then that track two, which is that south track, we have provided for only two uses, office and indoor storage, and further that the indoor storage is accessory to the use on the north tract. And one story. So we think we have mitigated any potential measures that may be of a concern. We think it's consistent with the area and perhaps more, I guess, compatible than the existing uses that have been there for many, many years. There are three TEs, all of which we agree to. We do require that existing trees be preserved within the setbacks. We did have a neighborhood meeting last week that Ms. Turner attended. Many uses were removed from what was originally filed, and many things added. All of those additions are reflective in your staff report. So with that, happy to answer any questions. It is worth noting that 23rd Street is, I think it's a state highway, perhaps, but it's a major corridor. It carries lots and lots of traffic, so the uses proposed here are less intense than what's already there, and we think compatible with the area and the nature of Northeast 23rd Street. that we're happy to answer any questions.

All right. Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. We don't have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Commissioners, I did get a chance to speak with some of the neighbors as well and Caitlin and I kind of discussed some of the things that they went over in the meeting. As long as the use stays as intended, I think that we're moving in the correct direction. I did have one question for David, and that was about the entering and exiting of, say, semi-trucks or how they would move the fabricating metal away from the premises. Once per week. Okay.

It only happens once a week.

And what type of vehicle is it? Semi-trailer. It will be semi-trailer. Okay, and with the fabrication, are we looking at any pollutants? Are we looking at any noise problems?

It's all inside. We'll have to meet all federal, state, local rules, so no. Okay.

Commissioners, do you all have anything? I think we're ready for a motion.

Oh, we do have Mr. Warrior. Good afternoon.

Yes, good afternoon. I'm Zinnifred Warrior. I reside at 5712 North Lotte Avenue. My family does have some property that's near this particular area, just to the southeast of the particular area. And we're talking about land use with this particular section of town. I would like to say I have been very familiar with this particular corner of the section there. I just grew up there when I was 10. My father wore a set of plans looking for a house to build. somewhere in the Oklahoma City area and ended up having a structure that was constructed there on Ray Avenue, which is a dead end street at that particular time. And just kind of give you an idea of a particular area. There wasn't that much development in the, it was kind of wild, wild west development after World War II along 23rd Street. just east of Interstate 35. 23rd Street is a state highway that leads you straight into the state capital area with that. So a lot of the types of uses and developments we've done there so far is industrial and various types of jump yards and truck repair shops and so forth. We just kind of use and we use various types of uses of the development of another particular area. There were some housing development that was done to the south of that particular region there. And I think one reason why the 23rd Street wasn't really developed was because of limited access to utilities. You could have electricity and you could have gas in that particular area, but from Bryant and going east toward Sooner Road, there was no water, no sewer. So there wasn't any type of development that was really able to develop. You know, if you have a salvage yard or a junkyard, you don't need about one sewer hole to work with. But in residential development, you need quite a bit more. So that kind of stagnated the area for that type of development. So a lot of the types of uses that are currently there now is not, I think, conducive to the current revised comprehensive development plan that has been worked on within the planning department. which you've allowed many of us citizens to have some interactions and input in particular area. I don't think this is really conducive to that type of development of this area. If you continue to have commercial I2 type of development that is going to end in that area, then it's going to be very difficult to get any type of residential development on the particular areas out there because there won't be any types of services that developers are going to feel like that are available for residentials to be able to use for the particular area. So we continue to have commercial junkyards, and I think this particular development, what they're having here is looking at some types of applications that have been done in the Pacific area is not going to be very conducive to help develop residential development in that particular area of this region. Today, we've been talking about development in the Oklahoma City, greater Oklahoma City area, and you look at Ward 1, for example. All the development was done there. That was only by Piedmont Road and Northwest Expressway. I was born and raised here, so I can remember what that area looked like just 50 years ago. and all the device developments occurring now in the Ticker Area. Now we're going to sign up here on 23rd Street, going east of Interstate 35. There is a difficulty in getting improvement or getting developers to come develop residential areas because of the services not available to the area. There are some plans for residential development in the Ticker Region. They're off of 23rd and Coltrane. Also Bartell Road. Bartell Road is a short street right before you get to Sooner Road off of 23rd. Those are some developments that are being talked about developing residential. There's also now water and sewer available on the strip of 23rd Street also that would eventually hopefully develop various types of residential development with the registration development with a particular area. And we've been talking about affordable housing. That would be an ideal place for this particular property, would be an ideal place for some possible development of affordable housing that is developed now in a particular area. But if we continue to have these types of services that I think are conducive to the region, then it's going to be very difficult to have some development that are occurring as it has been in all other regions of the Oklahoma City. You look at Scissortail Park, the lower 30 of Scissortail Park. That property off of Robinson used to be a place where you had batteries that were dumped and it was stored there. They had to get that cleaned up before that was redeveloped. There can be some more redevelopment on this eastern quadrant of the area also, but is going to be very difficult to develop if this type of uses continue to be used in this particular area. So again, I would like you to consider the development of this area and how this is going to affect and really have a difficult development of residential development in the particular region.

All right. Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. Warrior.

You can go back to Ariel. What's that? There we go. I understand the desire for residential. I find it unlikely at best that there would ever be residential development along Northeast 23rd Street. Given the existing I-2 zoning to the east, given the challenge of locating auto salvage yards anywhere else, those uses are likely to remain in perpetuity. And so I understand we have a light industrial use. It's probably the least intense use along that stretch. So we would submit that it's appropriate to ask for your approval, subject to all three TEs.

Okay. No one else signed up to speak. At this time, I will recommend approval of item PUD 2146 to the City Council.

We have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item subject to TE's, the City Council, for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval.

Thank you.

Items 24 and 25 have been deferred. That takes us to item 26.

This is SPUD 1846, application to rezone 6200 North Robinson Avenue from I-1.

For the last time, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. This is a conversion of a previous hotel to allow for multifamily development. You started to see some of these several years ago. Typically, they're a really nice reuse of an otherwise difficult property to find a way. In fact, there's one right down the street across from my old office that was a Holiday Inn years and years ago, and now there are micro units there. But we've seen a lot of them on Meridian, so it's becoming something that you're starting to see more and more. So we think this is a good spot for it. Great access to the highway right there at 63rd. You also have great access to dining and shopping that exists along Western. Around class and curve and nichols hills plaza. There are two te's we agree to e1 We're gonna ask to add a te and we're gonna ask to add a te oftentimes when you see these Multifamily the parking requirements are really in excess of what is actually required so we're going to ask that we add a TE3 to allow the ratio of parking to be one space per dwelling unit, and then with that, we're going to be able to provide more open space. So we would ask that TE2 then be amended to have 15,000 square feet of usable open space, with the TE3 being a one-to-one ratio. Happy to answer any questions.

All right, Commissioner Powers, this is Ward 2. I don't have anyone signed up to speak.

We actually discussed this quite a bit at our last meeting, and so the one thing that I asked for was more open space. I got that. I'm willing to make that trade on the parking, both because of our current thoughts about parking, but also with this type of housing, it seems less likely that there will be more than a car per unit, so I'm very willing to make that trade. I think there's more need for the open space than there is for parking. It's a sea of parking already. I don't have anything else that I need to add. Does anybody else?

I just wanted to add that. I'm okay. I think more green space will be good for residents that live there, but I brought it up once. I do remember reading the one letter of protest we had. It had to do with overflow parking in another commercial. property abutting this one.

I didn't know what to make of that. I mean, given where that use is located.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think we can police parking because I'm looking at it in the aerial thinking that there is considerable commercial in the area. We don't know exactly where the parking is coming from. I just wanted to take a minute to talk through that. We are lowering the parking minimum in that. So we're kind of going in the opposite direction of the

Yeah, the use, the Oklahoma Housing Finance Authority is not really located in a place where I think that there was overflow parking from this use to that use. It's hard for me to imagine. I can't think of the last time this place looked like it was even halfway full, let alone fully full, as its current use. So I'm okay with the trade-off.

I mean, if anybody else has... My guess is maybe it's a conference or something rather than overnight guests. That's just a guess.

Oh, like a conference at the hotel maybe had come along?

Yes. In fact, I've been to a CLE at that hotel. when I guess it was still operating. And yeah, although there was still plenty of parking. I've never seen that parking lot ever full. So I find it hard to believe that there is an issue, but... May I, on TE3, to ensure that we don't have an issue moving forward with the clerk, what we would do is modify Section 6 to say the design and number of all parking facilities in this SPD shall be in accordance with Chapter 59, Article 10 of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code 2020 has amended except that the parking requirements shall be one space per dwelling unit. The number specified in this, and the clerk is... Let's make sure the words that I say at this microphone are exactly what happens. And sometimes I fail to do it properly.

If Sarah's good with that, I'm good with that. Did we talk about signage last time? We did, didn't we? And it still says per code. Is that really what it needs to say?

On signage? Yeah.

I mean, there's not going to be a need for signage.

We have a new sign code. Fix all the... Problems? No, no. I was told.

I mean, we're adjacent to a highway for Wednesday.

Yeah, but we're a base of R4, right?

Yeah, we're a base of R4. Yeah, there's not going to be any billboards allowed. There won't be any billboards.

There's already a giant sign out in front of the thing. It probably ought to be taken down.

I don't think R4 would. I mean, it's R4.

So taking the sign down.

You keep saying that like I should be comforted by it.

I think you should be.

I would like to see the signage restricted.

Restricted to what? No EMD. No EMD.

Yeah, no EMD would be good.

I don't think it's even allowed. Yeah, no EMD. No EMD.

So nothing in excess of, you know, 15 feet. I mean, I'd go for 10, but, you know, it's...

I mean, do we know what? What does R4 say? I don't think Robinson is an arterial anyway. Is it? Mr. Butler, I know we spent all week discussing sign regs, but let's dive in there one more time. This time you're not under oath. So do we know what R4 says as it relates to signage?

I thought we had the cool sign calculator.

Yeah, bring that out. We could pull that out. I know I enjoyed it last time, so we could fire that up again. Yeah.

It depends on what North Robinson is as far as the type of street, right?

Right, yeah, it depends on, so obviously Robinson and the interstate, well, it's bounded by three streets in this case, so yeah, I don't have the height on the top of my head, but we can look it up if we need to right now.

That's due, because I don't, the fact that it has that highway frontage is problematic if we're talking signage there's just no need for that it's not with the base being r4 i don't think they can do a billboard right they can't do a billboard you for sure cannot do a billboard yeah i understand that okay and let's not just think about it let's know the answer shall we we shall who's going to do it so you're most concerned about isn't that your job david you have to know the street frontage distance how much street frontage

Are you most concerned about the Broadway side or the other sides? All of it.

All of it.

What is the AI sign calculator looking for?

I mean, you know, for this type of a use, a nice, small, ground-mounted monument sign that's not lit up, you know. Through the miracle of...

cellular data has discovered that 12 feet in height and 100 square feet in area would be the max.

I'm good with that.

That's what the code says, so pursuant to the per code, that's what you get.

Okay, I'm good with that.

I got 11 feet.

And there will only be one of them? There won't be more than one? One sign, 12 feet in height.

One sign. Not 100 square feet.

We're going to actually say that in the SPD.

No. We're going to say per code. We want to support the code and the effort of all the staff and volunteers that gave their time, effort, and evenings to ensure that we have a signed code.

I don't want there to be a question about it later.

We'll read it one side. Per code, except there will be a max of one sign. But you raise a good point. We are on Broadway extension, which typically is where you would expect to see a billboard. Sorry. No, never mind. No billboard. Max of one freestanding sign. Let's not confuse an attached sign. So per code, except the max of one freestanding sign.

Poll sign?

Whatever the code says. This is, I think, an absurd dive into a brand new shiny sign code.

Well, I completely disagree with that. We're doing an SPD. Let's do it right.

It could be either one.

They could go a little bit higher if they have a monument sign. Poll sign's 11 foot. I think that's what the gaggle here says. Right, so if they...

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the discussion. We agree that it shall be per code except that one freestanding sign shall be the max. I like it. I do too.

I'll let it slide. If there's no further discussion, I will move approval of item number 26, SPD 1846 with the limitations on the signage and the three TEs as read.

I have a motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item for approval subject to the TEs and the amendment to the signage.

Oh, I'm sorry.

This is me.

It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. Thank you. And that item is recommended for approval.

Item 27. Item 27 is SPUD 1849, application to rezone 10901 Northwestern Avenue from SPUD 1365.

Here's David Brown, 2304 Northwest 153rd Street, applicant here on the rezoning of 10901 Northwest Avenue from Spud 1365 to Spud 1849. I have my project manager here, project architect here, if you have any questions or concerns.

Okay. Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. If you want to lead our discussion, I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay, you do not.

Commissars, are there any concerns that we can see currently?

I just have a couple of questions, and the main one is on the height. So what's your design on this? We don't have that.

Yeah, so we have three stories.

So you don't need the four stories and 55 feet? No. Okay. Probably the standard on a three-story. As far as height? Yeah.

I just want to write it in. Something like that. You're looking at maybe 30, 35 feet. Yeah, 35 feet. Okay. I had a question on the setbacks. Do we have five-foot setbacks? On the north and the south? On the north and the south. I mean, we're talking 30, 35 feet on five foot off the property line. Right.

We're bordered by, you know, C3 to the south and then PUD 675 to the north. We're really not changing the existing setbacks from the original spud that was in place.

Well, but I don't know what the original spud was in terms of uses and heights and restrictions Seems like a lot to me to be five, but from the property line Really the biggest change was to add the multifamily component You did

There is a note through fire that says that a fire department turnaround will be required all the way at the west end. Did you know that?

Yeah, we just submitted, and that's my apologies. I've been out of town, so we submitted a revised site plan. Okay. I think yesterday. There you go. There you go.

That's better. There we go.

Yeah. Okay.

And that will still have to be approved by the fire department, right?

Yeah. But it looks like they could turn on that, at least a three-point turn.

What's to the north?

That is a, I think it's a vacant lot to the north.

Yeah, I'm just kind of wondering what we're allowing. Five feet.

Five feet away. It's new construction that, yeah, that, I don't know, is it a metal building? Is it metal?

Let me rephrase this. Can you be further than five feet from the property line? Can we be yes? I mean, I know you're working with some site constraints So what can what do the minimum parking with that?

You need that would determine how much you can move those off of the property line Yeah, I mean right now we have the five foot setback and then five foot additional from the building to the setback so Potentially we can go ten foot safely That would be twice as good.

Yeah, I'd feel a lot better about 10 feet. The new mat.

Yeah, just change those, the north and the south. Yeah, that's fine.

Height, three stories, 35 feet. If the applicant is amenable, I will move for approval of split 18-4. I had one more thing. Oh, go ahead.

What are you doing about landscape?

That has not yet been determined, but obviously, you know, grassy areas and whatever's required by what's governing the C3 district there, or zoning, sorry.

I'm a little bit, I mean we've got 10 feet on basically the north and south and you're going to have a three story building. That 10 feet makes it a little difficult to get shade trees in there, but I don't know. I can't recall off the top of my head what code requires in that landscape buffer.

He does have the property between the two front buildings and those back buildings to do something with in the open space.

My question is, this is residential, but then it states a C3 base, so if the landscaping is under commercial, they will have substantial landscape points that they have to comply with just from their parking points.

I get that. concern is that I wanted to verify what that is on the north and south because if we're only requiring a 10 foot buffer then they won't have enough islands to get it in.

Considering that the The property to the south is C3. Is a landscape buffer typically required?

C3 to C3?

Yeah, C3 to C3.

It's probably going to be pretty minimal.

Yeah, if anything. The concerns about the number of landscape points that they're going to require.

What require you to do? Just on your site. We're just trying to keep you from having to have a problem of planting something that's not really plantable.

I mean, can we... I mean, here's the thing. It's C3 base, but you're still zoning it for multifamily. You're still having people live here. Right. And they need some quality of life. They need, you know, shade and...

So I think I'm starting to understand kind of more of this process that this is an entitlement to get a SPUD. If we doubled the setbacks to 10 and we approved this entitlement, and then he goes to building permit, that's not our problem if they say you have to have this much landscape and he has to end up putting 15 foot or 20 foot setbacks because he can't meet their requirements. So just wanted you to be aware. Sure, yeah, I appreciate that.

So currently, can you give me the three tees? I have height at 35 feet. I have setback at 10. And then we still are concerned about the landscape buffer under the C3.

You're concerned about getting the trees and the 10 feet on the north-south? Yes.

How many foot separation?

Well, I was hoping to get confirmation on what the code requires to... Do you have that handy? Landscape, what's the required landscape buffer on the north and south boundary?

With a C3 base. With a C3 base.

What is the north partial zoning? Is that O2?

SPD.

Or is it a PD?

Office warehouse, I'm guessing it is probably 02 base but. Morse code.

There is, I think. Well, here's the thing. I mean, this can be manipulated. I mean, depending on... How many trees are required by code? They can go in pockets. They don't have to be. And if they space the buildings, you've got a lot of space between those front buildings and then where the larger ones start. There might be some separation between those buildings. That's the other thing. Do we want to look at building separation at all? Because you've got a lot of space. on the east end.

Yeah, and this is just the preliminary layout of, obviously, once we get into permitting, we'll do building the fire separation.

Yeah, they'll have to separate for just fire, or they'll have to fire rate the structures. And they can add extra parking spaces to get a 25% reduction in their landscape. And there's lots of tricks. to trying to pull this off. I just wanted you to be aware.

Well, yeah, but when you think of like three stories, like 10 feet off the property line, and you've got a lot of, I mean, there's an opportunity here to kind of spread these out a little bit so that you don't look like you're looking at the side of a cruise ship.

Yeah, I agree. That brings up the thought. Is there anything in here that talks about the number of dwelling units? Number of buildings. Like a limit where the in the luda. I mean, I mean, because in theory, you know, to your point, Nate, you could spread the 20.1 per acre.

Oh, it is in there. Okay. Well, just density, but not official, right? Not maximum number of units.

This proposed 48 multifamily residential units on 2.3 acres.

I don't know how accurate this is, but... Just quick look up, it says no minimum on the landscape buffer from C3 to C3. No site-proof fence is required. I don't know.

Agreed. So C3 to C3, no landscaping or screening requirement. R4 to C3, no landscape or screening requirement. The only requirement would come in is if you were C3 next to R4. Okay.

I Mean I I have I have concerns about not having sight proof screening and No landscape buffer, so I would I'm kind of curious to hear what other people what other commissioners are

I agree. Regardless of the base zoning, you have to keep in mind that this is a residential development.

You're going to have kids here. If there's no kind of perimeter fence, screening fence, they're wandering off to the commercial and Lake Hefner is right there, or West Hefner Road is right there. I feel like there should be some kind of screening fence.

the safety and well-being of the residents will be a primary design concern as yeah right this this is what i was speaking about earlier the perfect example for just allowing this entitlement but requesting a specific plan before before they can build it. Come back for a specific plan, you would work everything out with all of the code requirements, parking, landscaping, everything, brings back the plans, boom. But I know that's rare on a spud.

Well, it's reviewed at building perm, you know, it's reviewed at building permit So the key would be to put it put it in the zoning now So the if you're seeking I guess the question for the Commission is this site proof screening will not be required Do you want it to be site proof or do you just care that it is? fenced because they may have other options for fencing that they may want to do that wouldn't be site proof and

Right, just safety element.

I think the hardest thing is that it's really an R4 base. The C3 in the front. Right, yeah.

Well, then I probably want to see the...

broken up C3 for the easternmost 100 feet or whatever. You could have tracked it. Yeah, tracked it one and two with R4 in the back. And then it would be R4 abutting R4. And C3 on the front abutting the R4 with sight-proof screening on that side, which makes sense.

I think we need to feed this back one way or the other.

Yeah, I think it's not fully cooked yet. So I want to see it come back. I want to see more on screening, landscape. I'd like to see some kind of delineation that the front half of the parcel, whether it's 100, 200, whatever, that there's a line struck in that eastern parcel, C3, and then back, the western portion is R4.

So regardless of the zoning requirements, you're asking for additional landscape requirements?

Yeah, because it's an SPUD.

Okay, that's what I'm asking.

Their base, what they actually use.

Yeah, I mean, because that whole... West side could theoretically be parking garages, retail sales, gasoline sales, all that.

Right. It could all come back C3 right now.

Yeah.

The whole thing.

I don't like that part.

The track one, track two, C3.

The front track on Western being C3 I have no problem with. Okay.

If you break those up in tracks though and you're going to do commercial and then you've got residential, And we're talking about screening. Do we want to go as far as to say really within this development we want screening between the commercial and the residential?

Yeah, it would go all the way up to the drive. Okay.

So my question to the applicant is how much time do you need?

A week or two?

Two weeks? She can give you the timeline and tell you, because you have to get this document in pretty fast.

Yeah, if you go two weeks, you've got to have all your changes back in in one week or less.

Yeah, you should go to September 10th. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. For what they're talking about.

Does it need to be renoticed? Sorry? Does it need to be renoticed, does it?

No, it would not need to be. September 10 Right and then we would want changes back by September 2nd in order to be able to review them in time to them in your packet That works Thank You commissioners

And you're good with that? September 10th? Yes. We'll make a deferment.

Yes. We'll just defer this item until September 10th.

A motion from Commissioner Harrison to defer the item to the September 10th meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your vote. That item is deferred. Thank you. Thank you.

item twenty eight this is case uh... s p u d eighteen fifty five application rezone twenty eight thirty seven southwest thirty first street from our two good afternoon marks it's our johnson associates when he shared an avenue before use a case for a mix of uh... commercial and residential zoning along the avenue on the south side that were across from what's in park One thing I note is while it's r2 today if you go up and down the section of Maine You can see it reflected on the zoning map There's a significant amount of not just commercial but also industrial and heavy commercial You can see the c4 zoning on the south and the industrial zoning across the street We haven't received any protests or phone calls We did work with city staff on some revisions to this. We have one te that we are in agreement to and in agreement with And so what I handed out Much as councillor box mentioned we want to make sure that the city clerk gets exactly what they need So we've printed out the technical evaluations just to keep us all honest and on the same page So we agree with te one that's listed in the staff report We then pick up at te two where we're asking to add three te so te two would add if developed as residential for a five foot setback and then 20 feet if developed as commercial. Adding TE3, if developed as commercial, the building shall be oriented to front South May. And then TE4, we're gonna replace exhibit B with the attached conceptual site plan, noting the proposed setback changes. And we did show the building now orientated toward May Avenue. And so I have a copy. I'll also give that to staff so they have one. Happy to answer any questions, but we would ask for your approval.

All right, Commissioner Milner, this is your ward if you want to lead the discussion. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay, and I got to visit with the applicant, and the newly proposed TE3 was my request, and I appreciate you coming with that in writing. Thank you. I just want to point out that having driven this stretch a couple times, primarily all the commercial on South May is facing South May. And I just asked if it gets developed as commercial that we keep that continuity along South May. And thank you. And I'm assuming, because you've written it, your client is okay with that. Yes, sir. Yeah, okay. Just want to make sure. I didn't have any other concerns. Commissioners?

Any other questions or comments from commissioners? All right, I think we're ready for a motion.

Okay, I would move we recommend approval of SPUD 1849 with the four TEs as written, as provided and written. All right, I have a motion from Commissioner Milner.

Sorry, what else do you need? I'm sorry.

Are the TEs actually written down here?

Read in. You want me to read them? I read them in. They were submitted in writing.

Yeah, he did read each of them.

You want me to read them again? I'd be happy to. Okay.

All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Milner to recommend the item to City Council subject to the TEs provided and read in to the record. Seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. All right, and that's recommended for approval. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, item 29. Item 29 is SVUD 1852, application to rezone 228 Northeast 14th Street from R1.

Yeah, good afternoon. Claus, Raymond Phillip, 600 North Robinson, and I'm representing Brett Smith in this application to rezone this property. And not to undercut us, but I'm not sure we'll receive approval on this today. We've had a lot of... Neighborhood feedback. We've had meetings with the neighborhood, met with some of the planning commissioners, but we just received a staff report on Tuesday, and we feel that this is an appropriate development, and we felt that we could make our justification for it and receive some feedback from both staff. and planning commissioners so we can find a way forward to get this spot approved. And in a nutshell, what we're planning on doing is developing the site with two individual fourplexes with parking in between based on the staff report. It conforms with all the comprehensive plan kind of regulation guidelines. We have one parking space per bedroom basically. We're intending on these to be one bedroom units. And really our approach on the design for this was to seamlessly integrate into the fabric of the existing neighborhood while providing additional housing opportunities. And the way we accomplished this is by splitting these two into individual buildings. The actual building height and scale conforms with R1. zoning regulations, size, height, and there are certain advantages to splitting into two besides decreasing the scale, not having an apex, which may also be appropriate, but in this case, we wanted to keep the scale in line with the single-family houses on either side. but also it allows you to finance it in such a way that someone applying for a first-time home loan could finance it with an FHA loan and it makes it more accessible from an ownership standpoint the client himself is looking to finance it this way and it makes it accessible for someone to build wealth without being a big commercial developer for example so you know we feel that you know kind of it's appropriate for the for the area that it kind of meets the scale and density and parking requirements and just open it up to questions maybe here's some neighbor feedback and i'd love to answer yeah any questions you have all right um commissioner powers is ward two if you want to start us off i've got five folks signed up to speak That was Christine.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. I was gonna let her run. Commissioner Harrison.

I was gonna let her run with it. Yeah, definitely. But yes, those who have signed up, if we could hear them first, please.

Okay.

All right. We'll start with Abigail Michael Thwaite.

Hi. I'm really bad at public speaking, but I'll just look at you guys. And if I can't get through this, I have something written out. But OK. Hi. I'm Abigail Micklethwaite. I live in Claussen Northwest Highlands Park. I'm going to ask you guys to respectfully not pass this. How many of you guys know about the Harn Homestead? You guys all are familiar with the Harn Homestead? How many of you guys been there, took your kids there? Harn Homestead is part of our neighborhood. The parking lot that I look across, I live on 16th Street, and I look across, I can see the barn, and it is part of our neighborhood. This neighborhood is, I mean, I know you guys know Oklahoma history, but it's steeped in our history. The Harn Homestead was part of the land run. appointed by Harrison to do land disputes. The irony is not lost on me here. But many people lived in this neighborhood. It was built for single homes. And Harn himself owned these parcels. And he gave them out to do single family homes. And the homes were already up for sale. We're up for the national historic places. We're trying to get into that. And the houses, the neighborhood is just such a wonderful neighborhood in terms of the community. As you can see, we have five people here. I know you guys... we had some people up here before and you guys were like hey you guys should have come out before the zoning well we're here we're really here and we're saying please don't do this because our neighborhood is very important to us and it's very important to oklahoma it's very historic if you go there you can see the houses have the porches and people sit on the porches the kids they run back and forth i was walking with a neighbor the other day And kids were running across the streets, and he said, this is just like it was in the 70s and the 80s. And I understand coming in to get for development. Absolutely. We have 24 lots. We have zone R3s and R1s. Those are for multi-use, the R3s. The problem that I have is that these developers came in and, I quote, they looked at R3s, but they were not, and I quote, reasonably priced. So they said, OK, we don't want to pay for an R3. Let's just get an R1, come here, and rezone it and put eight units on. And it's just, again, I heard you guys speak to the zoning. The zoning is there. It's an R1. So why rezone it to something where you have two buildings on a tiny lot? And I know you guys have gotten a lot of letters, and I just, I'm not gonna speak to the letters, but I'm just recalling what you guys said. If you knew the property going, you said in the real estate, people should know what they're getting into. One of our neighbors in our group chat said, you know, hey, she did that. She did exactly what you guys wanted. She bought her house in this neighborhood, knew that the empty lot was an R1. Okay, she put up her money, first home buyer, and then what happens? They go, try to do this thing I'm not going to say land grab, but I don't know what else to call it. They don't want to get an R3 because that's too expensive. They get the R1 and put right up next to her eight units. And you know with eight units, there's going to be probably 16 people there, cars. I'm just saying it doesn't seem fair. for a community that when you buy into this community, you buy into a lot of, to upkeep our Oklahoma history. Wow, I am speaking really good here. OK. To upkeep it, for example, I just had to spend $14,000 because my house from 1917, all the cast iron sewers We're gone. The people who buy into this buy in to continue to upkeep part of our history.

We've got about 20 seconds remaining.

Oh, how much? Yes. OK, so I pretty much said everything that I wanted to say. But also, this sets a dangerous precedent because, There are 24 lots. What happens to the, you know, again, in their response, they said, oh, no, everything's individual. Well, what happens when the next person developer comes in here? I mean, if you're going to grant, I just want to say one more thing. What makes these developers so special that when the next person comes in and says, OK, Clausen Heights, let's do another R1 land switch? Are you going to tell them no? At what point do we say our zones are our zones for a reason, and it's a single-family home neighborhood that is steeped in our Oklahoma history? And thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Micklethwaite. Kay Bennett?

We were going to go in a different order, but that's okay.

Mine's all scribbled around, and I echo what Claude says. We just got the staff report, and what I'm going to talk to is totally new information.

Before you get started, can I have your name and address for the record, please?

I'm Kay Bennett. I'm at 233 Northeast 15th Street.

Thank you.

Okay. So I am just jumping right into it. I got all kinds of pretty words about the Oklahoma City urban medium, all that, and the established community character. And Abigail's already told you about the history, so I'm jumping right into this. In the staff report, under architectural, it mentions the history and that this was new information to me that it's actually Claassen North Highland Park up for National Historic Register as a district. That is not about the architecture of the houses or the people who lived in the community, it is about the Okay, so the staff report mentioned a 1992 final level survey, but there's another one that was done in 2023. It's 95 pages, that's why I don't have this. I was digging through this at midnight last night for the first time trying to figure it out. So Claassen North Highland Park was plotted intentionally in 1911 as only single-family houses. And that's the makeup of what the historical is about. And it cites in this 2023 report intensive level survey that the new houses built on 14th Street, they're at the end, they're to the west, okay, they're modern in style, that in this study it says it is destroying the art historical significance of the district. And remember, this is being written as if for this whole national historic, and I know you guys know more about that than I do. But anyway, a spud was used to approve It well a spud was applied for and it got approved to allow those houses to be built so what concerns the neighborhood is We were told that each spud is looked at individually and there are no precedents set, but each spud, one by one, and that's why we talk about the precedent of this one and the next one and the next one. So those houses were built and now we're being asked for another spud to now bring apartments in. I think we really need to stop and take a big look at what this neighborhood is. This isn't just about one little lot here and there, because all these little injustices of just passing these spuds through, that we keep being told to make little concessions and tweaks to the style and the architecture, and again, even in the staff report, that's what they talked about, that's what I was digging in this 90-page study to find, is what are the architectural details? Well, that's not about houses and cloths in North Highland Park. It's about the plat of the community as a single family resident. It's not like other historical, I'm sorry, neighborhoods. Klaus had written that in his thing. It's not like Plaza District. They've got beautiful houses there, and they actually work. But we're on the northeast side. It's different. And it's different because it was designed that way. I didn't know it until I read this last night. And I'm like, oh my gosh, that's why I had a neighbor say, well, there's no place for retail. It's actually in this study that that's one of the things that was different about Claussen North Highland Park. It didn't have a park. It's called parked because there's a green space that's a buffer between the sidewalk and the street on 14th Street. I keep emphasizing 14th Street because everything in this is specific to the street we're looking at. Those small interior lots were designed that way because it was a streetcar district. And they weren't putting all those cars and everything that we're trying to squeeze in here. They were intentionally smaller. And the 13th Street lots on the exterior and the lots to the east that are in Lincoln Terrace, those were where the larger houses went. This was designed to be affordable housing. It's all in the plat. Yes, there were normal, zorming things that talk about setbacks and all those other things. and I'm gonna stop going into all the details, but the study is worth reading. I'm guessing all of that should have been in that 92 study.

You have about 30 seconds left.

Yeah. So I'm just saying, one by one, these spuds tear down the moral fiber of the community, it wears us down, and this feeling like we have no say, and this is a whole new piece. I didn't even know this, and so you hadn't seen it in all our letters.

All right, thank you, Ms. Bennett. Is it Hannah Gorgenson?

Hi, I'm Hannah. I live at 303 Northeast 14th Street, and my house is directly across from this lot. My letter is in your packet. It's the extremely long one. I'm very sorry. I will be quicker today. So this is where I stand personally, speaking for my household. The city's own plan calls for infill housing in areas like ours, and I agree with it. Staff's recommendation of one four-unit Building is a reasonable scale for the block. I believe I'm from a much denser place I'm from New York and so to me, you know, the development of Oklahoma City does matter however, I care a lot about the what is actually written in the SPUD leaving the Planning Commission. So I have five requests. My first request is that all five conditions from the staff report's own technical evaluation are actually written into the special development regulations and are not just carried as recommendations. Right now the design statement reads as very different on every one of them. It says eight units with no cap on the number of buildings, a zero foot rear setback, and minimum lot dimensions of 4,500 square feet and five feet of width. My second request is in regards to parking. The revised design statement states that there shall be a maximum of one parking space per dwelling unit required And the base code's own parking table requires two spaces per unit for a fourplex, and so the instrument cuts that to one. I instead ask for a compromise, a written minimum of one and a half spaces per unit, or one space per bedroom, whichever is greater, so a middle number. So at four units, that would be six spaces, or at least. And then the applicant's site plan drew eight spaces on this lot, so with, that was with two buildings, so with one building, you know, I think that six is quite buildable. My third request is for actual numbers for the height and building size. As other people have talked about, the historic nature of our neighborhood is very important to me still, and I do believe that builds should be architecturally compatible with what the rest of the neighborhood looks like. So I really would love to see actual numbers for that. And the staff report notes that in R3 and R4 districts, three or more units would require 100 feet of frontage. And this lot has 70 feet of frontage, so no conventional residential district in the code would actually allow a fourplex here. Obviously, that's why we're here, sputting. But of course, this is a legitimate use of the tool, but I feel like the trade is supposed to run both ways. The code's dimensional protections get waived in exchange for site-specific written standards. And right now, the instrument takes the waiver and it's not really giving anything back. Right now, height and building size both read per base zoning, which means R1's 35 feet and 2 1⁄2 stories, which is a standard written for one house, and there's no building size standard at all. But I simply ask for a stated maximum height in feet and stories and a stated maximum building size written as numbers for this block of two-story homes. And for my fourth request, I'm actually supporting someone else's request that she could not be here today, but the abutting owner at 226 Northeast 14th Street, Emma Base, made a request in the letter she submitted for your packet, which is for a screened and landscaped buffer meeting the standard her letter cites along the shared property line. This same project in any multi-family district would require such a buffer. And according to the staff report zoning table, it would be required actually along every line the site shares with a neighbor. So I do request that her western line be written into the regulations. And I also would love to have the eastern line since the staff report shows the same situation there. And my house actually Views directly that line and for my fifth request I ask you to consider something element 18 requires guarantees and assurances for perpetual maintenance of common facilities Here that's the shared drive the parking and the trash area the design statement answers it in one line maintenance shall be the property the responsibility of the property owner That name's a party and not a mechanism. And unlike my other requests, that can't be written as a one-line condition and actually needs some drafted language. So if that language can't be provided today, then I feel like a short deferral would be reasonable. But all that said, if you do end up approving this application, please approve it with the conditions in the actual text because that is what we as neighbors have to rely on in the end. So thank you for your time.

All right, thank you. Derek Ellis?

Good afternoon. My name is Derek Ellis. I live at 214 Northeast 14th Street, so just to the west of this proposed development. I'm asking the commission today to deny Spud 1832 and maintain it as existing R1 zoning. I want to make clear that my opposition is not opposition to infill, development, renters, or different types of housing. My concern is where this particular development is appropriate for R1 quarter acre mid-block lot. After reading both the applicant's response to the neighborhood and the staff report, I believe the city's own analysis validates many of the concerns we have raised. The applicant originally proposed eight units and two fourplexes and arguing that dividing those units between two buildings minimizes the scale of development. However, planning staff specifically identified potential compatibility issues related to the building scale near existing homes and ultimately recommended reducing the development to one building. Applicant also explained that available R3 properties were not available at a price developer considered realistic. The response further explains that the four flex works were selected in part because developers intended FHA financing and investment strategy. I don't criticize the developer for considering economics or financing, but I don't believe economics or particular investment should determine the appropriate zoning of a property. The question would be whether the requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, not financing. The Athens states that vacant R1 lots along Northeast 14th become too expensive for single-family development and suggests those economic conditions will only become more prohibitive in the future. I respectfully disagree. I moved into a newly single-family home on Northeast 14th Street January of 2021. One of the things that attracted me to this street was the presence of vacant R1 lots and the potential I saw for additional single-family development. Mine is not the last example. Other new single-family homes have been constructed in our neighborhood more recently. I recognize that current construction costs, interest rates, and property values can make development challenging, but economic conditions change. I don't think we should make a permanent land use decision based on an assumption that today's economics will continue indefinitely or that these R1 lots will never again be economically viable for single family development. None of us know the economics of developing these properties in the future, but what I do know is that economic conditions are temporary as zoning change can be permanent. Once an R01 law is rezoned, we don't get the opportunity for future R01 development back simply because economic conditions change. I also understand the applicant's response that each SPUD is evaluated individually. I recognize that approval of the SPUD will not legally require this commission to approve another SPUD in the future, but individual decisions collectively establish a development pattern. If today's economics become the justification for converting vacant R01 lots to greater multifamily density through individual spuds, the same argument can be made for other vacant R01 lots. Over time, a series of individual decisions can materially change the character of the neighborhood. And on the issue of compatibility, I think the staff report is particularly important. Staff notes that this is a mid-block property that a single-family home directly abuts the property that's Emma's house, and that Northeast 14th Street consists of a mix of single-family homes, vacant resident lots. Staff further state that this proposal is more consistent with R3 or R4 development. There's also a historical compatibility issue. The Classen North Highland Park District has recently been nominated for a National Register of Historical Places, and staff specifically states that new construction can affect the character of the surrounding properties and districts. The report identified setbacks, placements, roof form materials, and important elements of compatibility. Finally, I want to address parking. The applicant stated, Ryan, I am willing to amend the SPUD to require one off-street parking per bedroom. I would ask this becomes a minimum of one and a half parking spaces per unit or one space per bedroom, whichever is greater. I understand that SPUD applications are considered individually, so I'm asking you to consider that this individual property, an R1 quarter acre, mid-block lot immediately adjacent to a single family. The fact that greater density may make this property more economically attractive today does not mean that greater density is the appropriate land use. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Commission to deny Spud 1852 and retain the existing R1 zoning. If the commission chooses to approve the SPUD despite the neighborhood's objections, I ask that at absolute minimum, every restriction recommended by the planning staff be included in the final SPUD, along with the applicant's written commitment to provide a minimum of one and a half parking space per unit or one space per bedroom, whichever is greater. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ellis. Brian Sweeney.

Thank you for your patience. I didn't realize we were going to have so many people talk about this today. My name is Brian Sweeney. I'm at 325 Northeast 15th Street. I'm here to speak against SPUD 1852, the rezoning request for 228 Northeast 14th Street. I want to start with something I noticed in the applicant's own written response to our neighborhood's concerns. I think it makes the case better than we can. Point by point, it admits that the rezoning is built to solve the developer's problem and not the neighborhood's. First, the character argument doesn't hold up. The applicant points to Heritage Hills as the park and Paseo as proof of mixed multifamily is traditional in OKC's historic neighborhoods, but these are citywide examples. The applicant also says that these buildings are designed to read no differently than a single family dwelling. If that's true, it actually proves that the Aplex isn't necessary. This spud has the appearance of a fix for a questionable investment, not necessarily a neighborhood need. The applicant says he wanted this lot because it's wider than typical since the R3 lots he wanted weren't for sale at a rate that was realistic. Essentially, the zoning needed didn't exist at the price he wanted to pay, so he's asking the commission to change the zoning instead. He also confirms the project is structured around his own FHA financing, living in one unit to qualify for owner-occupant terms, which is likely why this is split into two four-unit buildings rather than one eight-union building. As a real estate investor myself, I can sympathize with the cost of the land around that area, all those lots, which is why I have not bought them myself. I will note that financing isn't a valid zoning consideration and that this is not the commission's job to evaluate land use, that this commission's job is to evaluate land use compatibility, not an applicant's personal finances. This is fair. So let me speak precisely about why it matters here. I'm not asking you to please how this is paid for. I'm pointing out that the shape of the project, two four-unit buildings instead of one eight-unit building, was determined by loan limits, not by what fits the block. When a project's physical form is a byproduct of financing rather than the response of the neighborhood, that's directly relevant to whether it belongs at all. In the staff report, city planning staff intimately reviewed this application and concluded that the proposed project is more consistent with the R3 district or with the R4 district than with R1. Staff reached the same conclusion we did. This doesn't fit R1 character. It's higher density dressed up as a spud. Staff recommends cutting this project nearly in half, four units instead of eight, one building instead of two. I expect to hear that the staff already solved this problem with those conditions and that continued objection is asking you to overrule your own technical reviewers. It is not. I request that you look at what the staff's own numbers actually show. This lot is a quarter acre, about 10,890 square feet. Staff's minimum lot size for this type of project is 7,500 square feet. Even at the reduced compromise, this version consumes two-thirds of what staff itself defines as the minimum footprint. Staff didn't say this project is a good fit for the units. They said four units is the most that could be justified if approved. This is a ceiling and not an endorsement. While prior concessions may make the project less disruptive, they don't answer whether an eight-unit or a four-unit multifamily development belongs in this R1 lot in the first place. My first request is to deny SPUD 1852. Second, if the Commission doesn't see a reason to deny it outright, I'd ask that nothing beyond what the staff has already recommended is approved. I'd hope these numbers are treated as a ceiling, not as a starting point for the applicant to negotiate back upward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sweeney. That's everyone I have signed up to speak. Okay. So I'll turn it over. I'll let the applicant respond to anything that he may want to based on those comments.

Yeah, there are a lot of comments. I'll try to address them as best I can. And then, you know, if you have any questions, I'll respond to those as well. But, you know, the reality of the site is that there is already a mix of use, R3. I can't remember what was behind there. I think there was some R4. There's some spuds in the area. They are R3 behind, R3 in the same lot. And one thing that makes this particular lot unique is that it's 70 foot wide instead of the typical 50, which gives a little bit more flexibility on how it could be developed. And the other reality of this particular lot is it's vacant and you can kind of see from that map above there's a tract of vacant lots, you know, along that row, which to me indicates and, you know, some of the speakers have mentioned as well that, you know, they might have been interested in purchasing those lots for themselves, but they're too expensive. And there is an economic reality that, there the lots are expensive enough to where it's difficult to build a single family house either for yourself or as a development and make it make financial sense as a matter of fact there's a developer that did the same thing um on the other side of walnut and to my knowledge none of them are sold i think they're just too expensive and i think they're leased out so So there is an economic argument to be made, you know, if these lots are to be developed and not stay vacant. Also in the vicinity you've got OU Medical, you've got the Capital, you know, it's in a unique, area in an urban area that There is housing demand and I feel like you know, especially with the comprehensive plan. This is exactly the kind of infill I feel like the city would normally be promoting and again, we're not demolishing a single-family house to develop this we are you know infilling a lot that is currently vacant and You know, it's it's unique because it's a little wider as well. I You know, I think like the historical argument, I respect that argument and I understand you know, there might be a change from, you know, the R1 to a spud, but historically, I do think there's credence, you know, to the argument that this is a historical pattern of development. You see multifamily, single-family, coexisting neighborhoods throughout the city, and we're not asking for a different use in the sense that it's gonna be commercial or industrial, still residential, so. I would love to hear your feedback, see if there are any questions we could answer.

Would you like to start us off, Commissioner Harrison? Sure. Actually, Commissioner Powers and I were at the, as well as Commissioner Milner, were at the meeting, and could you go back over some of the points we touched on originally? Even though I see what staff has done here, I think we still have some digging to do.