Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes of August 27 2026 meeting I

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

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

Yeah, mostly. I think part of Ward 5, too, maybe. Okay. Is there any? No? Just Ward 4? Okay. Yeah, whenever anybody wants to talk about it, I think it's a good thing for Ward 4.

there's the option to honestly a lot of it's above my head on it and to just have looked at it for the past couple days i really don't have a whole lot i can talk smart online it is a lot of information to absorb in a small amount of time

This mix bad before you and you might be able to answer that. But can you talk to us about if there were changes the Commission wanted to see what the process would look like for that? And then I see all of these timelines on here how our changes might affect your your deadlines for some of the projects we discussed in the meeting.

I'm pretty familiar with the areas in the map, and you are correct, there's a small portion of Ward 5. But I do, I am happy to see this moving forward because I think these areas certainly need some sort of economic reinvigoration. Yeah, I think you definitely hit the target in terms of areas that can benefit from this.

So, and I just had a question. So the boundary that we're seeing overall is the South Oklahoma City...

But inside that plan are the individual increment districts, and they're really the only ones affected by the TIF?

So the overall area, those funds, the additional funds can be spent within. You're getting them, capturing just from the five.

Do we know if there's any plans for crossroads yet? I know there's always been stuff thrown around.

I'd love something to be done there. Yes. That's a big ask. Yeah, I think we could take some time. I'd sit down. I'd like to talk to Councilman Stone about it, too. just to get his thoughts at the very least, and with staff as well, that they're thinking. I know you all have been working on it for a while, but this is the first I heard of it. Just happened to look at it and notice that it was mostly Ward 5 or Ward 4 yesterday. Yeah.

I mean, that would give them time to make that 29th deadline to council, too, if we were able to come to some kind of agreement and let it go through. Okay. I'll make a motion to continue this to, was it 9-24? Yes. 9-24 meeting. Okay.

Okay, yeah, my only question was if he was in agreement with the TE. Seeing that he is, I move for approval.

Yeah, I wouldn't suspect. This is really just a cleanup deal. Being next to the zoning that it is and what it's for, I don't have any comments. Unless anybody has anything, I'll move to approve.

Okay, sure. Thank you for the change. I think this is much more suitable to the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Unless anyone else has anything, I'll go ahead and make a motion to recommend approval to City Council.

So what I'd like to do before we just strike it is to hear from the author or the public works department who has asked for the TE and the reasoning for such.

It's a review process within public works in the engineering department. It goes back and forth between the engineer and the public works department through that review process.

I agree. I think that's a real concern, but I don't think it's our decision to make. It's also the purview of the Board of Adjustment to take appeals on stuff they don't like that staff says, and, you know, But they're not engineers, so to put that on them to make an engineering decision I think is unfair. I think it's a much bigger thing than Planning Commission or the Board of Adjustment, whether that be city council, district court, whatever, but it's not ours.

Whether 20 tiny homes is the same impervious surface as five full-size houses. Probably, but who knows. And that being R4, just for that, that complicates things. Well, R4 base, I guess, not totally R4. That would be a bigger problem. But yeah, I don't know. I don't feel comfortable with it.

So I was obviously on that board and working on that appeal. I agree with everything that everyone said. I believe that the wording stating that they cannot appeal to the Board of Adjustments is strongly worded. It was put together by the legal staff, that wording, so they were in improvement with it. This is a stopgap. To say that they already had time to create an amendment to the ordinance is probably not accurate. Doing an amendment to an ordinance takes a little bit of time. It's not something as simple as a few weeks in a council meeting. I'd rather give it additional teeth. Something be

We don't have anybody signed up to speak? Nope. So I get to speak. I can say a lot. I met with the applicant on this one. We had a good conversation. I have thought about this and thought about this. I'm very familiar with the Plaza District. I've been in and out of the Plaza District 10 to 15 years. I am completely comfortable with this development. I understand where we are with striking all parking. I think the applicant, it's reasonable to work with the lot up north and get parking out of there. I do understand some of the concerns we had last time when we heard this, and I get it. The Pla

Thank you for that. I mean, yeah, as you can see, we've got similar projects. And I do believe the district is thriving right now because of the proximity that these infill projects are having. I mean, 10 and 15 years ago, the restaurants didn't look like they do now. I guarantee you go there this evening with the weather cooling down, all those patios are going to be full. And that's really helping these small businesses in these districts. So I support it. I think this will be a nice addition at this location on that corner in the district. Happy to discuss it, though.

had nobody talk to me that's against this I've had I've had nobody with concerns reach out to me just support and a lot of people that are in and around the district they know the district and I think they know how they want that district to come about and how they want to see it continue to shape so any other comments from commissioners Can I make a motion?

Well, before you do, I just want to say, because I'm going to vote against it again, I just want to make sure you understand that I believe this needs to be parked in some way, some fashion, maybe not 100%, definitely not to the existing code or minimums, but just somewhat parked for a commercial and a residential development of this size in this area. But just wanted you to definitely understand.

One other question. On the units, you're down to seven units. What are they as far as the bedroom count?

Would you be agreeable to adding any sort of parking language, especially if we haven't settled whether you're going to accept the TE with a setback

So basically we're saying we might have one parking space. We would add one on-site. You may or may not leave spaces across the street.

And how long is that letter, I mean, how long is that agreement good for? I mean, the building's going to be here for a long time.

I'm going to defer to Commissioner Milner on this one. As far as parking, you know, I don't live in Ward 6. I know a lot of people in Ward 6 walk, ride bikes, you know, it's a normal thing. Where I'm from it's not normal at all. But it's not to say, I know ADA is going to require some sort of parking space for this development at some, you know, in some fashion. Um, and I know how it works in the plaza district. It's totally different than everywhere else, but like I said, I'll defer to Mr Milner and all if he's good with it, I'm good with it.

You know, I appreciate what you're doing with the dumpster. I've had difficult sites before too. Um. I just with some of the use groups here, I still have concerns about the odors and potential issues with the dumpster being so close to basically the space you're living in, working in, and the neighbors adjacent to it.

I will say, and Sam and I talked about this, and after the conversation, I agree, because I think at the last commission I mentioned, well, maybe we just, we strike, you know, being able to be a restaurant. What's the square footage on that space going to be? 1,200 square feet. We're not doing a grease trap. We're not planning on it.

I think the reality is that that small square footage, what you would need for prep, is it won't financially work as a restaurant space. Really? At most, it might be a coffee shop. I think that's the most you're going to fit in there.

This is a 1% of the city type of place to me is the plaza And it will say I do think Transportation habits the people traveling in and out of these districts Plaza Paseo even even in and around in parts of Midtown and you know, ride sharing, carpool, I think we're starting to see a shift of how people, that's how I can get there. But I also understand I'm the downtown dweller, and I walk a lot of places. I'm there, so, I mean, I appreciate everybody's input. Any other comments by commissioners?

Yeah, and I mean, I was going to say, I know you walk everywhere, and I am getting there, but I also live urban, and I don't know anyone giving up their car. So parking is important to me, and I do like the 15-foot setback in TE1 for what it's worth. If there could be some kind of language about parking, I could be more comfortable.

If it's between the two, I would put more emphasis on the ADA spot.

But as it stands, as it's designed, that's the only spot you can get in there, is that right?

I agree with that, and I also think the setbacks help a lot with scale. I'm with you on scale, too. That matters, but when setbacks are all consistent, it feels less... The three-story feels...

That they wouldn't? They wouldn't like my three-car garage in the plaza.

That's my thinking when I defer to Commissioner Milner. It's not a lifestyle that I really live in. It's, you know... I think it's okay. I've been to Portland, and everybody parks on the street in Portland. That's pretty much how it's done, and everybody gets around pretty good, and it seems to work. It's not for every part of the city. I know that, and I realize that, but I think the Plaza District and Paseo and some of the other ones are in tune to it, so I'm okay with it.

Okay, are we ready for a motion? I think. I might be able to get a motion put together on here.

Yeah, and that's a good question. I would need clarity because...

Yeah, you can't do both, right? And you can't compromise a 10-foot setback with one ADA parking spot.

Can we clarify my understanding? Because I thought you could do 10 with the ADA space, but you couldn't do 15 with an ADA space.

Well, I still say if you wanted to commit to one here and now, I think the ADA spot is... I think would be... Yeah. I mean, I can only speak for myself, though. And I'm trying to pull the motion together.

I love the idea of a tweak that would allow for both, and I could be moved to 10 feet in an ADA space, and I'd be glad to vote for that.

Are you saying you can figure it out with a 10 foot setback?

Let's see if I can do this. I'm gonna recommend approval of SPUD 1863 with amendment to... 1851.

1851, TE1 amending to minimum setback of 15 feet on Northwest 15th Street. We're going to 10 feet 10 feet on Northwest 15th Street. Yeah No change to te2 We're yeah adopting te2. Yeah te3 It'll remind me, you want a curb and cap. We have that language already.

I think, Sam, that covers it, right? Yes. Yeah, yeah. Okay.

We want to go through the whole thing over again.

Yeah, I would like to reserve my comments until I hear what the other commissioners have to say and then give the applicant an opportunity to respond.

I'll go. And exactly what you said, as I read through the application and looking at the renderings and seeing what they were doing, the single driveway, I was getting to where I could probably get with it, and then as I read the rewritten September 10th letter, and then have heard from the neighbors, and the lack of effort by the applicant to talk to the neighbors, just so they could put their input, I think you could have sold them on it. I don't know about it now. I will be voting against this because you did not do what we did ask, which was meet with the neighbor.

I think you've done a good job in terms of the architectural characteristics of the house, but I think splitting the lot into two, looking at the rest of the houses on the street really puts the facades out of proportion with everything else I see on the street. And then I also agree with, you know, we asked for you guys to get with neighbors and that was for a reason.

Some of the nearby lots are 45, is that right? even 40. Yeah. So the lot split is less of a concern for me. And I do agree that the, this application is better and I think spoke to some of the neighbors concerns. Um, but I do, What I was hearing is they only want R1, like they only want a single family home on that, maybe with an ADU. And so in that way, it felt like maybe you guys were never going to see eye to eye, but I do think I'm less concerned about two homes that each have 35 feet because I think that is getting closer and close enough. So I do think it is significantly better than the

Yeah, I'll say from what we originally saw and from what's being presented today, I have to say I like what's been brought back. I understand the lot widths are coming down just a little bit, but I think this definitely gets closer to fitting into the character of that neighborhood.

And I'm not going to disagree, but I want to point out that 35 to 25 is basically a 25% reduction. And then you're having two facades within that lot that has a 25% reduction. So just an observation.

My first question is going to be, when was the last time there was a development here, there was residential, a home was physically sitting on this property? I'm sorry. When was the last time a home was sitting on this property? How long has it been vacant?

It occupied the 70-foot frontage, I'm assuming. Single-family home. Single-family home.

And are there any other matching 70-foot frontages in the neighborhood?

And I'm going to agree with the Commissioner's add. i'm not excited about the level of communication i get it you're out of town you all can't do anything until he gets back i get it that was all the personal reasons um but you went back and you attempted to put together something that would be more in line of what we were discussing when we were here last um i don't know where to go after this but does any other commission have anything else to say regarding this not okay then i will make a motion for approval and we'll see where it goes on the vote. Appreciate that.

And I have a problem with just throwing an email out to somebody and saying, good luck. Because that's not having a conversation with them and explaining what your project is. They aren't in zoning every week, and understanding the process, they don't get that. So I said, I think you probably could have sold them on the idea if you could figure it out. I mean, you have a 35-foot lot with a shared driveway. That's basically 240s, basically, because you're getting the shared driveway. So you could... You could bring them in. They could know where the windows were. They could know what they were

I have two unrelated things. Go ahead. I agree with that, and I actually would support if you're willing to go back and have those conversations. I would favor that. But my other question is about TE1. I noticed I don't think you are opposing it, and so it'd be good for us to get your take on that.

Sorry if I stole your question. My take on it is you can ask people to give up their rights, but they don't have to, as we saw earlier. And so since this is sort of a case-by-case basis situation until the ordinance is in place, please let us know what you think about TE1.

And specifically the no ability to appeal to BOA.

So what I'll say from our point of view or my point of view is this is a very particular case that is very important that this stays in for this case because this is new construction and a lot more rooftop on a single family home. A lot. Which was my argument at Board of Adjustment.

Well, and I agreed with that originally. And I think that, so even if it was stricken, they would still have to do the review or go to Board of Adjustments for a review.

Yeah, they can't get around to me. Just would keep one person away from me.

this is something that we could get more clarity on maybe between now and city council you know i don't know uh... and then and then maybe city council that's a place where you know and it still goes to council if it's not passed too so there's still that if we want to try to make a motion and pass it or not i for one am in agreement with the You know, I've learned a long time ago to not be swayed by pretty pictures up here. And although those were very nice pictures, I know that's not, that doesn't mean that's what's gonna be built there. I'm not saying that's what you're not gonna do, Klaus,

That's what I was going back to, to see if there was an agreeance on all the TEs. And number one, of course, was standing out, and I thank Commissioner for pointing that out to me. So are you in agreement with all the TEs?

That's because it's the first time it's appeared. Yeah.

I feel like this is the wrong purview for this whole conversation. No, it is. On that TE, for sure.

On that TE, sorry. I mean, it's confusing. I don't mind dumping it at all and putting it on Dawn.

I don't think it would in this case. That's why it's more. Yeah.

Again, I'm going to go back and ask if you will accept all of the fees as written. Again, we still have to go to council, but I'm understanding why this is here, even though it is. I agree out of our purview, but I understand why it's here.

You do have the option to have it stricken.

Any additional questions? If not, I will continue my motion as it is, removing or striking TE1.

Get that big law book out. You with Sarah?

On an automatic continuance, can we do that with the bylaws?

So was our best to reconsider and then ask for a continuance? I mean, that's probably our best course for the client org, yeah. All right.

I'm not super thrilled with it because normally five-acre lots are required for one trailer house. I think there's a way that we may be able to get there, though. If you're amenable To making some concessions that you know, this isn't going to turn into just a trailer park basically And that would mean, you know Actual Foundations Being required for any new new Construction is that something that you would be okay with?

Sounds like you've done some good research.

Okay. And we'll decide on the language for that TE to make it happen. But does anybody else have any other comments?

I'll just start by saying, so basically, could we just make it RA and spread it into those lots? It's a question for staff.

So we would have had to change it and draw it up that way. What I'm just trying to get away from is the manufactured home, residential use unit for sure, and go to your standard single family homes on the three lots.

By definition, what's the definition difference between mobile home and manufactured home? Wheels. They're both brought in by wheels.

Well, wheels stay on the other one. The other one has to be permanently.

The manufactured home usually, though, is on a permanent foundation. It can't be moved again.

Write that in the T that it's on a concrete foundation.

Does that need to be that way with the use units the way they are? I mean, would it add any burden?

All right, awesome. If no further comment, then we're going to do that and limit to two dwelling units.

yeah um so i'm okay with striking that and adding the other two um permanent foundation and uh maximum of two dwelling units maximum of two is canoe units three three three okay so they're gonna be three total right uh we're only proposing for the back two lots the front lot lot one uh... has an existing home on it that's uh... where my in-laws live uh... it's a single house and i don't know if you're going to add to the right the value you know what we're not doing anything with a lot one that that house is staying right there on how i want to know if it will stay there but they'll be two thr

I just want to say I like this project. I think this will be a good fit for right here, this close to 23rd Street. This is good.

I think you did a really nice job on the detailing, so I hope it does look like that.

I do too. Did I miss about the fence? Did you change the fence height to eight foot?

While we're giving compliments, I also think it's a great project.

Jacob's request was six feet. No higher than six feet is what he wanted.

Can we talk about the uses for a moment? What will the actual additional uses be?

So, yeah, I'm reading food and beverage and retail sales and services. Yes. Just in general. I think my major concern is within three blocks is the exact same type of store. Yes. Currently right now it looks as though it's just mainly a smoke shop. Yes. Basically is what we're dealing with currently. With 73111 being one of the most devastated area codes in this state, I think my concern is number one, marijuana use, and number two, limiting this when I see food and beverage, but it's not groceries. So I'm just trying to make sure I'm clear when it goes to council what we're looking at. I unde

I thought there was a use unit just for marijuana sales. Was I wrong? No, there's not. State law won't allow it. That's why there's not one. Okay. For some reason, I thought that was.

I figured it was state sentencing to do it.

Because it's new, yeah. That's my concern, and I'm looking at it from a TE standpoint. I'm looking at it from a TE standpoint that we do not want a dispensary at that location.

Is it still a youth facility? And it's used for youth and after school programs. And Boys and Girls Club is about six blocks the other direction.

We can still allow it to be the convenience sales smoke shop and just not allow the dispensary and marijuana sales because we've done that. Can we restrict that? Pretty sure we've restricted that.

Not sure if the applicant would want that.

Still get him in conformance if he's operating as a smoke shop. Right.

So as we move forward with this application, I'm asking the representative if we would add the TE of it not being a dispensary. Oh, omitted use as a dispensary? Mm-hmm.

I mean, that's in the reason for the request. Might not be amenable to that.

In that case, I'm gonna move for the matter.

Or you can still go to city council with the same application without our recommendation. Correct.

Or you can take our approval with that TE, argue at the point at council. At council. Same deal. Who would like to do that?

Okay. So I'll go back and amend my motion to add the TE1 and the 1.

I'm guessing we have no one signed up. There is not. You probably guessed it. Not all of these are mine, but we've had some significant conversations on this. Does anyone else have any comments or questions? appreciate the work you all done you know we were still working out this morning so I appreciate working with us so with that said I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of PUD 51 65 no wait a minute I'm sorry 51 or 21 56 With the te's I've read into the record and deleting te2 and deleting te2.

uh... it and i'll say this he does have six weeks but look at the minimum between now and counsel and and if you would agreed to set a meeting between now and then, I think that would suffice for me. As far as land use, everything that he said, I mean, I'm in agreement with.

And I actually like the project a lot more than apartments, but I am asking for two-week attendance to get a chance to speak to the neighbors because what happened was neighbors reached out to Councilman Pennington and myself and not to staff. So they kind of just did it in a backwards way, if you will. And so if we give them the courtesy of two weeks to explain how great a project this is aside from what it could be, then I think that that would make it over for me as well.

Commissioner Meek asked me to speak on his behalf. Can we hear from the person signed up, please?

Certainly understand your concerns in terms of that. Did you have anything you wanted to address that he spoke about, Caitlin?

Okay. When I spoke with Councilman, or Councilman promoting him, Commissioner Meek, he, as long as we got the cap on the number of buildings, he said that he was happy with this proposal as it was. Does anyone else have any additional comments? I certainly understand the concerns from the neighbors on the O2 next to the houses, but my office is in exactly the same configuration. We back up to residential, and I find that it actually works extremely well. We never have any problems with the neighbors. They don't have any problems with us. No one's around typically on the weekends, and so I feel

This is the same as the subdivision. It has to go through drainage review. Just the same, right? Yeah. So...

Yeah. Could I hear some of the positions of the other commissioners on this particular one, especially the two streets and how they're positioned?

What I have a problem with, though, is like... Not hearing the PUD first? Yeah, that's what we need to discuss, I think, more than the closing. I don't want to close this or even propose approving the closure of this. The PUD doesn't work.

You can put two streets where one street was.

I said you can fit two streets where one street was and still put three rows of houses in there.

So you're going to have cars lined up and down the street, yet there's no place to put them, and on a public street, it's curb to curb to curb. I mean, it just doesn't fit.

I think one thing about it is when you look at the aerial, I feel like if you're looking down this street, It's just gonna be a sea of concrete and garage doors. And cars. And there's very little area to put landscaping. And I appreciate trying to get some density. And then on this other street, if I'm reading it right, it's gonna feel the same way. It's gonna be a lot of concrete, garage doors, and then probably just a fence line.

Yeah, I'd talk about putting public works to task on drainage. I should probably do that.

a block full of concrete and houses and cars. I just can't, you know, devil's in the details and maybe this turns out great, I just can't see it.

Anyone else? Won't be much mowing going on. No.

Motion for a continuation. I need to separate each one. Yes. Okay. Item number 14. Motion for a continuation. Let's do it since we just heard this one. Oh, we're on 16. Let's do this one. It's item 16.

So I have thoughts on that, and I think you can ask someone to give up their rights. That's legal. But you can't force them to. And so I actually think how we handled it today is a good way to handle it. And I think there's arguments on both sides about administrative remedies being exhausted, since if it's a... spud or pud that's customized zoning, then that's technically and it reads what it reads, then that's the endpoint then you've exhausted your administrative remedies right so then you go to district court so and just because it's a case-by-case basis i think how we handled it today exc

And I'll just say that I like to at least stay consistent. Right.

today I know everyone I was hearing before the meeting people wanted to see a presentation and so I thought when I spoke with Joanna and she said she had a presentation that would probably get you all there but I think in the future when there's this commentary portion after a TIF meeting has occurred I will probably just come prepared with like a brief description of what the TIF committee did so that might be helpful for you all before you read the or before she presents in the future. Because I know not everyone has time for more workshops.