Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

15th meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission to order. Uh before I begin, I just want to go over a few housekeeping items. Uh please silence or turn off your cell phones. If you're here today to speak on an item and you are not the applicant, please fill out one of these forms available outside and give them to Elena or Jared down here below. Uh when that item is called, you'll be asked to come to the podium. You'll have up to five minutes to speak. Uh 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 allocated to that person. where several speakers are going to be heard on the same item. We just ask that you do your best to limit comments and concerns to those items that we haven't heard yet and we just try want to try and reduce uh extensive and repetitious comments uh for time and efficiency sake. Uh please direct all your comments to and questions to the commission and if needed we'll ask the applicant or city staff uh to respond. Uh finally, we just want to say we appreciate everyone's u presence here today and the time that you took away from your obligations and that we just ask for your assistance in upholding the decorum of the meeting and that you don't speak from the audience. Um with that, we are ready to begin and we'll start with the receipt of the minutes from the December 11th meeting. [snorts]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes of December 11th, 2025 meeting. We have a motion to receive the minutes. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. You need a voice vote.

And the minutes are received. Uh, next item is continuence requests. We'll start with uncontested requests. Item 23, KC777, request to defer to January 29th. Item 24, KC7761, defer to February 12th. Item 25, case PUD 2125, defer to February 12th. Item 26, case SPUD 1799, defer to February 12th. Item 27, PUD 2110, defer to February 26th. Item 28, case CPA 256, defer to April 9th. And item 29, case PC 10977, defer to April 9th.

Okay, just need a a motion on the uncontested requests. I'd like to make a motion to approve the uncontested continuous request as read. A motion to approve the uncontested continuous requests as read. It's been second by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And those requests are approved. Next, we have new requests. We have one new request. Item nine is case PUD 2126. The request is to defer [clears throat] till January 29th. As it is a new request, I'll ask if anyone was here to be heard on that item. All right, seeing none, I'm ready for a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the new continuous request as read.

A motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the new request. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes. That new request is approved. [clears throat] We move on to public hearings and the consent. docket. Item one is KC7778, final plat of Highland Village. This is located east of South Walker Avenue and north of Southwest 89th Street. And item two is KC779 Final Plat of Riverbend Industrial Park, located north of Southwest 15th Street and east of South MacArthur Boulevard. Okay.

Do I have anyone that's wishing to be heard on either of those two items? All right. Seeing none, we're ready for a motion. Uh, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent docket. Have a motion to approve the consent docket from Commissioner Noble.

We have an Do we need to go to a voice? Okay, I need a a second via voice. Second from Commissioner Meek. All right. Um, please cast your votes. Voice vote. I I I I.

All right. Consent docket is passed. Uh, item to be heard individually. We'll begin with item three. This is uh KC7776, final plat of Tall Grass Trails located east of North County Line Road and north of Northwest 150th Street along with the variance to the subdivision regulations.

Good afternoon. Mark Grubbs, 1800 South S Road. On behalf of the application, this is a final plat uh it's in accordance with the approved preliminary plat and zoning. Uh we agree to the TE's and be uh would ask for your approval. Happy to answer any questions. Okay. Um, this is my ward. I do have someone signed up to speak. So, Jason Stewart, you come up, please. Good afternoon. Hi, my name is Jason Stewart, 15509 Pompea Lane. Um, when reviewing the uh staff notes, I just had a couple points of interest I wanted to get clarity on. Um, uh, like in the review comments 2.7.C, a flood or drainage study needed to be complete. When I looked through everything, I did not see one completed as of yet or not sure when that would happen. Um, but I did want to speak to that. I think we were told that there was going to be a water detention pond on this property. I couldn't tell where that was on the plant and I wanted clarity or on the plat. I wanted clarity on that. But I wanted to speak to the current standing of that land. Currently, I live in the neighborhood just to the east. So, we share this easement. And right now, what was farmland, when we get substantial rainfall, the overflow comes into our neighborhood into our property owners uh properties. Um, currently, and I did bring some pictures if you guys wanted to pass those around and and take a look. Currently, as you go down that easement, um, there's an elevation change of maybe

an average of 10 ft. It varies along everyone's property line. So any flow of water, it's substantially comes into our area. I would like to maybe see if the planning commission could recommend or stipulate that um the land grading on both sides of those easements or of that easement be similar so that the water flow doesn't come straight into our properties. I you know if I'm not sure if this is the time to make that request or not. I'm not sure. I thought I'd bring it up. Um, let's see. Other than that, if you guys could do that, the only other thing that I had was in the review comments. Uh, section 2.7E. It speaks to the maintenance and etc. is the responsibilities of the property owners and adjacent or the adjacent property owners and the HOA property owner association. Is that specifically speaking to the new HOA for this in this um new neighborhood or is somehow our neighborhood HOA included in that and like we would be in an adjacent property. So I just wanted to specify that those any responsibilities on maybe that easement maintenance is not necessarily falling on us. I just wanted clarity on that. Um other than that uh the section of 150th between County Line and Morgan

Road is competing for the worst road in Oklahoma City. And if uh there's several developments going up and if that road could get fixed, it would, you know, have another thoroughfare that's going to go to two Pedmont schools over off of Memorial and Morgan. Um that would be that would alleviate a lot of the traffic issues that are going to occur with that. That's it. Thanks for the time. Go Thunder.

Thank you, Mr. Stewart. I'm gonna ask Mr. Grubs to come up and if you could respond to his his inquiry about where the tension will occur and then I'm going to ask uh our representative from public works to come up and address some of the other items.

So uh if you're looking at the overall preliminary plat uh go back there you go at the very far northwest corner the detention will be provided all the way up in that common area. Yes. and we're taking that drainage and so um we're we're aware of their drainage issues and and as everybody here knows we have to meet the city of Oklahoma City's drainage ordinance and we're actually reducing the amount of runoff to their property but there is a substantial difference between the two properties and we can't bring it down to the same level but we are addressing the drainage so

okay thank you uh Mr. Lodge, would you mind coming up and addressing a couple of things? Um, we heard the question about when a flood study would be done. Uh and also uh if there's any any thing the city does as far as grading in the rightway uh and in easements um to help alleviate drainage onto like that existing neighborhood. Barry Lodge Public Works. Um what was your first question? Remind me. Uh at what time does the flood study

flood study? Yes. Occur. That's likely a boilerplate comment that was that we include in all of our staff reports. This one, uh, there likely won't be a flood study required because we really don't have a creek that goes through there. Again, we have some standard comments that are are going to show up on every uh staff report that we do. And I think that's the case on this one. Flood study is normally going to be if there's a a creek or some kind of a major water body that flows through or adjacent to the development. That would be when that flood study is done. Timing wise, just for information purposes, when the final plat is submitted, that flood study would be submitted at the same time for review. So, if there was one to be submitted, it would be currently with our technical review section for review.

Got it. Uh then as far as drainage that goes adjacent to I think the the one question came up about easements and responsibilities for of the HOA that applies only to the HOA that's associated with this plat doesn't have it doesn't put any responsibility on the neighboring subdivisions for responsibility for any easements common areas any of that any of those items. Okay. Was there any update on council I mean on 150th? Say again. Was there anything an update on the 150th like go bond?

I don't know if there with our with our new bond. I I know we've got some improvements that are coming on county line, but I don't know how far they extend north, but I'm not sure about 150th. I'd have to look at that and see kind of what what's going on with that. And we do have that list available uh online. Okay. So, it it may be there. There's several stretches of county line that that are are going to be done as part of that. Now, timing wise on that, too. Keep in mind, it's a 10-year bond. Uh just because it's on the list doesn't mean that it's going to be imminent and and and going to be happening quickly.

All right. Understood. Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other questions, comments from commissioners? Okay, I think we're just ready for a motion. Um, and we'll need to do the variance first um in TE2. I don't need I don't need the variance. I'm temporary emergency access. So, we can we agrees to the TE then? Agree to the TE. Okay. Uh, I'd like to make a motion to approve case number C7776 with all three TEES.

A motion to approve item C7776 uh uh with TEES. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. That item is approved. Item four. Item four is KC775, preliminary plat of the corridor at Wildwood Hills, located south of Northwest 63rd and east of North Santa Fe Avenue. Uh good afternoon, Sean McGra, civil consultant for the applicant, uh 4700 Galardia Parkway. Um this is the first preliminary plat that's come forth um from PUD206 that this body heard extensively and approved over the last year. Um this is the single family portion um known as track one inside that PUD. Um the only real changes to speak of from the master site plan of that PUD to the preliminary premier plat that's in front of you is a reduction of two lots. We had 44. We've gone down to 42 after some preliminary drainage calculations has increased the size of the detention pond as proposed on this property. Um so the common areas associated with that have grown. Um we still have two points of access to Wildwood Drive um that are required uh via the PUD and the subdivision regulations and fire code. Um we continue this item uh from the December planning commission meeting to give us opportunity to meet with the HOA. We did take that opportunity. Uh we met on two occasions. One specifically was with me um to address engineering items that they had. Um so we discussed sediment erosion control. Um that being in accordance with state statute, city code. Uh dust uh mitigation is also required in the PUB. Um we talked about traffic. Um

um and then we also have this open item um that was discussed again when we met uh with Councilman Kamal Pennington who was as you guys know on this body when this PUD was discussed last year. Um the HOA has brought forth um a concern about open space in the PUD. So the open space uh provision in the PUD states a 25% for the subject property. Um the 25% of the entire subject property all that open space will be captured within the next project the track two project. So in the PUD it specifically states for this track one project which is the preliminary plat in front of you today uh 25% open space will be held on each individual lot which we will meet. Um other than that I can certainly stand for any questions and we take no exceptions to the TEES on the staff report. Um I know I've kind of asked the planning department staff to be able to speak to the open space concern the HOA has. um at this meeting.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I do have two folks signed up to speak. Okay. If we can go ahead hear from them first, please. Okay. Uh Henrietta Burden. Good afternoon. My name is Vicky Hooks. I'm going to speak first and then Annette is going to speak next. Okay.

Um he's right. We did have just bringing you guys up on the where we were. We did have meetings and we did um talk about the erosion. He actually sent me an email and it has everything on here about the erosions and things that we were concerned about. Thank you very much, Sean, for that. And um we did still have some questions about and concerns about the open space because it does say in order to preserve the existing um physical characteristics and their environmental features. That was something we were concerned about because we do have trees and things like that. I had some pictures. I don't know if they did. You get them? Just some of the pictures that I had. I wanted to show where we do have a lots of clusters of trees and I'm hoping we get to kind of see it. I didn't get to send them all in, but like this tree right here is in uh our neighbor's yard is two trees together. I'm I think they've been there as long as I've been there and I've been here 25 years and we want things to stay in existence. We we're not asking for, you know, nothing much, but just to keep the existing look of our neighborhood where we're having big trees and it looks like that's what it's called, Wow, because it's all the woods around our houses and all throughout the neighborhood. So that's why we were concerned about the open space because our we just need some explanation on preserving the existing characteristics. We're not really sure what that means and we would like to get some some explanation on that.

Okay. I can ask the applicant to to respond to that. And so, um, I'm going to go ahead and I'm gonna turn it over to, uh, Anetta Burton. Miss Hooks, could I have your address for the record? I'm not sure I caught that in the Northeast 323 Northeast 59th Street. All right. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for hearing us again. Um, they said my name is Henrietta. It is Annetta. Um, yes, we did meet twice and we want to thank them so much for meeting with us, but there are concerns on how they're going to preserve the existing environment. Um, to actually preserve it means that we're not going to disturb it. And when we look at this plat, we see no indications or allocation for ensuring that the trees that particularly uh cover the north uh excuse me, the east and south end, which is most of this area in here. Um when you look at that there's there's no indication even of any tree or tree provisions as to how they're going to keep that and maintain it. Now Sean did speak about the imperous areas when you look at the tracks. Um when you look at the language however in the pud it speaks to the pud as a whole. Now, if the 25% that was indicated in the PUD and 9.16 is going to be deferred to the track development in track two, then we're looking at 10.7 acres. That would be 25% that would be in track two. There are some illustrations that are already available and I'm sure they've been submitted to you all. That would that's somewhat somewhat confusing. I know if I was a developer I wouldn't go

in and hatch at another maybe 15% of a multifamily development to achieve that. So, what we would like to recommend is that Johnson and Associates re reassess how they've laid the plat and possibly consider reducing the size of the four spaces. I don't know if you have it there where you can see the actual plat that was [clears throat] submitted. And just a point of clarification, CEC is the one preparing the plat.

Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. My notes said Johnson and Associates. Thank you. um but to reduce those sizes so that we could have that setback or the green space allowed there. We also need to clarify as to whether or not um they have made or as a part of the development because in our discussions it was never specifically a commitment made that in developing th those building those homes on that platted area that the trees that are already there that they would make every effort to ensure that those trees stayed in place. It is very important to us that the name and the meaning behind Wildwood is preserved. The city has been very supportive in areas that they have done that. Ski Islands for instance, they've been very sensitive to that. They've been very sensitive uh to that in Heritage Hills. And what we're asking is the same sensitivity be applied to this development. what is in this pud is is is something that we have accepted and we want to work uh in a very transparent way with the developers. And right now there are very we think specific issues that have not been addressed or the commitment has not been made that indeed we are going to look at a way in which to ensure that we're not going to uh or we're going to to to be intentional in in ensuring that we leave as much

natural and and trees and things like that. as stated in 9.16. Okay. Thank you, Miss Burton. Uh, I don't think I caught your address at the beginning. Can you state that, please? Address. Your address. I'm sorry. It is 42 Northeast 65th Street. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now, are are you are you making fun of my writing or you just don't? No, no, no, no. I have bad eyesight. I just have bad eyesight. Um, Mr. Gro McGra, talk to us about grading. What's your what's your grading strategy?

Sure. So, why we couldn't really commit to that now? You guys know the process and we walk through kind of the engineering process, too. They know and we've committed to be able to be very transparent when we have our final drawings ahead of the final plat stage when those get approved to make sure that they have a chance to see those and review those. Uh, but at this point, we just around the perimeter of the property. Certainly there is no intent or desire to clearcut, you know, this property. Um, some of the areas that they addressed in the southeast of the plat. They should be able to be tree preservation areas around there. And certainly we're not going to grade it just to just to grade it. Um, but certainly we always have to be respective of the drainage ordinance to be able to capture the runoff, get it to our storm water detention pond. That's going to drive everything. Um, here. Um, do want to speak real briefly on one thing. They touched about the four lots nearest to Wildwood Drive. Um, we do have some larger lots there. So, there is some area that could be, you know, recaptured and maybe a common area to maybe be kept it more uh natural. Um, I think their thought was to set those back. Um, the PUD as it's written right now requires those four lots to actually be Wildwood Drive facing lots in an effort to kind of bring this piece of the neighborhood into the older neighborhood. Um, and so that would be uh tough to do to leave. they have a natural kind of uh barrier uh topography barrier that kind of looks or kind of blocks what would be these two entrances and so that'd be tough to do. So we can certainly work with them on that but as the PD is written right now um that's it' be very tough.

Um can you refresh our memory because it's been 12 months at least and we've seen a couple other PUDs since then. Um are there any tree preservation requirements in the PUD?

Not for track one. There is track two. So Jared, I don't know if you have the ability to pull up that master plan that's in the PUB on the last page. Should be the last page. So you can kind of see the there's a landscape buffer uh on that track too on the north side, the west side, and not specifically defined, but just knowing what we know about the property, the east side is going to have a large tree preservation area as well. And so that is where all the open space when you account for all that greenery you see there. Uh a lot of lot of preservation around the exterior of that project. So but then you kind of look at the master plan for the track one which is the preliminary plat in front of you guys for your uh decision today. Um if you were to say we had to apply the 25% open space um then the preliminary plat would be kind of at odds with what's in this PUB master site plan. Um you would have had to have seen that here. Um where you see the 44 lots there is no tree preservation associated with it or additional common area. It would have had to be um anticipated to be platted at that time.

Okay. Thank you. Um Commissioner Harrison, this is this is your ward. Do you Well, that was a question I had about preservation in the PUD. So that was a question that I had as well. Um, I mean, seeing where we are at this point, um, I feel comfortable enough to make a motion for approval at this point. Okay. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Okay, we're ready for a motion.

Yeah. Once again, I making a motion to uh approve uh C775, the preliminary plat of the corridor at Wildwood Hills. We have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to approve item C7775. It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. And that item is approved.

Item five. Item five is PUD 1770- SP04, application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 1770 located at 97 Northeast 82nd Street. Is the applicant present? Okay, Tanner McGrevy.

Nothing. All right, we'll move that toward the end in case he's just a little late showing up. All right, item six. Item six is KCE 11155 application to close the unimproved street rights of way of Lu Street uh platted as Harris Street between northeast 59th Street and Northeast 62nd Street and a portion of northeast northeast 62nd Street platted as Villa Avenue within the school uh is located generally south southeast of northeast 63rd Street and North Anderson Road. Good afternoon.

Hello, Andrea Gossard. I'm the applicant. Um the reason for the request is stated in the staff report uh simply closing two 50 ft wide uh right away streets um for consolidated residential uh development. Um this is on the far eastern boundary of Oklahoma City right on uh 63rd Street. Uh the reason for the existing layout and the existing easements is a old plat from 1948 uh that was filed not recognized of course as is primarily agriculture residential area of the city. Um and just here to answer any questions.

Okay. Commissioner Harrison, this is Ward 7. You want to lead the discussion? Uh sure. Is anyone signed up to speak? I do not have anyone signed up to speak on this. Uh, any commissioners have any questions or comments regarding this? Seeing none, I move approval for C1155. We have a motion to recommend approval of item C155 and Commissioner Harrison. It's been second by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval. Thank you. Item seven.

Item seven. Seven is case SP 605, application for a special permit to operate a uh drinking establishment's alcohol um use. And this is located at 319 East Sheridan Avenue.

Uh good afternoon. My name is Christopher Alexander. I'm here with Ivan Canara uh in support of SP 605. Um, as the uh application states, uh we are seeking to operate a drinking establishment located at 319 East Sheridan uh in uh Commissioner Harrison's ward. Uh the area in uh East Sheridan there is populated by hotels, clubs, bars. Uh in fact, our operational plan uh matches with the previous use of this unit and this building. Um we don't really have anything to add to the staff report. We just ask that the commission uh follow their recommendations and uh approve our program. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Harrison. Uh do we have anyone signed up to speak? No, sir.

Okay. Anyone on the commission have any comments, questions? Okay. Seeing none, I recommend approval. Bottom seven, SP 605. Have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to approve special permit 605. It's been second by Commissioner Leforge. Please cast your votes. That item is approved. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you.

Item eight. This is case PC 10993. Application to reszone 1636 Southwest 35th Street from R1 to C3. Your honor, good afternoon. I apply for to resone from R1 to Could you do me a favor and just pull that microphone a little closer to you? I apply for resone from zone R1 to zone 3 for to develop the koso building. Could you pull that back? Yeah. Yeah, there you go.

Okay. Thank you. I apply for the resol from R1 to J C3 for the small lot to incorporate it with the L C3 for to develop the business with the office for office for retail for office. Does it make the neighbor looking good with the we can with the lighting with the with the lighting with the organiz

I I apologize we're having we're having a difficult time hearing you up here. I don't know if it's for speakers or what but okay that I like for for the good for to redesign horn horn h home block horn area for build the building to for business. Okay. Um so the application is for uh to reszone to C3 community. Um the recommendation of the staff is that we change that to C1. Is that something that you'd be willing to consider

this the C1? Because then we limited for to design for the business with the small businesset. We don't we don't make the heavy industry. We don't make the the rem. We don't make that we just to bordering for the office and Simone retail for if we we have already the lot in C3 now it is C1 we can incorporate C1 to C3 for the for the master plan designs so so you wouldn't be willing to go to C1

the C1 we can to design for the business right Face for it. You you can do C1 if if you if we want to see one they we can design we can the make the business building business small business that's okay. Yes or no? Okay because I know I'm really I'm really looking for a yes or a no on if you can go to C1. Okay. C3 or C to C1. Yeah, that that's so that's the staff recommend and I don't know if anyone up here on the commission has other thoughts. Um, but the

I'll say this to you. If you don't like to go to the C1 and a less intensive uses there, you could always come back with a spud and dictate what you're going to do on this site and that would help us a lot to to move this forward. I'd like to see an SP and in order to do that, we'd like to defer it for two meetings. Okay. But you have to get you have to get in touch with staff when they try to call you. Okay. Let's go to C3. Okay. Yes. So, you're open to deferral for basically four weeks. Tell me. Do you have anything?

Oh, I'm sorry. Sarah Welsh Planning Department. I was just going to say, you know, when we were reviewing this, we didn't know if you were going to develop the whole that whole corner. Yes. the whole corner or just your or just that side? Yes, the whole corner. The whole Okay. So, our recommendation was C1. Um it it would not allow gas stations or drive-through restaurants. Um that was it's designed to be closer to houses. So, that's why we said C1, but the commission can decide now if that's a C3 that would So, the whole thing would be C3. Yes. Right. Okay. So

for me, I I'd really like to see the application change. And if you want to do the entire site, an SPD still would be preferable for the entire site. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to see the SPD for the whole site so that we know what we're doing. So if you would be in agreement to defer this for four weeks, it would it would be better for you to come back with a plan that we could understand. Okay. That would be February 12th. Okay. If if you're recommending that the subject site be enlarged, it will need to be much longer because we'll need to renotice and get a new legal description. Six or eight? Six.

Six. Okay. 26th. So, we're going to put this back on the agenda for February 26th. Okay. All right. I just need a motion. Uh, I'd like to make a motion to defer the item to February 26th.

A motion from Commissioner Newman to defer the item. It's been second by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. That item is deferred. Item nine was deferred. Takes us to item 10.

Item 10 is case CPA 202512, consideration of a comprehensive plan amendment changing an area from rural low to rural medium located uh west of South Chaw Road and south of Southeast 89th Street. Okay. Baner Mui Cortis for the planning department. This is CPA 2025000012. This change the line use typology area designation from rural low to rural medium. The associated sonian application is P 2123 I think we need to go back. I think I don't know what they want. There you go. um is located in war 4 right now is the Luda is rural low and is surrounded by rural low rural medium is pretty close to the area. In terms of land use um is right now the land use is rural residential with some undeveloped to the north and some residential to the south. In term of zoning, right now it's zone AA with some rural um agriculture to the south. In terms of city services is in term of water, um the site falls within the zone for potential connectivity. Um and the applicant is proposing to use private wells u for this site. In terms of sewer, the site falls within need for major investment in terms of expanding sewers. So the applicant is proposing to use aerobic septic system on this site. In term of emergency services, the site

is within the rural respond area for emergency services. In term of street typology, uh Southeast 89 and Chaka Road, both of them are designated as minor arterials and there are some capital improvement projects uh planned for um Southeast 89. In terms of riparian areas, um the northern part of the site is located within uh a riparian area. Um so the applicant is proposing to leave that area on develop. Um in the findings in the findings, a small scale residential development with large lot is consistent with the policies of plan for the rural medium. The designation as areas of rural medium Luda will help preserve the 16 character of rural within the neighborhood. The proposed development is located close to existing rural medium Luda and remains within the rural response time for emergency services supporting consistency with surrounding areas and available service coverage. The proposed development use of Arabic sective system on large lots is less likely to result in significant environment and health impacts. Larger lots provide more area for natural filtration and reduce commulative loading on groundwater resources. Based on the findings, the staff recommends approval of the request. I don't know if you have any questions.

Commissioner Privet, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed speak on this item on this one, but the next one. Right. Right. Okay. Um I didn't really have a whole lot to talk about on this one. Um anybody else does though, I'll be up for it. Okay. Any other questions, comments from commissioners? Okay. Okay. And um I'll go ahead and recommend approval of conference plan. What number we have? 12. CPA 202500000012.

Have a motion to approve CPA 2025 12 from Commissioner Privet. It's been second by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. Item is approved. Item 11. Item 11 is PUD 2123, application to reszone 9705 South Chalkaw Road from AA to PUD 20 2123.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, uh you'll note on your staff report that this was deferred uh from the December 11th meeting. The reason we deferred it was because we got some protest letters in advance of that December 11th meeting. So, we deferred it to allow for a meeting to take place. I want to thank Blaine Nice, who's the lawyer representing those neighbors, for hosting us at his at his office, I think maybe two weeks ago, whereby we tried to find uh a path to to resolve our our differences here. So, it's important to note that what the neighbors to the south that you're going to hear from, I believe, here momentarily are zoned RA. RA is minimum 1acre lot. Actually, it allows you to go less than an acre if you look at the code. What we have proposed is a PUD whereby we specify oneacre lots. The contention that is uh why we're going to hear from them is because we intend to access Southeast 98th Street. Now, when this neighborhood was first developed, that street was private. At some point in the past, the neighbors decided they no longer wanted it to be private. They didn't want to maintain it on an ongoing basis. So, it was brought up to city standards and then dedicated to the city. The city then accepted the dedication. Once the city accepted the dedication, coupled with the fact that there's a stub that touches our southern property line, that street was always going to be able to be utilized by someone else. So the question for you is, is what the someone else proposing compatible? Well, as I said, we have an RA base with a specified minimum 1acre lot size limiting the site to 17 lots. It's hard to imagine what could be more compatible than matching the zoning to the south. Uh it is worth noting I think you'll also hear from uh one person who has I think maybe a 5 acre lot. If you see Southeast 98th Street that extends past there you go that that public street already leaves the platted subdivision. So someone else has already taken advantage of the fact that this is a public street and uses that that access

point. My client is made up of a a group of developers, one of which I believe has a family member who owns the land around us. um that one individual can't force access from the land around us. It's a public street. We have every right to access it. The only question for you is whether or not what we intend to do is compatible. And it is. There are four TEES. Uh TE number one, which I believe comes from the comprehensive plan, says max residential density shall be.5 dwelling units per acre. We can't agree to that. What we can agree to is what we've placed in the PUD, which is 17. And again, not only is it 17, but we've specified that it's a minimum of 1acre lot size. TE2, all lots shall be located entirely outside the floodway. What we can agree to is that there will be no structures or buildings within the floodway. And then we do agree to TE's 3 and four. Uh so with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Commissioner Privet, want to lead the discussion? Yeah. Um let's go ahead and hear from the protesters first. Okay. Um, we'll start with Joseph Randall. If you could come up and give your name and address for the record, you'll have five minutes.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Can you hear me? Okay.

Yes. We live at 14900 Southeast 98th Street. That is within the Whitney Bridge de Development Edition. When my wife and I met the builder and we decided to purchased the lot, it was our understanding that 98 Street was developed by the developer. later on as the my predecessor or the gentleman is up here saying it was changed to probably a public street. There's been many discussions about whether to put the gate back in and make it private street. That decision has not been made. Is the area an HOA? We're still working on that. Now, let me get back to the wife and I. We purchased the lot based on the understanding that 98 Street would be a development of I want to say 36 lots, 36 1 acre lots. We purchased it with the further understanding that that was going to be the end of 98th Street. It's my understanding from one of my neighbors that he lives on the corner of J um Jamie Way and 98th Street. There is a retention pond behind his property that the city by code required the city or the developer to put a pond in there. When he built his property, he had to bring in additional soil in order to bring it up to the elevation where it would not be in the flood plane. Jamie Way was also elevated to be above the flood plane. We have lived in an addition for seven years.

I've seen many time Well, let me resate that. I've seen times that I could not get up Chuck Road because it was flooded. There are properties in the area, lots in the area that were built after we built our house that there were lots and lots and lots and lots of dirt brought in to put those properties above the flood plane. So although I am not opposed to the gentleman where the developer building the area, our concern is that he uses another street other than 98th Street, for example, 89th Street. uh the way the proposal is submitted to you, the wife and I and many neighbors within Whitney Ranch, and I hope there's other neighbors here to speak other than myself. The way it's going down, we oppose it. If he wants to bring an additional street, he wants to put another street in there like the previous developer did, we're fine with that. So our vote is the way it is proposed to you is no. If he wants to use an adult an alternative street, how about at it? Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Randall.

Uh, next time I just have David on Southeast 98th Street. If I have your full name and address for the record, please. David Roland Cruz, 26 and a half years in the military, USAF. I'm here with my wife Karen. Can you hear me? Okay. Little How's this?

Excellent. Excellent. I'm here with my Karen. With my wife Karen Cruz of 26, no, actually 48 years we've been married together. Now, we got here I've got notes here, by the way. Pardon my uh jet lag here. I just got here, my wife and I, from Germany last night. We thought it very important to try and mention that uh you should not try to reszone that area north of Whitney Ridge from an agricultural district. As the man that was before mentioned, um we were there under the premise that it would be 98th Street. Okay. and

it'll be truncated after that where right now um we hope to preserve that same character. Okay. the uh low density of our neighborhood right now affords us comfort that well I don't know if I should mention this but um safety for our family walks being able to golf cart you know families walking hand in hand an overpop populated area would overburden our infrastructure we've got wells okay I know I'm fetching right here and again I ask your indulgence on me if we found favor in site that you consider these things that um we hope to stay there all right and not and not leave. And what happens when something like construction going through 98 street? People will become absentee owners. They'll start to rent. The areas will be degraded. I've seen that before. I've been around. The man before me spoke very well. and the woman before him, it it was item 10. She brought us some really nice illustrations. It it it showed it showed a bifurcation there of of Hog Creek, okay, which puts that housing area pretty much right in the right to the west of it. Okay. West of a flood plane. The man before mentioned that we spent a lot of money trying to get our houses out of a flood plane. Can you hear me?

A lot of money. It would have been a whole lot cheaper just built flat. It would look better, too. But um it's on a flood plane. There are three areas that are a bit more amanable to what you want to what they want to do. Okay. north of it on 89th Street, you'll have two areas right outside the flood plane that you can enter into. There's another street, I believe it's 95th Street. That's the end of Foxmore. Okay. It It's already set up for constru for continuation. It's set up for continuation. 95th Street and they'll enter pretty much right into what they're planning to build. and it's not on a flood plane with these viable entry points available and not sitting on a flood plane. I'm kind of wondering, you know, it's got no content station and structurally they're ready. Structurally, they're ready for continuation. Why are they looking for disrupting a thriving established neighborhood? I don't know how else to put it. The gentleman before me also mentioned that we don't have an HOA right now to to to make it private. But then we didn't have all of the occupants in there. We have finally put in all of the occupants. We're filled. Now, can we actually make a decision to make this private? Am I being obtuse here? I pray that you please consider this on behalf of my wife and I. Thank you.

Thank you. Is it Harold Patterson? Daryl. Daryl. Okay.

Hey, real quick. Uh Jeff or somebody. Y'all know our speakers aren't on. I could hear him, but some of these I can't I guess none of these speakers are on. None of these speakers are working up here. Yeah. The only switch so everyone knows the only way that we can hear you is the speakers that are facing towards you or or what we can hear. But because they're facing towards you, it's a little bit difficult. So just ask that you speak up, speak clearly. We'll do our best.

All right. Well, I'm Daryl Patterson. I'm 14501 Southeast 98th Street. And 12 years ago, I was brought down from Boeing to support the Oklahoma City Plan. And and we found this development that actually my wife did. And we were the first one in there. And we were told about the same thing. This was going to be a gated community. And when the builder started building my house, he had he ran through all kinds of regulations that he didn't even understand cuz we're up on a hill, but he had to go in and do u you know, you know, all kinds of extra work. Now, that retention pond that he spoke of is right behind my house. And I was told by the developer the reason why they put that road in, cuz he wanted three lots. But the city told him, "No, you're going to put that in for that low water bridge." Now, when we first moved in there, I didn't understand why we needed that retention pond because nothing happened. But now, let's fast forward 12 years. That addition's full. I'm renting pumps to pump that pond out. Last year, I ran let it run for three days because the water is roaring down there. Now, I had a guy come out. We're going to have to build a some kind of a dam because it comes 25 foot into my yard. And so when it goes down, all the grass is dead. So now it won't get to my house because my house is about 9 foot higher than that. But I can't and where I'm going with this. If if if if I went from no water in there to flooding and then I look back there and I see water in that low line area, what's going to happen when all these houses come in? Where's that water going to go? That's, you know, that's my big concern there. I mean, it's going somewhere. So, that's all I

needed to say. So, thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Patricia Pat Patty. [clears throat] Okay. Good afternoon.

Hello. Um, yes, I'm Patricia Patterson, Darl's wife, and um, uh, we live at 14501 Southeast 98th Street in Whitney Ridge. Um, [clears throat] I I'm speaking on behalf of the homeowners within the Whitney Ridge subdivision. Um, we were actually the very first home in that area. I I uh just fell in love with that area and we were there for about a year by ourselves, but then it's it's all full now. It's it's a beautiful neighborhood and um we've really enjoyed living there. People walk a lot and I think all of the neighbors, in fact, all of the ones that got the letter from Oklahoma City, letting them know what was getting ready to possibly happen, they all oppose it. And plus even the ones that didn't get the letter on the other side and really the whole neighborhood maybe with with the exception of one I couldn't reach but they are all and we've got three pages of signatures in a petition. They are all against this and very afraid of what's going to happen to our neighborhood. And um we are just um we're respectfully requesting that the planning and zon zoning commission denied the resoning and development uh application submitted by the developer proposing to build on the parcel directly north of our subdivision and seeking to use our private infrastructure for access. And I think the part that I mean they are going to be directly behind our house. It probably affects us more than it affects anybody, but but it will affect everyone because we're at the top of the hill and they're going to be driving up all the construction vehicles and the concrete trucks and all that for this new neighborhood. They're going to be driving up our street all, you know,

the whole way up the street, our nice little one street with a few culde-sacs and with one entrance. we have only one entrance and um they want to use our entrance to build a whole new subdivision over there, whole new development and it just seems um it it's just doesn't seem right. Um I I've got a few things here I I would like to some of the reasons that we are concerned. Um let me just look at my notes here for a minute. Um, and basically we feel that this was was done deliberately. The the previous property owner had the clear ability to sell land with proper direct access, but instead the seller intentionally sold a parcel without viable access, expecting that burden to be shifted into our subdivision. And I just feel like that's poor planning and was created intentionally. Um, not sure why she doesn't like our neighborhood, but anyway, that's that's what's been happening. Um, flood plane. Obviously, you've already heard a little bit about the flood plane issues and how that's our backyard is flooded and with with more neighbors back in the back there with a whole new subdivision, it's I feel like that's going to be a a huge issue. Um and the and uh the um let's see here. U basically this the city's flood plane management regulations are built on the principle of avoiding intensified development immediately adjacent to restricted flood zones. This proposal directly conflicts with that principle. If this type of resoning is approved the that that erodess the integrity of the city's flood plane restrictions. It creates precedent. Future developers will site it. It complicates uh future FEMA

compliance. It exposes the city to liability if flooding impacts downstream properties. Um flood plane policies exist to protect residents infrastructure in the city and we feel like that shouldn't be bypassed because a landowner intentionally created a landlocked parcel. Um but yes, the the the adding the housing density at the proximity will will alter water flow and drainage patterns. U it'll have increased runoff into the flood plane and our subdivision, soil destabilization, erosion, sediment transfer, reduced water storage capacity during heavy rain events, heightened flood risk for both developments. Anyway, so that's just some of the reasons uh because of the flood plane issues there.

You have about 30 seconds remaining on your

Okay, I'm sorry. We feel like it's going to be very unsafe, too, with all the added traffic and only one entrance and one exit for fire, you know, emergency med, you know, medical, whatever it is. It is going to be uh it's going to be unsafe. And I we just um we are hoping and praying that this does not go through and um we would like to keep our neighborhood like it was like it was intended to be and we were all told that that was flood plane. No one would build their our forever home. We didn't want to look into another house, you know, and um we were all told that that would never happen. and uh we are just asking if you would deny that resoning so that we can keep our neighborhood safe and protected. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Miss Patterson.

Andrew Meyers.

Hi. Andrew Myers, 14600 Rockwell. Um, as you can hear, um, lots of people have concerns about flood planes. Um, so I'll keep mine short as you've already heard a lot of them. Um, with this being so close to the flood plane and the proliferation of imperous surface area, there are drainage concerns. Um, especially with the way that the Hog Creek runs, um, we just kindly request that you have a drainage study to make sure that that proliferation of impervious surface area does not affect those neighbors to the south. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. [crying] Blaine nice. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. Commissioner Blaine Nice, 100 North Broadway, Sweet 1700, Oklahoma City. I'm here on behalf of several of the uh neighbors, not all of them at this point. And I'll be brief. I want to be clear. Mr. box indicated that the neighbors said, "Well, we don't want to maintain this road. We can't afford it. Let's give it to the city." That's not what happened. There was a developer that developed this, not didn't do the best job, went defunct, and basically turned it over to the city. And that's how that these people that bought into what they understood to be a private gated community neighborhood turns into this situation. So, that's how that happened. And we did meet with Mr. Box um the other day in my office. Um one of my my concerns here today and I've talked to Mr. Privet, talked to Mr. Box and my clients is this all happened around the holidays. He was kind enough to kick it, you know, to one meeting for us to try to get together to have some discussions, but because of the holidays, not very many people were able to get together. The staff has some problems with this. And Mr. box gets up here and says, "Well, there's out of the four tees, we're willing to comply with two, but not the other two." I just think there's too many issues with this. We understand the access and that this became public. That may be something that is unavoidable, but we believe the density. Uh, one thing we talked about is limit the number of lots and perhaps change configuration. We just think this is a little premature. There's a lot of balls in the air on this and we'd asked that the commission not not vote to

approve it today. If anything, vote to to not approve it or or postpone it. I uh um like I said, we've had dialogue. We just not did not have time to have sufficient dialogue. And it is true, one of the members of this development group, I think it's his mother, owns this property, and they intentionally sold this the way it is to create this landlocked uh parcel. Now, that may not be illegal, but it sure is suspicious when they have access elsewhere. And as I understand it, they intend to develop the rest of this property in phases. So, they're going to have to get access somewhere else. It just there are going to be a lot of issues when they do try to access this stub if it's allowed because of where this access is into this development. But, um, on behalf of the neighbors that I represent, we'd ask that you deny it or at the very least continue it for us to have some some further dialogue because we just think there's too many questions. So, thank you.

All right. Thank you. And then the last person I have signed up is Zion Williams.

Thank you, [clears throat] commissioners. I appreciate your time today. Um, my name's Z Williams. I live at 14425 Southeast 98th Street. Uh, Mr. box mentioned my five acres on the back that you know pretty much did the same thing. Um that's not true. I I'm still one house per five acres. I did not ask to reszone. Um just to give you a quick history about this property. This property set I also developed this property. This property sat there for I think 8 10 years undeveloped just dilapidated. The gates were stolen. You know everything was being stolen out of the neighborhood. I think there was one house in the very back of this neighborhood. the builder and developer who started this project went bankrupt at the time. So, um I I take that back. The builder did and the developer kind of washed his hands of the place. Um myself and a and a my business partner, we took this neighborhood over and actually made it a great community. Um we in the hopes of one thing that Mr. Bach said earlier that that the residents gave up uh private roads. That's not true. We never we never had the opportunity to do that. That was in our plan to make this a gated edition. Um he also mentioned uh you know I don't know if he mentioned this but I want to bring up that the the land owner who sold this property owns from Chalkall Road to 89th all the way to Henny Road. And uh the development group he speaks of is actually her son and a friend who has a no development no development experience. I think uh one of them has maybe built a house or two. So my concern you know we've put a lot of blood sweat and tears into this place for someone to come in you know now use our access. Um, we were sold or we when

I developed this place, everything on the north side of 98th, we were always told by the city of Oklahoma City that was a green belt behind there. The restrictions we had, two-part permits, las, I mean, we were always it with the understanding that was a green belt to the north of us. Um, never would we have thought that an a developer could come in to enter through our subdivision has no relation to our subdivision, no ties to our subdivision, and develop a neighborhood using our hard work uh to try to try to profit. And that's what's happening here. I uh just request that and hope that y'all make u deny this. I do appreciate it. [crying] Thank you. Thank you. Okay, that's everyone I have signed up to speak. So, Mr. Privet, you want to start us off? Um,

sure. Um, David, do you have any responses to any of that?

Uh, sure. Briefly, the the reasons why it became public, I think, are completely irrelevant. It is a public street. Um, I find it strange that anyone from the city of Oklahoma City would have given asurances to these neighbors that the privately owned land behind them that had a street stub from a public street was intended to be a green belt. As it relates to the drainage, of course, we have a heightened drainage ordinance compared to when these neighbors uh had their development built. So, prior to us being able to do anything, we'll have to submit whatever we need to submit to public works and public works is going to have to sign off on it. So the question for you is compatibility and whether or not RA next to RA with heightened facade rags in our PUD compared to what the straight zoning would allow is compatible on a public street. We believe it is.

The question I have you might could answer or staff is uh the access per subreg lots supposed to have additional entry? How is that addressed? I don't know where we'll get the additional entry. At some point, we'll have to figure that out. There's some element of lots that we're going to be able to achieve given the boulevard entry that that neighborhood has. So, at some point, it stops being a boulevard and then the clock would start. So, we'll address that at the plotting phase, but we certainly don't seek to amend that through this PUD, nor could we. It's a subdivision regulation, but it's a I guess

you you're going to have to meet that requirement. I mean, we're and we're the TE says it and we agree to that. Again, it's a subrec. Even if we wanted to try to vary that requirement, we could not do so through the PUD process. So, that's being addressed in TE number four. Uh-huh. Correct. And that will be an issue at the plat stage. Jared, what is the number of single access? 30. 30. 30. And and this neighborhood has 34 lots. the the exist or the existing neighborhood already has 34 lots. Would they the existing neighborhood already have had to had a variance?

It's only 30, but but you don't start counting the third. So, because they have a boulevard entry, there's a divided median. So, that counts as two access points. So, it doesn't start to count until you hit just in court. Sarah, no, sorry, Sarah Welch, Planning Department. I was just going to say I think that there's about five lots that they would be able to get before a variance would be needed based on where we would start counting after the boulevard entry. Five lots after this one or five lots? No, the five hours. Five lots kind of remaining um with that regulation before you would before they would need develop them. I got you. I got you. before there's either a variance or a secondary access point.

But the current lots don't count towards these new lots as being part of the 30. It does. It does. What she's saying is start, you don't count anything east of Justin Court because that's a divided boulevard. And so that's considered two access points where the 30 number starts would be at Justin Court. And

so you're asking for 17 even though you can't pl 17. Well, we're ask I mean so the zoning is obviously much larger in terms of like scope than just the first five. At some point we either have to get a secondary access point. We don't want to come back. We're trying to zone the whole thing and we either get a variance from you guys. If you don't grant it, then we have a secondary access point that we have to go achieve somewhere. It's no different than large-scale subdivisions where you will grant a variance to the interconnection requirement and it almost ends up being a temporary variance because another neighborhood is getting built right next to it. Ward three predominantly right now is where you're seeing a ton of that. You'll have a whole quarter section where you're granting variances to the subregs on interconnection because at some point there will be another connection, but that doesn't mean you're not granting the zoning to allow it to be built out in full. And you're in agreement with all of the TE's?

No, we agree with three and four. Uh we do not agree to TE2. Obviously, we can't have structures in the floodway. In TE1, we want 17 rather than the.5 calculation. 0.5 would be 15 lots. We're asking for 17, but we say minimum 1acre lot size, which is matches what the folks to us to the south of us have in terms of RA zoning. All right, let's get into this is aerobic, correct? Aerobic. Yes. Or septic. I I I don't know. I don't know if that decision has been made.

Okay. Well, from when Whitney Ridge was first built till now, I think our planning commissions leaned a different direction with, you know, required like sprayfield uh easements and andor the lot size. So, any comments from other commissioners regarding that? Um, I'm always in favor of bigger lots, especially with no sewer, no water. But we can give you a spray field easement. Well, if we had the 0.5, we'd be at 15 and they'd be bigger. So, just trying to figure this out up here.

I mean, again, we're we're matching what's to the south. I mean it it seems a bit punitive to say you need to be something different especially given the small scale of this subdivision but we can at the platting phase provide a a spray field easement which is what we've done here here recently at least in your ward and there be nothing built in the flood plane or or platted within the plane. Yeah, you can't build in no structures can be built anyway. Part of the lot will be in it, but no structures in the plane or the way. What are we?

Um, we can agree that both. No structures in flood plane or floodway. It's a AE zone. So, T number two would have to say that no structures would be located in a floodway. Yeah, the flood way is just above zone AE. Right.

I'm going to ask Barry has something to say on that. We talked about in pre-mean very large public works as far as the flood plane and the flood way public works stance is that the flood way needs to be contained within a common area. The the city ordinances do not allow any placement of fill storage of material construction of anything within a floodway. and and our concern is that as soon as you make that part of a platted lot, somebody's going to go back in there and start building something in there. Uh and and it's just a direct violation of the uh drainage ordinances. So, make the flood way a common area eliminates a lot of that potential. As far as the flood plane, that can be used for development if they build they can build structures in there, but they have to go through the steps through FEMA to get that approved elevationwise. Uh there there'd be a big flood study that they're probably going to have to do to do that.

Uh but the uh 100red-year flood plane would have to be contained within an easement on on the lots. U so that's going to restrict some uh construction that could take place there as well. But we would recommend and uh really our position that the flood way needs to be contained within a platted common area that would be part of the HOA responsibility to maintain. Barry, just a quick question and you may not be able to answer this one, but the spray field for an aerobic system, would that be could you put that spray field in the flood plane? I don't know the answer to that. Um, I don't think I would think not,

but that that's probably something we'd have to clarify with DEEQ because that's they're the ones that permit the aerobic systems and and all septic systems as well. But, um, that's a that's a real dangerous deal to do uh to put something in that 100red-year flood plane below the flood elevation, which is about half of the lots on the north side.

Yes. which is not different if you I mean if you look at Whitney Ridge uh you've got lot three lot four a piece of lot 8 uh that are also in the same AE zone on the image that's on the screen you can see the south you've got three four and eight that touch that zone AE zone and perhaps even on the other side of the street it doesn't go that far south Hang on. I missed what you were saying there. Was that responding to Mr. Lodge's points about the floodway? Is that what you were just saying? I missed what you said, David.

Yeah, David, are you agreeable to the HOA common area within the flood way? Uh, which makes sense to me. What I'd like to do is is can could we work with staff on that as we move to council and whatever the engineer and public works comes up with we're fine with. So the the engineer detects and say that we can use lateral lines. Um we've done five samples to prove up that uh septic rather than aerobic will work. But in the event that we have aerobic we're good with a spray field ement. So septic works in flood zoning.

Whatever DEQ, I mean that's you've got to permit that. So whatever DEEQ would allow, but the soil will allow for perk to occur from lateral lines.

Mr. Williams, I'll give you 20 seconds if you keep it quick. If you can come up here to the mic. size.

Um he pointed out more than a third of these properties touch the flood way. Um as far as a septic goes, aerobic it has to be aerobic. The every lot in there in that area will not perk for a regular uh septic system. It also you cannot have the aerobic in the flood pointing in the floodway which leaves no space for the for the septic tanks and the system to spray on over a third of the lots. I just wanted to point that out. All right. Thank you for that info.

And I'm not an engineer and I know you said an engineer texted you, but I tend to agree with that. Um, I don't believe that septic could go in zone AE floodway or flood plane since we have two different because if it was in a flood then your septic would be underwater and it would not do its job.

Yeah. So maybe not all of them. So that's why I'm saying where we can have lateral lines we can use them in the instance in which we can't we can provide a spray field easement for the aerobic Okay. While they're looking, I want broader than the aerobic. My question is I think what Mr. Lodge is saying is this area of floodway, which is the with the plus signs, right? It barely touches a lot of these lots, not as much as zone AE, but we're concerned with the floodway. I think he was saying he prefers your lots to not go into the flood way because somebody owns that and they think that they can build something there. What What was your response? Not regarding

place that in an easement. What's that? We can place that in an easement and dedicated to whoever it needs to be dedicated to. We're fine with that. We understand the floodway is an absolute no-go zone. So, we're happy to put that in an easement, have it be common area or whatever the city needs it to be. Okay. Okay. That's Yeah. Was that did that solve what you were saying, Barry, or not?

No. Our stance is going to be and David mentioned a minute ago that he would work with staff to decide what needed to happen with the lots that were uh partially in the flood way. I can tell you right now our position on that is that that needs to be in a common area and not part of the lots. The easement can cover the flood plane, but the flood way cannot be part of the lot. Needs to be in a in a platted common area. Okay. So we can make it a plat common area as well. It will alter lot size a little bit at some point through slivers, but we're we don't that's fine. So I thought, well then you would accept to E2 then that the lots shall be outside the floodway.

If if we can modify I guess proportionally the lots that touch the floodway in case they fall under the one acre one acre, right? We're fine with that. I would be fine with that. That would mean that and maybe you're then maybe they're going to be 75 or whatever they are just those might be another way to fix that but I'm fine with that.

The the lot size will be up to this commission and the requirements of DEQ for well and septic on the lots. Uh so I I don't have any objection to that on on reducing lot size, but that's up to you guys. Would there be a way to say that lots seven through 13 will be at least point whatever acres it needs to be and the others will be an acre. I mean so I can't can't calculate it right now.

I can't calculate right now but whatever and it's minimal on to your point 7 through 13 it is it's minimal. The engineer can calculate that before council but yeah whatever the proportional share is I just want to make sure that the lot size can be whatever the minimum lot size is is equal to whatever we lose. My eyeballs are showing me they're easily still 75 acres. You're not taking more than a quarter of any of those acres. I mean those lots. So maybe we say 75 because we couldn't go less than that anyways. 75. Correct. Under DQ. You guys may or may not be going okay with that anyway. But it solves TE2 could be solved. The base on this is RM. Yes.

And that's that that's the five. Our point is we're we're matching the folks that are complaining about density. Yeah. I mean, it's a 50% decrease than what the actual zoning is already. Oh, what? Oh, from AA? Yeah. Well, no, from the 2 acre minimum. It's not RA yet. Oh, it's zoned AA right now. So, five acre. Five acre, right? What you're moving it to? That's why I wanted to know what the base was. RA base in the in the Pud. Correct.

Okay. For me at least on this one, I'd rather keep TE2 and I would rather change this to where lots 7 through 13 are minimum of 75 acres. Um because that looks to me like it's plenty. It still allows it. Um and it also keeps us from I don't want to give on this TE2 today because then other people are going to allow their lots to be in floodway and I don't think we should be allowing lots in the floodway for the reason that Mr. Lodge has said, right? And I don't want to give that up either. I just don't want to give up to go to 0 75 is just too small with without public water and just have sewer.

So we're really not going to 75, right? I mean from a density standpoint, we're not modifying the lot size. It there's still this size. There's just it's it's common area and back. But from a how you actually look at it, how it feels on the ground. It's not changing from what we propose in here. Right. It's just your spray field ends up in the floodway area. Yeah. Well, I don't think I don't I don't think DQ will permit that, right? So, perhaps we have to find another solution. I think that's probably more of the situation. I don't know. You'd be able to get 15 lots in there. Maybe. I don't know. And have the the the engineer is going to have to figure that out. He's smarter than I am presumably. So,

just want to zone it up to 75. I'm not big on reducing the lot size. I mean, because you still have to get a lot, you still have to get a well and a spray field and a house located somewhere within those boundaries because they can't go outside of them. Then, uh, if we keep TE2 and we keep the 1acre minimum, it just means they're going to know they have to change it from 17 lots to 15 lots. That's fine, too. They're going to have to make those top lots, um, wider wider instead of narrower. So, I'm fine with that, too. Mhm. I agree. I mean, people want more lots, but sorry, if it if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. Maybe only 15 fit. Okay. So,

well, I mean, I guess in that case for for the purposes today, we can agree to T2 asked to strike TE1 knowing that something's going to have to happen from an engineering spec perspective to fix this either now between council or when the engineer comes up and seeks to plat this. I'm not in favor of striking one. No, David. I mean, you still get there. I think one, frankly, by virtue of the engineering just is going to happen. I think so. By agreeing to TE2,

it's going to happen. Um, I just want to keep the possibility open that there's some engineering solution that I'm not aware of given that he's not here today and we have six weeks to figure it out before we go to council. Right. The other thing I want to request, I mean the the the public did ask for a deferral on this. Let me address that. How you feel about that?

Uh not not great. Um so we had a meeting at Blaine's office. Uh I begged them in the meeting, get me something for my client to review. That that's how negotiations work. Uh I don't blame Blaine. We can't control our clients. Negotiations work like this. You don't want what I'm doing. Great. Tell me what you want. You can't say go away because that's not a reasonable position. Tell us what you want. We leave expecting to get something from Blaine. I text Blaine today. Are we going to hear anything? And the request was, well, are you going to defer it? No. Now, we're happy to meet again. I'll meet as many times as you know Blaine wants to host me at his office. But I don't think it's a reasonable position to meet, have the opponent beg for some sort of proposal and then show up at the hearing and say, "No, we want to punt it again." So truthfully, I kind of am in agreement with that. This neighborhood was built with a stub to the north. We're tying to the stub to the north. It's public street. So

yeah, I mean a lot of a lot of their arguments are are are kind of mute on that. And then as far as the drainage, that is all going to be taken care of in permitting and between that and permits the DEQ for right septic on what can be built here. Yeah. There this what this thing is going to end up looking like is going to be decided by a bunch of people not in this room.

Well, if I might just so I can defend my honor to some extent. Yeah, I did tell him I get back. It was the holidays and my clients I mean a lot of people were out of town and I tried and I apologize for that. I told him that but he's correct. I mean he did say provide something. We talked about reducing the number of lots. Um you know I also I know it's the 30 that kicks in but you've got to have emergency access and this is going to be the only one. And that's just I just feel like it's a little premature. I understand I've done this as long or longer than Dave and you always hear it'll be handled at this stage and that's fair enough but many times when we have a lot of unanswered question that are going to be solved at another stage maybe they need to be solved before just I I hate to do things on the fly and that's what you know I know you want to move it along and he wants to move his client's application along and and I think all we're saying is hey give us more time but that's certainly up to you guys but As I said, we're happy to meet again. Um I I just like I said, I I think in terms of like process, I I think it it should be a a standard that if you're going to go meet and the other side asked you to propose had they proposed reduction in lots, well, my client could have considered it. They could have had their engineer draw it up. They could have decided whether or not that works. But to provide nothing in terms of a response other than we don't want you to be here on this public street, I don't find that a reasonable position. and and there will be this is not the final ending spot. We all know that this there will be a time six, eight weeks before this goes to council.

I fear I'm going to be standing at this podium talking about this case many more times.

I I do have one question, Barry, if I could ask for your assistance again. Uh, one of the things that came up was, um, initially it was presented that, you know, the residents didn't want the street and it was turned over to the city and it sounds to me like that was out of outside of their control and it was default of the developer. I I think I I get it. I have an idea of which direction this is going, but I'm going to ask this question just forformational purposes. On the chance that this doesn't move forward, is there a process within the city to basically take roads back to private after they've been made public? There is a process for that. Um I can honestly say in my entire career uh doing development from the outside consulting side and now working with the city, I have never seen that happen.

It's always the other way. It's always wanting to go the other direction, go from private to public. Uh, but that would be something that yeah, that it is a possibility. I couldn't tell you what the process is because I've never actually never gone through that, but it's something I've never seen happen either.

The process is this. All of the neighbors would have to get together and submit an application to close the street. my client would object because it is a public street that provides the single access point now to this. If somehow the city council were to approve that closing application over my client's objection, they would have to file a vacation action in district court. I find it impossible that the district court would vacate this single point of access to this property, thereby creating a landlock landlock parcel. And and my qu Thank you for that. My question was just is it possible not how probable is it? So yes, everything is possible.

You've seen street stubs that are closed up against like a rural neighborhood when it's a kind of a more dense neighborhood or kind of the opposite. Uh but to privatize an entire neighbor's street to Barry's point, I I know it's a tall order, but yeah, I I was asking because they ex we heard from several folks that that was their desire. That was what they bought into. And my question was on the on the chance that this doesn't happen, even though zoning might happen, but if the development doesn't happen, do they have uh the opportunity to pursue that?

Yeah. So uh in theory I guess yes they could pursue it. Now the reality I don't want to get too deep into what the law would say but there are so few instances in which the law provides for a private individual to utilize condemnation proceedings. We could institute a private condemnation action thereby condemning an easement to access their what perhaps became a private street. All right I think we've gotten far off into the weeds. Um, any other comments, questions from commissioners? Huh? I think we're ready for a motion. Um, and as far as the tees, we're agreeable all but one. Is that

Let's just say we'll disagree to all four and and we'll figure it out with the engineer. Agreed to all four. Okay. Reluctantly. I'll tell you that or lose a lot. for me. So, okay, I will move to recommend approval of PUD 2123 um to agree to all four TE's.

A motion from Commissioner Privet to recommend the item to city council subject to the technical evaluations. Yep. Got it. That's seconded by Commissioner of Affords. Please cast your votes. While those are processing, I'll just mention the neighbors that this is a recommendation to city council. So, keep an eye out on their agenda for this item to be heard again in approximately 6 to 8 weeks. That item is recommended for approval.

Thank you. Item 12. Item 12 is KCPA 20259, consideration of a proposed map amendment to the comprehensive plan. This is located at south of Northwest 36th Street and west of North Frisco Road and it would change uh the layer to uh employment the designation. Planning Muiki Ortiz for the planning department CPA 2025009. The request is to remove the urban future uh from the layer from the urban low land use typology area and replace it with the employment layer. The associated zoning applications are put 21105 and 2124. The subject area is located to the west of the city. In terms of LUDA, there's a combination between Urban Low and Urban Future Ludas in the site. Um also and I I forgot to mention it um the original request was for a smaller area but the um staff recommended to make the the area bigger just you know to cover the whole area. Uh in terms of land use um almost the whole site is undeveloped with some residential um in the site and some to the west and south of the site. In terms of zoning, um this uh Puty 1637 and agricultural 1637 at one point was for like entertainment uses or something like that.

In terms of water, the subject is located um outside of um to serve is in a area identified as not efficient to serve. The applicant has indicated that they're proposing to extend water for domestic and fire uses. In terms of the su uh sewer, the subject is located out in an area uh need for major invest investment. Um the applicant has proposed to extend connectivity to the Oklahoma City sewer services for domestic domestic uses too. In terms of emergency services, a little bit of the site is within the urban area for um emergency services, but the rest of the site is within the rural response area for emergency services. Um in terms of a street typology um there is um a highway um that is our propose is to um cover this with an employment layer. So having uh very good access is good to have an employment area here. The findings the applicant has proposed extending water and sewer services for domestic and fire services. The extension of water and sewer infrastructure to this area will support and enable future development in this area. In the site's proximity to I40 supports the appropriateness of an employment designation and aligns with plan OC policies. Based on the findings above, the staff recommends approval. I don't know if there's any questions.

Any questions, comments for staff? Commissioner Meek, this is your ward. I have a few folks signed up to speak. Uh, let's hear from them.

Okay. Now, before I call you, so you have there were several of you that signed up for this item and the next two items. If you'd like to speak on this item only, I'll I'll call your name. You can come up and speak on the comp plan amendment if you have questions or comments. If you really signed up for the next two items, um, I will move your sheet to those items, but I'm going to ask that you keep your questions and comments to this comp plan change. So, uh, Stephen Jones, Stephen Jones, Yukon, Oklahoma. Uh, actually 1033 Yukon, Oklahoma. Uh, move to the next item. Okay, thank you. And if if the next few folks if you just want to move to the next item, just raise your hand when I call your name. Uh Michelle Mitchell Syler.

Okay. Deborah Brown.

Can you come up to the mic, please? So bas basically an employment late. I'm gonna ask you to repeat the question for the record. Okay. Okay. Deborah Brown 15500 West Reno in Yukon, but I'm Oklahoma City limits. Okay. Um just kind of curious what an employment layer is. So basically what we do with an employment layer is that we reserve that area to become employment of offices or manufacturing. Um so it's a way of preserving that area that it cannot be residential developed as residential. It has to be developed as some kind of employment to provide jobs. Okay. Thank you.

Adam Stafford,

Adam Slatterie. Okay. Third grade handwriting. um 2300 Shell Creek Road, Oklahoma City. Um I'm would like to speak more on the other two topics, but I'll hold those comments for them. But my question is the applicant the applications for the next two items. Um call this land to be urban and urban future. So how are the applications if this is approved? Does this mean the land is for employment zone? So the applicant is asking for something that's not in the use. Does that make sense?

This applica this the what's before us right now would allow for what's going to be proposed in the next two applications. But there was proposed in the next two applications saying that the land the current land use is for urban and urban loaf in the comprehensive plan. So that would automatically change the the the applications and we'll we will get to those. Okay. So but yeah, this is basically a precursor that allows the next two applications be heard. Okay. Say the rest.

Okay. Any other questions, comments from commissioners? All right. We're ready for a motion.

Okay. I uh to go on record, I did speak to staff and try to figure out all what the employment uh overlay did include. It covers everything ju it just forbids residential. It allows even warehousing which would be very low employment numbers. So I believe uh with it abuing I40 on both sides, I don't believe it ever end up uh residential. And I'm good with this uh CPA. We have staff recommending approval. So unless any other commissioners have any comments, I'm ready to move uh move to approve CPA 202500009.

All right, we have a motion uh from Commissioner Meek to approve CPA 25 2025 09. Waiting on a second. That's from Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. Okay, that item is approved. Item 13. Item 13 is PUD 21105. Application, there we go. I don't think that's me.

Application to reszone 3025 North Frisco Road from AA and PUD 1637.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11 Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, also with me is Mark Zitzo, [snorts] as well as the applicant team. We've got a host of people that have flown in to be here. We have what we believe to be everybody here today that would be able to answer any questions that either the commission staff or members of the public may have. So, uh, this is an item that has been discussed for quite some time. If you look at the front page of your staff report, you'll note that this was originally scheduled to come on the October 9th planning commission meeting. Um, the application is for a data center. And what that is, I'll have one of my clients kind of briefly get into that, but this is a new concept for Oklahoma City. And so the staff and I think probably most of the planning commission wanted us to defer it. There were there was a study session that was held. There were lots of meetings that we had at multiple levels of staff. So, we want to thank them for all their uh time and attention to this. And we wanted to find a way to make sure that we had a process and procedure that made sense from not only a public hearing process, but also uh ultimately a regulatory process. And what you see through this PUD is maybe a little different in that the PUD is fairly standard I1 PUD, but as it relates to the regulations for data centers, it's contained in exhibit D. And so exhibit D of the PUD is entitled data center regulations. Why that's important is you have one singular exhibit that really contains all of what you would need to know as it relates to the use and intensity of the land for for the data center specific uh uses. So at the outset I do want to note that some of the things that we have done from a land use perspective to uh ensure that we have a compatible land use is we have taken the overall uh decibel reading from a noise standpoint and reduced that down. Uh so 65 dBA is what the zoning district would allow at the property

line under I1 zoning. What we have done is in the exhibit D reduce that down to no more than 60 DBA. Um, I think that's significant given what we are adjacent to. My guess is that the Interstate 40 uh highway network would produce far greater decel reading than a 60. So that I think is an important component of this because I think what you're going to hear potentially is that the noise associated with these are a concern. So um the other major case we had in W 3 over the last several years obviously noise was a big concern. Um so here we got out ahead of it and reduced it down on ourselves. The other thing we've done is we have uh created setbacks. So within the exhibit D for this PUD, we have a 150 foot setback from the east, west, and south boundaries of the putt. Within that, then we also say because we have some flood plane uh that trees shall be preserved within the existing FEMA FEMA designated flood plane adjoining the westernmost point of the PD boundary to the greatest extent possible. So uh what that means is what we're worried about with the 150 ft measurement is how it might get measured. So 150 ft but within the FEMA regulated flood plane uh we will preserve the trees. In addition, we have a 50ft landscape buffer surrounding the entirety of the site uh to the east and to the south. The reason you don't see one on the north jar, can you go to the aerial? There you go. Uh so th this this item, the one north of I40 is part of a u kind of a larger scale project in that the northern piece of this is actually within the city of Yukon city limits. That is why you don't have a tree buffer there because the northern line will really just be one and the same with this project. The entitlement process for the city of Yukon is done. City of Yukon created in their base zoning

districts a data center use unit, reszoned the property in a manner that would allow for the data center and then we came forward with with this part of it. So, um, with that, I'm going to have my client get up here and just kind of briefly explain for those who who may not know, they've heard what a data center is, but a kind of high level, this is what a data center is and does. Hello. Uh my name is Ryan Sanders with Beltline Energy. We're at 154 Crog Street in Atlanta, Georgia. Um I've had the opportunity to engage with many of you um many of you extensively as we work through this project plan. Um a data center is a at a high level it's a piece of digital infrastructure that processes digital compute. Um, traditionally we had data centers that were powering the cloud, the internet, the the images on your phone. Um, as digital infrastructure advanced, we now have the advent of artificial intelligence, AI, and the need for digital compute has exponentially grown. This facility here is located on a point in the OG OG energy grid that is significantly quote unquote firm such that it's a good advantageous location to receive a large load of energy. Um we have been working with OG& for extensive period of time um negotiating the terms of an energy commitment at this location. um this facility would start its useful life as a AI data center um participating in that large compute that we that we're reading about all the time. Um part of the ad of the appeal of this location is it's in the path of progress. This is the future growth area where the city is heading. Um so later in the useful life of this facility, there might be

alternative use cases for it. It might be used in the future. um for more mundane uses like cloud computing and you know um your more traditional use cases that gives this facility a lot of resiliency and so that is at a high level what a data center is and we very much appreciate your consideration. So from a land use perspective, I think maybe what's important to to think through is when we think about land use decisions, the thing we're thinking about is compatibility. Is what is proposed compatible with what is surrounding? Here we have an industrial I1 [clears throat] base zoning district. Oftent times industrial uses the concerns are traffic noise. We've addressed that with the decibel and um kind of overall use of say the roadway network. Well, this is a highly highly low use when it comes to traffic. Oftentimes industrial use, we contemplate, you know, semi-trailers and constant truck traffic at all hours of the night. You know, you're not going to have that here. This is going to be a highly secure, highly fenced area and one that I think will from Liie's perspective have a very minimal impact and minimal footprint on the surrounding uses. The other thing that we think through when we talk about data centers and you know we we talked a little bit about it in our our zoom meetings that we had uh deals with the the use of the infrastructure as my client said they you know they started this process I think probably talking to Oene before they talked to anyone else uh power is an important component of it uh but also how you're going to cool it whether it be air cooled treated wastewater what happens with the portable water all of which we have talked extensively with staff and I think we're comfortable with where we are both from a operations standpoint, but also from uh being a good citizen of the Oklahoma City from a usage standpoint, which I think leads us to the technical evaluations. So, if you

look at the technical evaluations, there are seven of them on this application and six of them on the next application. So, we good news, we agree to T number one, uh we will give sidewalks. Um and that's where that's where we kind of need to start talking more about it. So TE number two asks to modify exhibit D and again exhibit D is where the uh data center regulations are housed. Modify exhibit D to require generator enclosures uh to be walls that extend a minimum of 5 ft above the height of the generator. So we can't agree to that. Um if you look at how these buildings are laid out, it is likely that the uh generators can be within generator yards housed between buildings. We are certainly willing to agree to have some form uh of structure surrounding it. Uh in fact, if you look at exhibit D, it says all generators shall be surrounded by architectural enclosures consistent with permitted building materials that shall consist of sound dampening materials or a masonry wall in conformance with noise standards or other restrictions included herein. Um, the concern we have with the way TE2 is drafted is some of the generators could have components like exhaust or other things that come off of it uh at a height that would require a massive wall to be built. We believe that the way we have handled it through uh exhibit D is the proper way to do it. If the concern is noise associated with generators, of course, we've already reduced down the allowable decibel readings uh within exhibit D, which we think uh solves that problem. So we would ask to strike TE number two. TE3 says modify exhibit D to limit generator testing to once per month and to identify specific weeks during each month where testing will and will not be done. So we can't agree to that. What we

have done though is we have already limited oursel in exhibit D to limit the testing to Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 4 pm. That coupled with the reduction in decibel readings we think solves any problem that was sought to be prevented through TE number three. Now often times when we see the discussion here about generators we're close to single family residential. I know Miss Powers has one in particular that she's concerned about that happened along Western Avenue where a generator behind a bank is right up against a single family home. When they test that, there's no limitation on the hours. They test it at night sometimes. Restricting the hours to Monday through Friday, uh 10 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. What we've attempted to do is to ensure that we're doing it at a time when most people are going to be gone at at work or out and about. So, we have intentionally sought not to do it on the weekends, not to do it at night, and not to do it early in the morning. TE4 modify exhibit D to specify that portable water may only be used for domestic and fire purposes and must be provided only by Oklahoma City. So, we do agree with that. The concern there is not using uh portable water for cooling. So, we agree to that, but we want to make sure that we uh include the ability to have portable water for landscaping uh that we have on site. TE5 states, modify exhibit D to specify that cooling shall be done with treated wastewater only and not through air cooling systems. We do not agree with that. Um with all due respect to Oklahoma City planning staff, uh we believe that our users, our operators are probably the ones in a best position to decide what is the best method to cool these. We need to have the ability to have air cooling as part of our uh process. Again, if the concern with the air cooled systems is noise, we've already reduced down the decibel reading

at the property line. So, I think we've solved that problem. Uh TE number six, modify exhibit D to specify that cooling water shall be treated wastewater only from an Oklahoma City source. Um we don't know if we agree to this. Our understanding is the concern here is they don't want the um lines that would run the treated wastewater to come from the city of Yukon. I think we're we're fine with that. Uh but what we want to make clear is if the city of Oklahoma City is going to buy water from Yukon and sell it to us, we're fine with that. If this is meant to mean that we have to run 20 plus miles of pipe to get from Oklahoma City sites to the facility, that is a a line item number that is it's unconscionable and we cannot agree to it. So, we would seek to strike TE6. Finally, TE7, a letter from the local electricity provider is required explaining the electricity generation capacity impacts of a successful application to residential, commercial, and industrial sites within the transmission station service area to include all phases of the project from initial construction to final buildout of the site. We likewise cannot agree to that. Um, we have no ability to build this if we cannot be served by the local electricity provider. If you ever work with uh utility companies, they are not a group of people that enjoy putting things in writing that can be used against them in the future or other proceedings. So, we cannot agree that one. I don't think it's a possibility. I do not believe that the local electricity provider would be willing to provide a letter uh that said anything like that. just like I don't think Oklahoma City utility department if forced to put something in writing would commit to future ability to do certain things. So we can't build it if it can't be served. Uh we are comfortable with where we are with OG. We've talked with them for months and months and months

extensively and simply put we can't build it if we can't get served. So um with that I'm sure I'll be asked again by about many of these TEES but um that's where we are on the tees. Like I said, we've got a host of people here that um our our hope is can answer any question you might have and we'd ask for your approval.

Um we have people signed up to speak. We do. Yes.

Okay. Um, normally I go straight to the people signed up to speak, but before I do that, I wanted to address a few things regarding the TEES that we've just recently spoke about. Um, we have been heavily involved in this for many months. Um, there was a delegation of people from Oklahoma City that were even sent to tour a hypers scale data center so we could learn about it. which uh helped us understand better what we wanted and made and didn't want and needed to make sure how to protect the city and the neighbors um in the area from things that were uh not going to be good. I think staff's done a real good job with this. I think some of the TE's that are problematic are like really close to to you know fitting but but we're not all the way there. And then there's a few tees that I think are better off addressed in the exhibit D that they're written I believe better to protect the city in exhibit D than what the TE would do. So we will get down into it after we've heard from the neighbors. Um there's some uh there's a lot of stuff out on the airwaves, you know, whether it be social media or um in protest letters that we've received. Um I've read them all. I can't speak for every commissioner, but I'm sure they have. Also, um there's rumors that what we're approving today, coupled with Yukon, is over a thousand acres. Um I can assure you that what uh not approving today what we're talking about today is two puds. This one and the next case um and this one is 111 acres. The next case is

18 184 and Yukon's is 185. So I can promise you that all together encompassing even the Yukon project it's 480 total acres. Um, jumping into the power portion of this, I agree that this is a ramp up project that OG& has met with, the city has met with um this commissioner has met with uh been to a study session that the planning commission held and um and also obviously has met with the applicants because they're the ones going to be buying the power. Um, OG& has promised uh a certain ramp up schedule that they they could provide so much per quarter or per year so that it doesn't affect the grid and it doesn't affect the neighbors and it doesn't affect industrial, institutional or residential service, which is all of us in here. So that's their number one thing. I spoke to Mr. Jim Eldridge today from OG regarding TE number 7. He said there are complex negotiations ahead. that's with OG& and and the applicant that that there's no reason to even talk about it until proper zoning is approved and through planning commission and council that um evaluations of plans and uh applications are required and that OG has is u OG is under multiple regulatory systems including the corporation commission and so until all of these negotiations are done. They can't provide the letter that's been requested. Um, but the letter could be provided at a later date. So, T number seven doesn't have a timeline on when

that letter is required. But I also agree with the applicant that if they couldn't get the power, they can't build the product. OG in my opinion and I'm just a regular person. They're not going to provide or promise to provide more quarterly or yearly to an applicant then they can keep a safe buffer in our grid system. With that, I would like to start hearing from the neighbors.

Okay, great. We'll hear from Miss Stephanie Berdine. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Am I close enough? Yeah, I might just ask you to speak up a little bit.

Okay. Um, that's a first. Um, Stephanie Berdine, 515 Maple, Yukon. Um, I'm here because even though I'm a Yukon resident, I'm surrounded by Oklahoma City on three sides. Oklahoma City is the largest municipality in Canadian County. And the decisions you all are going to make today on this don't just affect Oklahoma City, they affect Yukon and they affect the whole state because the water that's going to be needed is going to come from the North Canadian River. It's um a fairly reliable source for our water, but you all know Oklahoma City, Yukon, Western Oklahoma always on the outlook for water. Now, Yukon's going to use gray water for their part of this. supposedly beltline has tentatively agreed to pay for that part of it. Um Mr. Box has said that is uh not feasible for them for the Oklahoma City. Take into consideration though that the endusers are all major tech companies that makes that make tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of profit per quarter. Per quarter. They can afford all the pipes that you all would need. But are those pipes worth it? Because we need the surface water. Not if if we if if this goes to an aquafer that the the state's done because farmers aren't going to be able to pull water out. Rural homeowners aren't going to be able to pull water out of the ground. Where's the water

going to come from to make the money that the oil feed field brings in and the water that's needed for that. Now, the surface water in the Canadian River starts in New Mexico. I'm sure y'all are aware of [clears throat] that. and flows to Lake Eupfala. Um, if Yukon doesn't put their gray water back in the river, that's less water for Oklahoma City and everybody downstream. I think the people that have lakeouses at you follow want to keep their boats on the water fishing, water skiing, and enjoying the water.

Ma'am, can I jump in here real quick? I'm sorry. And you'll still have your time to speak. Um, this PUD as written has what's called an exhibit D. An exhibit D has all the guidelines for this PUD to be approved. Uh, if it is approved with what's written into this exhibit D, there will not be any water that is used to cool this data facility.

The public specifically, it says in this exhibit D um that there is a restriction on private wells. they're not allowed to drill a well and use it for cooling. That there is a restriction on potable water that is only allowed to be used for fire protection and domestic use only. That's bathrooms, flushing toilets, washing hands. That's it. And so I just wanted to save you that time regarding

Okay. Well, I just want to make my point that the water that these things need to cool is supposedly going to come from gray water that's not going to go back in the North Canadian River. That water's got to come from somewhere. And we just don't have a lot of it here in Oklahoma. And this isn't the only data centers being proposed in the state. So this this decision today, even though it only involves under 500 acres, is just a piece of a really big picture. And you all need to take that into consideration. And as far as OG& is concerned, they did a really good job last year getting laws passed to go ahead and make regular customers start paying for any new construction that could begin to save us money on interest instead of building it and giving the whole bill to once again the end users that make billions of dollars a year. Now, this is a first for Oklahoma City on this kind of scale, but it might not be a category we want as a first. And I really hope you all will seriously think of the big picture and long-term effects of this because it's not as pretty as the little charts and the stuff Mr. Box has told you. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Miss Berdai. Cheyenne Morgan. Cheyana.

Hello. Hi. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. I'll just ask that you speak up a little bit.

Okay. Um, hi. My name is Cheyana. Uh I am coalition coordinator of stop data colonialism. Um it is not lost on me that Oklahoma is becoming the center of the race for the hypers scale data centers with many proposed throughout Oklahoma um and several proposed for eastern Oklahoma. Um it's also not lost on me that the state was founded on land theft and exploitation. We can sit here and speculate about the economic benefits and the possible benefits that hypers scale data centers have on local economies, but people know that industries and corporations lie in order to gain manufacturer consent. While our lands are decimated with little to no accountability, tribes and state taxpayers are left holding the bag when industries make mistakes that impact us. It's easy to see green when developers present you with the hope of increased tax revenue and jobs. The facts are that hypers scale data centers have harsh impacts on the environment and the people around these data centers. These aren't scare tactics. We have seen these h these things happen in places like Memphis and Boardman, Oregon, where the Amazon data center has been linked to increased miscarriages and cancer rates. Hyperscale data centers are frequently bringing in outofstate contractors and only offer tens of permanent jobs once those facilities are completed. Furthermore,

uh that's all I have for today. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Miss Morgan.

Ashley Lamont. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Ashley Lamont and I am the national campaigns director for Honor the Earth, a decades old international environmental and indigenous rights organization. I also live downstream. We've been heavily engaged in the national fight against hypers scale data centers and we are committed to sharing factual and scientific information about their impacts with communities in the midst of industry falsehoods. Recently, we've witnessed an uptick of these sort of proposals threatening our lifeways by targeting our lands. We do not want to see this agricultural land reszone for industrial purposes and certainly not for a hyperskll data center which is unnecessary technology and will only do the work of taking jobs away from ordinary Oklahomaans by replacing human labor with artificial intelligence. Uh, and just to correct the record, a hypers scale data center is actually a massive facility built to house the machines that power artificial intelligence, store digital data, and support cryptocurrency. These centers can consume as much water and power as entire towns and cities. This information is verified already. You can look it up yourself. Um, next I want to be clear that hypers scale data centers are absolutely not light industrial by any means and should not be reszoned as such. In this item there is an exhibit D that you've already referred to the data center development regulations that I would like to address. These regulations are suggesting that noise should be no more than 60 dB per hour. This is definitely an admirable suggestion, but the science is clear that hypers scale data centers are very harmful to the

human ear. These centers average upwards of 97 dB of sound pollution inside the facility and it is already established that long-term exposure to 70 dB or more can cause permanent hearing loss and damage to the human ear. These regulations also do not take into account that data centers run 24 hours. So this means constant low frequency noise that will absolutely be noticeable for constituents at night. I also honestly question and I hope you do too, how the company will achieve these low numbers when there is widespread factual vetted scientific scientific information about these facilities and their impacts that these these numbers in the proposal simply do not reflect. This hypers scale data center will be relying on the public grid which we've already mentioned the same grid that constituents are already seeing as faulty and expensive. We know that hypers scale data centers bring with them extraordinarily hefty electricity needs and costs. Costs that are put on the shoulders of rateayers who are already telling the corporation commission we are paying too much and we don't want to pay more. These data centers have raised electricity costs upwards of 200% in some parts of the nation. We also know the sudden uptick in unnecessary hypers scale data centers is related to the recent resurgence of talks around nuclear technology in the state. These data centers often require so much energy that entire new power plants need to be built to meet their demand. Oklahomaans already fought down nuclear. This proposal is suggesting that solar power should be used as an alternative to provide energy to this facility. I'm definitely in favor for that over nuclear, but this will also require a massive industrial solar farm that will

also take up a lot of land. In addition to proposing to raise our electricity costs even more, it is important to consider the energy and generators that power hypers scale data centers. They emit dangerous fumes that include fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants can trigger and worsen health issues including asthma, respiratory issues, and heart attacks. These are all things Oklahomaman do not want. As for light pollution, we have reports from former data center workers in Virginia who describe the facility's light pollution as easily seen for miles and it glows at night like a giant city of lights. The night sky is glowing like a meteorite just crashed into the woods, humming, pulsating, glowing. D d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d da centers are incompatible with our communities because they deploy bright security lighting under utilities. These facilities require portable water.

35 remain. Uh the harsh impacts hypers scale data centers have on our water cannot be overstated. They require huge amounts of portable water to function and cool their machines. We're talking millions of gallons of water. This water cannot be returned to the hydraulic cycle because of contamination. Although these companies try to say that hypothetical technologies exist, it is not true. Data centers are already consuming over 25% of our local community water supplies in certain areas. Many people report loss of water pressure in their homes nearby where data centers are built. These facilities are an extreme danger to precious water resources and will impact Oklahoma families directly. Please vote no.

Thank you. I could hear that one. Thank you. Charles Scott. Good afternoon.

Thank you, Charles Scott. My address is 504 Frisco Frisco Ridge Road, Yukon, Oklahoma. Uh thank you for letting me provide these comments and uh just a little bit of back my background. I have 40 years experience in environmental impact assessment and mitigation. Uh my background is in biology and chemistry. Uh but I'm retired. I I I live in Yukon. I'm retired. Uh I had planned to provide substantive comments today in opposition to 21105. But what why I'm changing my comments today is based on Tuesday's Yukon City Council meeting. And during that SA city council meeting, they're making amendment. Can you hear me? Okay.

Yes, sir. uh they were making amendments to their water ordinance to provide for an industrial water use and including a reclaimed water use. Uh and if you know the term reclaimed water use is a term that DEEQ uses for class three waters um that is treated wastewater and one of the uses is for cooling water. Uh uh at this city council meeting I had prepared comments specifically for PUD 21105 and specifically to section 7.3. I won't read it because you can see what it says. uh my prepare uh I was I found it very odd that um the clause required the city of Yukon to provide water to Oklahoma City. Uh the city council had no knowledge that this zoning application made this commitment to the city. The council expressed strong dismay that no one communicated this to the city and as required no one sought the council's approval which would be required. The city's water ordinance mandates that no water shall be provided outside the city limits of Yukon. Okay. So moving forward with this application as currently written would cause the city of Yukon to violate its own ordinance. I think you have the power to probably not do that because it's a major problem. So Beltline has said they don't think they can move reclaimed water 20 miles. Well, they also can't get it from from Yukon. They have agreed to pay for the Yukon portion of that line from the wastewater treatment facility to the Yukon portion. That water cannot go

across uh city limit lines to Oklahoma City. So I think this has to be held in obeyance or or deferred at some point because it's uh got a major errors in that section. Actually it's also in section 7.2 two on sewer water but u so I'll provide later comments when the application has been corrected and resubmitted and thank you

thank you Mr. Scott, Sam Minnik. Good afternoon. Uh Sam Minnik, 2001 Shell Creek Road. I live about a half a mile from here. If you would could you back up that picture a little bit and show the housing edition right next to this industrial complex. Uh right there you can see the Yukon where the black line goes. That's a real nice addition right there. Um I have a business here in Oklahoma City and I I am I border a data center. Yeah, we're about a quarter mile wide. Um I can't get far enough on my property for it not to be extremely loud air cooling. And if I'm not mistaken, the applicant said he wasn't going to do what you asked him to do. He said, "We're going to do air cooling." When the the city said, "We'd like you to do it." He said, "You're saying he's not going to do that. He's not going to write that out." He also said that he wasn't going to comply with your electrical requirements. He also said he wasn't going to require um with your water requirements. If you ask me, this is more of a land use issue. Why are you locating something away from everything you need. Really, this intersection is an extremely hot intersection. They just built it um right right south of it on Q just came in the Oklahoma's largest ENQ. Um, I've talked to some planning commission guys around Oklahoma City and they're saying this is one of the hottest places in Oklahoma City for retail development for best land use, for employment use. I don't know how many people are hired in a data center, but I bet it's not a lot. Um, if we're

going to AI, is anybody going to be employed there at all? Maybe. I'm sure some. Um, I'm sorry. I should have come and talked to you about this ahead of time. I see this as the land use issue that they're they're putting something in in the hottest county. We were the hottest builder Canadian County in the United States for a long time and still are all the way from south of Mustang to north of Yukon. This area is hot for residential use. It's a bedroom community and here we are trying to build a really ugly industrial center. I'm right next to a to a data center. I've run equipment all my life. mining, trucking. This place is crazy 24/7. I live next to the highway. I'm about a half mile away. I can hear the highway. If you live right next to it like this would be, it'd be pretty loud sometimes. The noise from the data center never stops ever. If it's water cooled, maybe. Why are they not saying that we'll haul in water from where they can? Um, and if I'm not mistaken, there's a recall petition for Yukon for approving this in the first place because it really went under the radar for everybody. They should have approved some of the other things that were going in there besides the data center. So, I'm I am opposed to it. I think that they should be somewhere else a little bit more industrial. If you look Richland Road, one mile over is Simmeron Road. The city of Oklahoma City is proposing a very, very large industrial center out there. Is this going to interfere with that with the water needs, with the electricity needs, all that kind of stuff. That's a several square mile area that they're trying to to get approved. And I think this is going to interfere with it. I'm not an expert on that, but I did hear the applicant say he's not going to do what you asked him to do. And

I get complaints from the city for some of the things I do and I file. I have to f I have to pay a penalty. What's the penalty going to be when they break the sound decibb all the time? Are we going to shut them down or we just going to give them a $50 penalty? Are they just going to pay it and say, "Okay, big deal. That's part of business." I think that's what the plan is. They've already said that they're going to do air cooling whether you like it or not because they're the experts. You made a comment earlier about don't believe all the stuff you read on the internet and all that kind of stuff. I read the news a lot. If I'm not mistaken, our president just said he wants to require the data centers to pay for the upgrades to run it. And I' we had a lot of complaints about that. We have seen electricity go up. You know, we've had doesn't happen in Oklahoma. Thank you. So far, we haven't had rolling blackouts here out in California. They destroy all their electricity grid. They have rolling blackouts all over the place.

You have about 30 seconds left. Okay, down in Texas, our great neighbors to the south, same thing's happening with them. They cut their electricity grid. They have rolling blackouts. Is this going to do some of that? And then later on, we're going, "Wow, it does have something to do with that. Let us just pay more money in taxes rather than them." But they've already said they're not going to do it. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you, Mr. Minnie. Ronnie Short.

Good afternoon.

Hello, Ronnie Short 970 Dover Mansion in Yukon, Oklahoma. You know, I'm just a pawpaw raising a, you know, children and grandchildren. I got three generations in Yukon and the amount [clears throat] of water these places use. 8 point or 1.8 billion gallons of water a year. That's a lot of water. You know, we seem to just be fighting Yukon left and right. It's one thing after another. And we know OG& is going to raise our rates. They always do. They don't go before anybody and say, you know, we need to raise our rates. They just do it. And we all know that they don't live here. It's not going to affect them. They're going to go home to where they live and it's just not going to affect them. I'm just real concerned about whatever things what's happening in Yukon right now. It's just big concern. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Short.

All right. Uh Adam Slatterie, you want to talk on this item? Adam Sluttery, 2300 Shell Creek Road. Um, when I attended the October 30th study session meeting with this commission, um, there was a lot of lot of questions and a lot of thoughtful questions and important questions. It seems like you guys have been working through some of those, but you're not there. There's still questions. um you know, brought up at that time, the staff referenced several municipalities who had data center um zoning requirements. To my knowledge, you guys have not passed that yet. Correct. the city council. Um, and they they require multiple these other municipalities, Yukon included, little Yukon, um, has quote, um, a good, you know, a good zoning ordinance for data centers. Um, it was also stated that many many municipalities require utility signoff. They say they they can't get that. Okay. Noise studies, flood studies, environmental impact assessments, um evaluations of impact on city services. Um given the given the scale, intensity, and long-term nature of data centers, um approving this without without the requirements that you guys spoke about at your at your meeting um and safeguards in place would be pre premature in my opinion. Um at this time I you know we should be able to table it or deny it all together. Um you know the applicant says you know they've met with you you all. Why not meet with us? You met in Luther,

right? You met with the citizens of Luther. Um our city council woman has told me that she's asked for meetings to meet with the public. um some certain topics, you know, certain things within the application. Um the zoning the it it's I find it funny that that it's I1 is harmonious with the surrounding area. Is I1 harmonious with agriculture as as the land is zoned today? I don't think so. Um, you know, approving approving this would change would approving this change. It would set a pres precedent that could dramatically alter the character of the surrounding properties and that corridor. Um, the issue of water usage, we've talked about it. Um, I've not seen I've not seen exhibit D1 or exhibit D. That's maybe my um bad investigating, but it's not stated in the PUD on the city's website. Um but it says bottle water supply is not contemplated for cooling use yet. It does not identify where the cooling water will come from. Um not to be redundant, but um the gentleman from Yukon uh watched that city council meeting. They were shocked that application 2015 or 21105, I'm sorry. They were shocked that 21105 said that Yukon was going to provide the water. So if Yukon's not going to provide it, where's it going to come from? Um I I can touch on the comprehensive plan. I disagree with the city staff in changing the comprehensive plan respectively. Um nowhere within the comprehensive plan as their language that supports changing an urban or urban future to a

you know to an employment or allow an industrial use. Um, but that's [clears throat] water under the bridge. Now, um, the biggest thing I I think that you guys spoke about at your October 30th meeting is a decommissioning plan. There's no decommissioning plan to my knowledge that have you guys received a decommissioning plan because it's hot right now, but what is five and 10 years going to bring? Um, you know, the data centers are highly specialized facilities and without a clear plan for decommissioning, we re we the neighbors risk um being left with a large obsolete structure in our backyard. Um, a decom commissioning plan should be a requirement before any approval is granted.

Um, 30 seconds. Okay. And I I would address and I got a qu question for the applicant, but I'm sure they won't answer, but Mr. Mr. Meek, you said you have seen um you know hearsay of a thousand acres. Do you have do you have any more um land under contract in this area? So there's m there's multiple there's NDA signs. So but there's multiple other parcels of land. This is not a 300 acre development. This is much of a much larger scale moving south to 10th Street. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Slatter. Can I speak to before we call someone else? Chairman. Sure.

Okay. I want to respond a little bit about from Mr. Slattery. Um it's unfortunate that you don't have the exhibit D because it does have a lot of stuff. It even has the requirement for the decommissioning plan. I can't give you my only copy because I got

Can I [clears throat] It starts right here. It's three pages long. Exhibit D is specifically about a data center and uh you know we can I think it'd help with some comments if we just run through some high points regarding exhibit D because there's people that are coming up here to speak against it when there's a lot of this information included in it. Um it's not just a list of tees that they don't want to agree to. Most of it is because it's being dealt with in exhibit D that has to go with this PUD. Same as the next case, it cannot be approved. They can't if it's appro approved with the exhibit D, it follows the PUD forever unless they come back and start this whole process over again. So, I just wanted to uh

you put that up on the monitor so we can't see it. It's currently up on your monitor right now, sir. Okay.

Okay. It is now. Okay. It's up online now on the PUD district uh uh okc.gov under PUD districts. It's been uploaded onto that website under 21105. Um so and not and I'll address comments regarding that ready for the next person. Okay. Uh Deborah Brown. Hello. I'm Deborah Brown, 15500 West Reno, and I just want to thank you guys for listening to um the concerns that we have. Um, I've been sitting back here and I've I've watched the attorney uh for the plaintiff shake his head about what's in the 21105 um the 7.3. It clearly says that Yukon will provide water um for this. You can it's in your it's in your PUD online. Um if you go to 7.3 and that's what um the gentleman was talking about um that Yukon didn't have any idea about that and had not approved it. My concern is that several things that have who's going to hold the data center accountable. Um Oklahoma City annex 320 acres next to where I live. It has a natural gas compression station on it that breaks the sound barrier. I called Oklahoma City, had a gentleman come out and nothing has been done. It is loud. It sounds like a pterodactyl dinosaur and it runs all the time. We had an event for the mayor of El Reno out there and we couldn't even have a conversation

because it was so loud. So, our concern is because these things are written down, who in Oklahoma City is going to hold them accountable because what we have in place right now, doesn't seem to be working. Um, there was another pud that was approved um 1858 at 59th in Frisco, which is in our same area. The entrance was wrong. It was presented and it was approved, but when the builders went out there, it was not correct. The only way we found this out is because the neighbor crossed the road. But nobody's holding these people accountable. And that's what we need you guys and the city council and the people that work for Oklahoma City to do that. There's there's things that you guys are approving for housing that have high-pressure gas lines underneath them. These people cannot build houses on top of those. But yet, that was what was tried on 80 acres that the Owenses own across the road from me. Okay? I know that because my dad owned it previously. Okay?

[snorts] the bad faith things that are put in these puds, if they're going to be approved, they need to be corrected before they're approved. There shouldn't be that big of a hurry to get this done. Get it done, tell us what the tees are, make it right, and then approve it. We shouldn't be getting the cart before the horse. Um because what's written down in this words it if it's our integrity what you say it should be what's on there not not what oh oh we'll correct that later

because all we have is our integrity. Thank you. Thank you Miss Brown. May I real briefly? Sure. Um I think I could address a lot of the confusion. What is posted on the city website is incorrect. the original filing of the PUD referenced using Yukon water. We have of course since modified that the current 7.2 and 7.3 says sanitary sewer and water services shall be in accordance with OKC utility requirements except as modified in exhibit D. So understand the concern when you read that. I don't know why the city website wasn't updated. Prime gov's correct but those provisions have been removed.

All right. Thank you for that clarification. All right, Michelle Mitchell Syler.

Hello. Carmine Mitchell Syler, 12400 Southwest 44th Street, Mustang. Thank you all for your time today. Um, I want to respect your time. So, as you can see, I had several notes, but I'm not going I'm going to try not to repeat what others have said. Um, I would like to add though the gentleman that came up um a couple times before this this gentleman lady and talking about the retail. Um, I have two architects in my family that are currently putting together renderings that should be ready this weekend for retail for that area. the possibilities are endless for that for that area. And um they they really have some exciting plans down right now that they're working on, my husband and my daughter. And um they're plans that would really enrich the lives of the people that you all represent and bring in tax revenue, add jobs. Uh so please keep that in consideration. And I I really believe in what this gentleman said that there's such incredible different uses for that es especially um with the location of it. And uh one other thing I wanted to make sure that the council is aware of a huge huge plan to move water to the southern part of our state and possibly east that is going to start taking place pretty soon. And it is a 40 to 60year plan. So, we are going to take our Oklahoma City water and the the pipeline is going to be huge going way down

south. Um, that will put outside of the data center that's going to, you know, possibly put a strain on Oklahoma City's water. So I would just like for the council to please not necessarily think so much about today, next week, next year, but further down the line because like I said, this is a 40 to 60 year projection of water that's needed to these towns that are many miles south in in Oklahoma. And um so if if that's their projection, then that that's going to be a a lot of water that is taken from Oklahoma City already just even outside of the data center. Thank you all for your time.

Yeah. I I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not familiar with us building a pipeline southeast to send water. We're building one to bring water here. Right. It's coming here. Yeah. It's coming here. It's coming to Oklahoma City. Could I say something? Sure. So, so you're disagreeing? Yes. With me? It it is it's uh my daughter's an architect and she has sat in meetings with the Chickasaws and uh there's a huge need for for water. Well, if they're doing something for Chickasaws, that's something different. What? But it's coming from it's coming from the Oklahoma City water reserves to to go

south and and sir I' I'd be happy to uh give you more validation about that. I mean I will get information from the city. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you for your time. Okay, last person I have is Stephen Jones. Stephen Jones, uh 1033 Montreal Drive, Yukon, Oklahoma. I actually came to talk on uh the terminologies was in um the spot here. Um that being said earlier you mentioned that it was removed. I walked in here and downloaded that uh ordinance um where it states that uh the city of Yukon will provide sewage water and I assume that the gray water would be in that sewage to this data center. What was what was talked about on Tuesday uh at the um city commission meeting was that um that there was no agreement with um any uh facilities outside of Yukon to supply that. So the city council, the mayor, and the city manager um all agreed that there was no agreement there. Um, if that's the case that it was changed, shouldn't the Oklahoma City people um shouldn't this be tabled um and allow the Oklahoma City uh people to um have prior knowledge of that change? So, thank you.

All right. Thank you.

All right. That's all I have signed up to speak. So, Mr. Box, if you'd like to follow up on anything. Actually, let me let me jump in. I've got I'm going to read one paragraph that's in the exhibit D to speak to this gentleman's last comment. Um, and you guys got to understand that this is, you know, I understand it's addressed in a PUD, but there is um water trust, there's utility departments, there's there's a there's a lot of ways to uh address this water issue. where where we the meat and potatoes is that we make sure of is that this thing's not going to be cooled on potable water. They they have the choice to do um evaporative cooling or gray water cooling. Who they get it from, where they get it from, that's there's a lot I do agree that to be worked out, but I want to read you this paragraph in exhibit D. Facilities shall require potable water and sewer service to meet domestic and fire protection needs. must stop there and explain that they have to run water and sewer to their site for fire protection, sprinklers, bathrooms, and sinks. And I do agree that we need to add irrigation. You don't keep the landscape. We're putting a major landscape requirement in this pud surrounding this buffer. And you don't do that without irrigation, and you can't use gray water to irrigate. So, I I'm fine with that. I'm going to keep reading. Pottable water supply is not contemplated for the cooling needs of this facility. The developer in Oklahoma City may enter into one or more agreements which may be granted by OKC with ministerial approval in the future for additional water supply and sewer services. so long as such agreements do not reduce any supply of potable water to Oklahoma City or otherwise deemed to be in the best

interest of Oklahoma City. That's in exhibit D that you guys didn't have. And um that's an important paragraph. Go ahead, Dave.

Yeah. So I I want to make clear so it doesn't appear that something, you know, strange is happening here. Every single SPUD, every single PUD that gets filed at Oklahoma City goes through a process of redlinining. When I file an application or Mark, whoever, staff intakes it and they will make proposed revisions to us through red lines. We then agree to some, don't agree to some, and and send it back. I understand the confusion with what was originally filed, but that's undergone a significant amount of change, which is why now when you look at 7.2 2 and 7.3. It is devoid of any reference to Yukon whatsoever. And all we say is we will meet uh Oklahoma City utility requirements except as modifying exhibit D. And exhibit D only modifies it in the manner in which you just stated. So there will be no Yukon portable water. The only opportunity that we're referencing is the ability to buy gray water from Yukon, but we obviously will have to have it through Oklahoma City or another source. That's all we're saying. Um you you [clears throat] mentioned I think where there was a concern about well water. We do prohibit the ability to to have wells drilled here for wellwater. Um as far as the fumes from the the generators that were referenced that is that that is not only monitored by ODQ but it's also an an EPA related matter. So there's heavy regulations that that govern those. Um, to the comment about this not being compatible with what's surrounding it, it is worth noting that our northern property line is the city of Yukon and it's currently zoned industrial, uh, straight industrial without all of the heavy limitations we've placed on ourselves through this PUD in that city of Yukon uh, parcel. So, um, with that, we're happy to answer any questions. Um, I think I think what I just said addressed things that were kind of left hanging, but if I missed one, we're happy to answer additional.

I did have one. I'm trying to remember. They it's running through my head so fast. But uh one of them that also Mr. Slatterie brought up was that Yukon decided to just write a data center um what's the term

ordinance by itself and I believe we as a commission and Oklahoma City as a city we didn't agree with that because um once an ordinance is written it's black and white there's no negotiations it it can't be changed a PUD is a is a evolving moving agreement that up to this very minute right here, right now, we can make negotiations. And so I agree with the decision that we didn't just pow-wow in a room with people that were, you know, we're all volunteers. This the ordinance would have been written by people in the city and that we would e either had the choice to accept it as it is without one single change because it would be a zoning type. And with the PUD, we're able to, as we sit here right now, decide things. Jumping into that comment about deciding things. I, as the W3 planning commissioner, I understand this is I1 light industrial base, but I don't agree with um and I know this is only on the first case, but everything we're doing affects the second case because I hope we all don't have to repeat ourselves again. Um, but this case is 111.57 acres and I don't believe that the the what you have what you guys have seen online is the summary of use and development regs and the following uses shall be permitted on this site. The reason I I do agree that all this use these uses these building uses are an industrial type use and and normally we wouldn't get into the weeds about it but this is so specific about a data center that we have spent all this time only thinking about data center that we haven't got into all the tees we need to put in in case it is an 8300.46 gasoline cells etc etc etc. So, I have

made a list that I want to read into record right now. This will be a TE if approved um that I want to remove and uh of the uses that are in this use list. Under 8.1, I want to remove 8,300.32 convenience cells, 8,200.2 two dwelling units above ground floor. 8300.34 eating establishments drive-in 8300.35 eating establishments fast food 8300.36 eating establishments fast food with drive-through order windows 8300.37 eating establishment sitdown 8300.38 eating establish sitdown alcohol permitted 8300.41 food and beverage retail sales 8300.45 Gasoline sales large 8300.46 46 gasoline sales small restricted and the last one 8300.55 participant recreation and entertainment indoors.

We can agree to that.

You can agree to those? Yes. Okay. Um that that means that anything regarding any of that if they wanted to try to do something like that they would have to come back to this body and do a new PUB. Um, and once again, I'm removing I'm I'm requesting these to be removed because we haven't got to spend our time on all the stuff that that would have pertained because we're so in depth about data center. Um, the last thing I want to say and then I'll hush and let other commissioners talk. I became the W3 planning commissioner three year go three years ago in a couple of months. Um, W three is busting at the seams with schools. every everything we release is and if this would have been 111 acre neighborhood, it would have been solid roofs, cars that can't fit on our roads. We're busting at the seams with vehicles. We're uh the schools are overflowing and um this is this is in my opinion a good neighbor. I wasn't willing to accept anything about this data center until I saw one and knew what it was. guys. I've been, you know, I'm in the industry of construction. I, you know, we've we've done work at UPS, uh, logistics buildings, um, heavy industrial, um, there's a lot of uses that are way scarier than this data center. This data center is a very large acreage lot that they're going to put buildings in the middle. They're going to have major landscape requirements with large buffers and a very secure fence with very little traffic put on our roads. and very little affecting our schools that are busting at the seams in this part of W three. So, I believe it's a good fit. I believe the exhibit D, it's unfortunate you guys don't know everything about it, but um this is once again this is a council decision planning commission. It's, you know, my joke about it's their yard. We're just the weed eaters. We're going to put as

many rails and uh safeguards on things as we can in this process and then it's going to move to council. at council is going to have a introduction and then a hearing. You guys are all welcome to go back to that and I want to address one more thing because I spoke to the applicant is our council person and myself did request uh a meeting and we did request a website. The website is to address the PUD and any frequently asked questions. The applicants do have a website built. They're waiting for this proceeding to happen today before they released it because things at this proceeding could change and we didn't want things to be out there that were incorrect which kind of already happened and we apologize. But uh with that being said, any other commissioners have any comments that they want to bring up regarding exhibit D?

Anyone? Well, I well, I just I just wanted to say I mean I I agreed with what you said of the fact that we, you know, made a conscious decision not to create an ordinance because it gave us the flexibility. You said up to this meeting. It actually goes beyond that. It goes to city council. I mean, we make our recommendations of how we think we can improve this application to go forward and then they have the ability to do the same thing when it comes before them. Um, you know, the the study session on October 30th was mentioned. I know we we got a lot of information in the two hours that we were there. Um, and it was very helpful, but that seems like it was just yesterday. Um, I I am still a little concerned that this thing is moving so quickly and we don't have the things in place, the safeguards in place to kind of guarantee it. Uh um and I just I understand the urgency from the application and these things are going in all over. I I don't necessarily feel that comfortable with this process driving our process with the applicants process. So I know there's a lot of work that's gone into this. I just think there could be a a little bit more. And and you know, one of the things that we talked about in that study session was some kind of overlay map that identifies where in the city is the best location for these to go. And I understand that it's along the major power transmission lines. I mean, that makes sense. But we still don't we still don't have anything that we can look at and go all right these are the four areas of the city that these are ideally

right but we also can't control where investors applicants I mean anything if we think this field would be a great neighborhood we can't make an investor or an applicant come build a neighborhood there we are reactive commission instead

and we're basing our our decisions on the land use itself and we we do take the applicant the owner owners of the property and they are the responsible one to make sure that they're putting these where they will work. And so I mean I think there's there's a lot of oversight. There's a lot of whether it's state or the corporation commission on the electricity there there's the Oklahoma City water trust on the the utilities there's there's so much more oversight than what we're seeing here today is the application for the land use for this and and so that's why I think we could get through the tees get a a strong definition on each one a decision made and and try to move this forward.

Yeah, if I could, Mr. Chair, I I appreciate the sentiment. Um, it is worth noting we this was originally set to be October 9th. So I mean we we've had a threemonth you know we've had a quarter of the year deferral uh on this and within that we had study sessions uh you know meek and and others including I don't know if anyone from planning department but I know multiple people from within the city staff traveled to Atlanta to look at the data center to to ask questions be able to touch and feel and understand what it is so that we could arrive at a place today where we're able to discuss it. What you're really talking about are policy level decisions and I would suggest respectfully that that's really a council level. To Commissioner Noble's point, your decision is from a land use perspective from a intensity of the use and are the setbacks adequate? Is the landscaping adequate? Are the restrictions placed within exhibit D adequate to make this a compatible use of land considering the context of what surrounds it? No, I I get that. I mean,

I I also I mean the other the the part of that is I mean this is a a major highway intersection on a highway, right? And you know those are ideally suited for multifamily retail housing developments, etc. So, you know, is this the highest and best use for this for this piece of land? So, I mean, that's all something to consider. I I don't I would disagree that the planning commission's role is deciding the highest and best use for land. If I came in here with a multif family development, there'd be 17 times more people than there are right now. Oh, I certainly agree with that. I agree. The planning commission's job is not to dictate what is the best user. The the market dictates use

city through planning commission's job is is a compatible use. Are there appropriate guard rails in place to ensure that the use if built will be able to operate in a compatible compatible fashion? I said I was done. I got I got I want to say a couple more things and I'm going to ask the applicant to speak to something because it's something I'm not sure that we don't need to address with another TE. But I want to give the applicant the chance to explain to it. But before we get there, um I want to explain the technology that they use. One of the big things is about equipment noise, uh generation of noise and generator backup. These things can't go down. When they go down, your Amazon doesn't work or your Facebook doesn't work or your, you know, things fail. Um it generator backups are very important. One of the things that I found when I went to Atlanta is that, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I think they spent about $200,000 on a sound study. We hold them to a DB requirement. They can't build the facility if it doesn't meet the sound requirement. So, sound studies are performed once the plans are designed. After the plans are designed, the sound studies performed, then they have to modify the plans to to guarantee that this facility won't exceed that noise level. I got to see that in person. I got to see the craziest stuff you've ever couldn't believe instead of, you know, I I've built four fire stations for the city of More. All of them have Caterpillar generator backups. They're they're bigger than a car. They could do this if they wanted, but they don't. They have a looks like a trailer house in it. And in the trailer house is six generators that are the size of Cummins turbo diesel. And the six of them

together are in a a sound enclosure that doesn't we had while we were there, us and the city group that went with me. They started the sound enclosure generator strip and we were set. I have a video of us sitting there talking at normal conversation level and you can hear everything we said back and forth to each other. With that, I also want to tell you that where the walls were built, even though the wall was built to stop sound, then the walls were covered with a with a perforated panel. That's a panel that brings the sound levels down. Um, regarding the, you know, we went through the amphitheater pro project, eventually failed at council. um it had a DB reduction requirement and this is different in that regard because we have a highway running right through the middle of it. So all that we can require on the on the sound guarantee is at the perimeters of the property. You can't have you know you can't monitor it on the highway because the highway would be much louder than this facility. So any um I would like the applicant to guarantee us, you know, that the sound the sound study's going to be done. Um and then I would like some ideas about how we can guarantee to our neighbors that exhibit D includes a reduction in DBA to and that that's going to be that could be guaranteed. How can we guarantee that? Whether it's monitoring sound equipment that's yearly calibrated and read by city officials. I mean, what can we do?

Uh, one, yes, we confirm that the sound study. Two, it's it's monitored in the same way any other noise complaint would be monitored by the action center. Yeah. And I if we are violating the ordinance, the ordinance being exhibit D, the city has the ability to issue a citation, ultimately file a lawsuit, and ultimately seek a nuisance lawyer. join the we're comfortable guaranteeing it because of what you just relayed. Your experience there, their experience as developers of this use tells them that that is a an adequate decel reading that they can operate with that. Right. Um and if not, the city can shut us down,

right? And I agree with that. And uh I believe, you know, guys, I wouldn't be sitting here talking about it if I didn't think that these applicants were going to be a good neighbor. Can I say that about the next data center that may come along? I can't tell you yes or no. Is this the limit of of data centers we're willing to accept? I can't tell you yes or no. I can tell you that the more that come probably leans that way real quick. Um how I can't that's there. If you're going to ask a question, you got to come to the mic. Yeah, they don't allow talk from the audience.

But we're done with questions. Sorry. All right. Um I I'd like to start working through the TE's if we could so we could in progress. Commissioner Beak, I've been waiting for that as well. Thank you. You're gonna keep going or I'm done. Okay. May Mr. Chair, can I do that real quick? I have just a few. I think they're quick. The first three are related to cooling. That TE4 your agreement I think that's very important. That's great. We've covered it. No, for we won't be using portable water for cooling. Correct.

The TE5 have a question for the city. Why? I appreciate they're in agreement or they're disagreeing with it. Why would we be prohibiting air cooling? But this goes back to our study session. We talked a lot about cooling water and we talked about power. So why are we this application or any of them? Why would we prohibit air cooling? Uh so let me answer that. The there are a couple of reasons we would prohibit air cooling. Uh one is for uh heat uh air and two is for power. Uh there's noise issues as well. Air cooling systems require a lot more power. That's been a concern. They generate more heat. Uh they also have more apparatus on the roof of the buildings themselves. Um so that's those are the reasons. More heat, more power generation. It's more unsightly. And uh it also generates more noise. Now how much more noise? That's a question for the applicant. I'm not sure about that. When when you say more heat that it's because that system basically exhausts their heat into the surrounding air and community, right?

That's my understanding. Yeah. So that raises the right. But what I thought

I'm no I'm no expert on it, but I think maybe the most efficient on cooling may be air cooling. All these concerns we've heard about water, whether it's portable water, gray water, whatever it is. I am not yet convinced uh that we should be prohibiting air cooling. I get there may be some reasons, but I don't know that back to our study session. I've still not heard enough about that. Um so for this application, um I'm with them on disagreeing with that one. The third on cooling, the the um the um No, this is power. Actually, the next two are on power. The very last sentence of exhibit D, it says no on-site power generation permitted. Same question. I don't know who has done it. Why would we not allow on-site power generation if they again that could be the most efficient instead of draining from the grid? So why no on-site power?

I can answer that and applicants may not agree with it. It's called behind the meter. Okay. So we're not we don't allow any behind the meter. I've read all I've went down the rabbit holes and read all the bad data centers that went down across the nation. And one of them is they didn't they didn't exclude their ability to have behind the meter power generation. So the data centers pulled up with semitruck size trailers that opened up and they were jet turbine engine uh generators and generated their own power and there was nothing the community could do about it because it broke it it didn't break the the unless in this pud we limit the decibb of the noise

that that would fail quickly. Yes. So once again, I just like I don't understand prohibiting air cooling, I don't understand prohibiting uh on-site power generation when that could be the most efficient. So it's and if it matters to to your vote, we're happy to allow agreed. Yeah, that's why this is more for the city. I'm you guys are good with those. I understand you're good with you know it was an air quality

not prohibiting air cooling and not prohibiting. So this was more I didn't understand following up from our study session. It's the first time I've been involved since then. Still haven't heard. So for other applications I would not be prohibiting air cooling. I would address the noise and all these other things just like we are but I wouldn't say no air cooling even if it can be done quietly. I mean let's then let's maybe do air cooling. Uh if they can provide on-site power um without jet engines well then let's allow it. So this is our first one. So I think these are important that I don't anyway. So this isn't a concern for the applicant. They're they're good with those. So the the other reason for the the the no on-site power generation was air quality issues. So they these are big natural gas turbines typically or something like that. And so they reduce they produce a lot of you know natural gas is cleaner as we know but still uh it's air quality and noise issues.

Okay. So um I think there's a way that those can be done while you still protect the air quality and the noise and the light pollution and all those things. So, um, anyway, I whether it's this one or others, I would not want to ask the applicant to preclude themselves from air cooling or on-site power generation. The last thing I have is is on the is on the energy and this is the only one that is contrary to the applicant, I think, is that um, back to that study session, I raised some technical concerns and what's in our purview. To keep this one simple, my primary objection is the applicant's unwillingness to agree to TE7. Um, you mentioned there's the OG& says there's complex negotiations ahead and that there's no reason for them to move forward with that until we approve the zoning. I disagree. I believe uh I I would want to know more about that. I believe until I know more about the OG& then I'm not prepared to approve the zoning and um afraid I'm not sympathetic to OG does not want to put anything in writing. Um I don't always want to put things in writing either, but sometimes I have to in both myself companies it's just sometimes it's done. So, I'll leave it with that is the one TE that the city has put in here that actually uh

in the defense of the gentleman I talked to today, Commissioner Leforge, if the city I believe would have asked for that letter, city staff, I believe we would have had it. Instead, they put that on the applicants, correct me if I'm wrong, and they're not going to answer the applicant. That's what happened. And the gentleman I spoke to today said he would provide the letter once complex negotiations were precluded. And it even included a a load tariff, as they call it, where they have to they have to basically help pay for the infrastructure improvements that they're going to receive. And they haven't worked out those negotiations yet. What if we get what if we agree to a will serve letter?

What? A will serve letter. That's what started in the study session. That's what it was called. A will serve letter. I'm not only a banking lawyer. A what? a will serve letter

will serve. Um that came up at our study session and I believe the issue is I'm sure Oeni will serve but to what cost to other rateayers. Don't know if that's within our purview. So I don't know if a will serve solves it. Um will serve but will serve without increasing cost to rateayers would be a concern. Anyway, don't know if that's a perview. If I may just for for a bit the problem with that I it's like if I came up here on behalf of um a single family developer or multif family developer and the staff said well we need a TE from your lender that they're going to lend you adequate funds to build all of these things there there there's never been a requirement in the history of any PUD I've been a part of where putting a requirement on an applicant to go get a third party to commit to something the city can force us to commit to things within the city control, not things of an outside party. But perhaps if we say on-site generation is fine with us if we can work it out with the city to the three concerns raised. Light, we handle light uh pollution through meeting the light standards as detailed in the PUD. Noise, we handle through the ability to reduce the decel level at the uh the edge of the site. And finally, on pollution, we're regulated by DEEQ and the EPA. So, I mean, all of those issues are red herrings. They they they are regulated in a manner that would allow on-site generation, if we have it in here as an option, to be able to be utilized

and and I'm not sure, but wouldn't the Corporation Commission be the regulatory to OG? The Corporation Commission does regulate OG. That's why I mean I I didn't use the words OG earlier. I said the regulated utility. A regulated utility is not going to produce a letter like this to an applicant ever. So, I think it's it's an unfair ask to put that in as a TE because we don't possess the ability to get it, right? And if that is true, I will leave it with the applicant and the city who recommended it and the city council and the rest of that. Um, but for now, if it was a recommendation by the city, I'll leave that to you guys and the city on a broader scale than just myself and the planning commission. But

and there's other commissioners may disagree, but Right. And I want to go back to what you were saying too and and decide whether we continue and go through the TE's and and try to get to an end point or if we don't have that votes and we want to defer the item for further. I guess I' I'd ask the like the chair, what is it that you would hope to gain? What what is what is the information that you don't have today that a deferral would get you? Well, what because we spent a lot of time and if we defer, we're going to spend a whole lot of time again. Yeah. And that's why my whole client base flew in to be able to address questions.

I'm not in I'm not opposed to the land use disagreement. I just think that like I think Mr. Slatter brought it we brought it up in the um the study session decommissioning plan. I mean I think there's a lot of long-term things that we're not we're not thinking about. We're talking about immediate impacts, but I think there's some long-term things and and we require prior to an issuance of a CO decommissioning plan to be submitted. That's part of exhibit D. That's in exhibit. I don't think we have I I don't think there's anything that we haven't touched upon.

The reason I'm not in favor of deferral, a lot of what we are already getting into and we're about to really get into is feels like more policy than it is zoning. That's why I'm trying to be short on what I'm saying here. Feels to me like it needs to move on to the city council and they need to start hearing what we recommend and then they take up the issues on a letter from OG or the rest of these issues. I agree. It it needs to move to city council. Um, I'm not willing to commit any more of my life to this. And I've been in the back of this room with city officials on multiple meetings. And if you guys want to defer it, you're welcome to take my place in those meetings. That's where I'm at. All right. Well, are we ready for a motion? Oh, let's get the TE's.

Well, we got Oh, that's the TE's times two for both if you don't mind. Okay. TE one we agree to. TE1 is good. Concur. Uh TE2 we disagree. We and we just need to modify that language some way to where both sides feel comfortable with that language and and we can get there. I believe it's easily done by saying modify exhibit D to require generator enclosures and or walls that extend to a minimum of 5T above the height of the generator. and or

precluding accessory apparatus the the generator unit itself but if there's an exhaust pipe so we can agree to 5 ft above I don't know the word but that the generator itself minus any apparatus I'm good with that because the enclosure I want to know why that on that really I mean are we exhausting at a different height for EPA reasons I mean that that would be first off if the buildings are potentially 80T tall and that is the wall. So, I mean, are we talking over 80 feet? I want a wall height. I think maybe I just want a wall height. Maybe like 30 feet. Well, 30 feet around a generator. We can agree to that with a max. So, we will agree

because your generator is not going to be taller than 30t tall, right? All generators shall be surrounded by architectural enclosures um consistent with permitted building materials that uh shall consistent sound on damping materials or masonry wall not to exceed 30 ft. Okay. So you're going back to exhibit D all junior. Yeah. Correct.

Which that's what I'm saying. When you read TE number two and you read what was in exhibit D, I believe exhibit D better handles that as the pardon me as the TE. Yeah. But it's written in exhibit D. It's already written in exhibit D. So I'm fine with striking that TE because what they wrote in there includes everything we spoke about just now. Uh we do not agree to TE3. We handle that uh in exhibit D on the generator testing Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m.

And I'm going to go ahead and I agree with that. Um generator testing is allowed and shall be limited to 10 to 4 10:00 a.m. to 400 p.m. Monday through Friday and shall not exceed noise standards and other restrictions included herein. All generator permits and operations shall be in accordance with DEQ requirements. So we're striking three. That would be striking inadequately as and it's handled in D. It is in D. Yes. Four. Uh we agree. We just need to add domestic fire and irrigation.

Yes. So to for the record that they're listening, modify exhibit D to specify that potable water may only be used for domestic fire and irrigation purposes and must be provided by Oklahoma City. Um five, we would ask to strike.

Well, Problem with that is we need to I don't I would just strike the end not through air. Well, no, that doesn't work either. We don't want to use potable. You already covered portable water by um Okay. Yeah. The prior one takes care of Yeah. not using potable. So So we just strike five. Yeah. Never mind. Which means it's either gray water or air cooled, right? And in my experience for my trip, the plant was both because the the gray water cools it for 90% of the year, but on days that go over 10 and something degrees, they have to add additional air cooling.

Six. Um I I think we agreed to it as long as it includes the ability for us to buy the Yukon water through OKC as a source. And my understanding from Dustin is that that that does fit that in the statement in D also. It's also stated in D. Yes. Yes. So I think we can strike it. I think we actually already well. Yeah. Dustin Utilities Department. Yes. If there's an agreement um that we would purchase water from the city of Yukon and then we would resell it to the city of Oklahoma City, that would be considered an Oklahoma City source.

Thank you. So it is covered under utilities in exhibit D. I think we wanted to make also in that statement that call out the city of Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust, not just public works to Sure. have that. That's fine. You got that on record. They wanted to change Oklahoma City public works. I thought it was to the city of Oklahoma City water utilities trust or the water utilities utilities trust. I think both of them together wise cover both. Okay. So, what are we doing with six? I just address this. We're agreeing to it so long as that can't include I believe even need to

I believe after hearing from Dustin and what we're talking about six is a strike because with the language change to Oklahoma City Water Trust it's handled under utilities. I agree. So we'll strike six. Okay. I just have one more. Well maybe six is we modify exhibit D to add the Oklahoma City utility or water trust to the utility section. So maybe that's just what six becomes. Okay. And then seven, agree. I mean, we disagree because it's an impossibility.

So on that one, I'm not the only commissioner, but I like it. That is my primary objection. I want it in there and for the city for them to argue to the city council and the city council can determine with the city staff whether they are going to drop that one or not cuz if we strike it here then the city council does not even get to hear their own staff's recommended TE for them to debate. Maybe I'm wrong about how it works at city council or the record. They show it in Yeah, they show it. They show it on their they show that it struck city managers members can go either way. I would rather not approve this unless uh it stayed in there. But you guys I'm I'm one commissioner.

Okay. Oh yeah. Staff has some clarifications.

David, I have a question on the on the noise the DBA. Um just wanted to clarify uh on exhibit D what exactly the intent was. I think uh looking at this uh it could be clarified a little bit. So it says currently per code except that the DBA shall be reduced by 5 DBA to no more than 60 etc. I think the original intent was that all the DBAs be reduced. There are four that apply. are you? But the language going back and forth has been a modified. So I think we need a little more clarity on this. We only intend it to be east because of course north we're zoned.

I'm talking about the de the the direction. I'm talking about in the in the code itself there's that 65 dBA limit on L10. There's 60. There's there's four different requirements. And the intention the original intention was to reduce those all by 5 dBA. What is the intent here? because we need to clarify that language um so that we know which one we're talking about.

Well, I mean, how about we work I mean, I find it unbelievable that we're asking us right now. We had an hour plus sitdown meeting with staff. This thing has been submitted forever. If there were questions about how it's measured, I'm not sure why we didn't get it till right now. Um we agreed to the 5 DBA decimal reduction and we can work on what that means in the next six weeks. Oh, you guys changed the meaning is what I'm saying. So I apologize that it's coming up now. Um but change the meaning. Change the meeting. You were in the meeting. Me meaning meaning. So the meaning

the meaning was originally that all the DBAs be reduced. Then it came back with different wording. Um I think the understanding was maybe that you guys had agreed to that. But now that I'm reading it yet again, I don't know that it thinks what we thought it that it reads the way we thought it did. It seems as maybe exhibit D isn't as detailed as the ordinance. Yeah. So, what do you want it to mean? Um, the original intent was again that where it says 55 dBA, it would be 50. Where it says 50, it would be 45. Where it says 65, it' be 60. And finally, where it says 60, it' be 55.

And it the the ordinance is detailed. It does does the the times of day. Uh, depends on what land use you're near. So, it says um it depends on what if it's by residential then it has requirements that spell it out what the DVA is. Well, so I'm not sure who this was the language that existed at the time of our meeting. Um but we're happy to to discuss. We can discuss it, but it needs to be clarified before council.

Okay, that's fine. Um, Commissioner Leforge, we could agree with TE7 if it just said that um, the city of Oklahoma City shall request a letter from the electricity provider shall obtain. They could request it. You again, the city doesn't have the ability to put obligations on a regulated utility. Neither does the owner.

And if they don't get it, then it the project does not move forward. I know you say it's an impossibility and maybe that's where this dies. I'd rather leave it in there just like it's stated. I'm sorry. I'd rather leave it in there just like it's stated. And to be clear, I think they are the ones for you to raise your exact same objections to it and explain to the city council again as to why it's impossible. And the city council can either insist on it or agree that it's impossible. Commissioner Meek, would you speak a little bit more to your conversation with OG?

Yes. And we're getting way out there. I think it's potentially outside our purview. They're not here to speak for themselves. How do I We're starting to get I I know. So, I'm trying to just agree to the city's recommended TE myself and let you all they can decide if it's in our purview to get why it's required and who and how and keep it trying to keep this simple for today. Yeah. And I'm in complete agreement. Let's just leave it in. City council can strike it if they want or leave it in. it. I'm sorry.

It certainly it doesn't have to be with your agreement. It can be to get a yes vote and move forward with over your objection to it to TE number seven. We usually get to an agreement on all them, but I'm saying we just can disagree on that one till you get there.

Could we do like a Could you give us a little more color about the conversation, the questions you

Right. I I knew that number seven would give Commissioner Lefforge a hard time. And I and I I appreciate that staff put puts things in. We all know staff puts things in that get removed all the time. Sometimes it's a good move. Sometimes it's not. I read this sentence today. I called Mr. Box and I asked why we don't have that letter. I haven't seen that letter and we're going to be here today. Um, I put out an email to the three people that attended our study session that thank goodness I took a picture of that slide and I put an email out to them and said, "I'm Commissioner Meek in W 3. We're hearing data center cases today. I need one of you to call me back. We start at 1." And I got a call back within 20 minutes from Jim Eldridge Eldridge, the gentleman that spoke at our study session. He did tell me that they cannot provide that to the client. The client had requested it. He said if the city would have asked for it, it could come back to the city after

if you want to take it up a notch. Now the OG rep here. So rather than Oh, he's here. I think maybe that's the best. You can suspect if he gets up here, I will be responding and questioning and we'll be going way down that road then and we are nonetheless still the planning commission. I'm trying to keep that one simple. Well, but but if there's a question about what can be done, why hear it from me or Mr. Meek? Why not hear it from OG? Buckle up. I'm sorry. Buckle up. I'm going to have to get ready with the other notes that I did not expect to have to get into today.

I'm not trying to upset you, but we've been asked to provide a letter. The utility provider is here. Listen to him. Let's hear. All right. Mr. Eldridge.

Hello. My name is Can you hear me? Okay. Here. Yes.

My name is Jim Eldridge. I'm an economic development manager with OG. Um, and Mr. Meek is correct. We did have he called me this morning and we had a brief conversation about the letter. Um, I just want to clarify a couple things in this. Um, we've heard several terms discussed when it comes to a letter. One is a will serve letter and as a regulated utility uh within the state of Oklahoma, if where this um project and this property is located, we have an obligation to serve that. So, producing a will serve letter um is something certainly we can do. It just says we will serve the project. Um I think one thing that we've heard and one thing that we've pointed out is um there are a number of very complex negotiations that go into this um you know we're talking about a project scope that is um incredibly large um and requires a lot of details. And one of the reasons why we're not just saying you know yep sounds good we'll get a letter out the door. Uh first reason is we're regulated by the corporation commission as mentioned. And so the corporation commission um has to approve um any changes to rates beyond what's in a existing tariff. Um for projects like this um we're trying very very hard and our intent is to make sure these projects do not negatively impact existing rateayers, existing customers, existing businesses. Um that's a real priority for us. Uh we want to see positive economic impacts from this. Um but certainly the way this is structured with the corporation commission and what will need to go before them um a lot of these negotiations and conversations revolve around um how is the you know person paying the bill ultimately going to be able to put up the financial guarantees to say that they can pay those minimum charges. How are they going to be able to pay for the infrastructure upgrades? And how are they going to pay for the generation that goes into this? And so understanding how those pieces fit together is very very important to us so

that we don't have a situation where we have to put this on our existing customers. That's not what we want to do. It's not the way we have operated or done business. And so um because of that it requires a lot of you know conversations about okay what about this solution? Does this work? What are you willing to pay? What are some of the engineering and technical constraints around each of those solutions? So, it's an ongoing conversation. Uh, we are engaged with Beltline Energy. Uh, we're engaged with the city of Oklahoma City on this. Um, but to that point, um, we are very happy to, um, say what we're able to say. Um but you know in terms of being able to talk about the details of how this project will deliver um you know generation um we may not fully understand all that until this project is approved um as a contract by the special or by the corporation commission and so until we reach that point um it becomes difficult to get into any kind of detail. um if there are other things that the city is intending to understand through this process such as our um approach to you know how this might impact our you know existing customers that's something we can consider and look at and we are always um you know willing to um engage with the city of Oklahoma City so if the city of Oklahoma City requests a letter from us we will respond but the difficulty in this is there's some information that we're just not able ble to respond to yet. Um, and as Mr. Mik indicated, um, certainly when we're able to, we are very happy to share this with the city of Oklahoma City. Um, and if it's something as simple as a will serve letter, that's something we can produce as well. And happy to answer any questions while I'm here, too. So question

if if OG& or whatever the electrical provider wasn't allow wasn't capable of providing electricity to said build they just wouldn't get the electricity right.

Well and I think this goes back to something that was mentioned before. I think we're looking at two different sort of regulatory systems. Right. So we're looking at um you know land use decisions and certainly we understand that um you know the applicants moving forward with property where they have um you know the ability to make this application for the planned unit development um there's also the um you know state regulatory system for utilities and so um I think for us um it's really important to kind of understand we know that anyone at any time can make a a application for resoning. They can make an application for a planned unit development. Um whether or not they have electric utility services, we could see that as a land use issue. Um you know and we understand that this project um you know it's a high priority project. There's a lot that goes into this from a land use and land use impact perspective. Um but I would say that you know from our perspective as a regulated utility um you know our process to talk about where they can serve clearly if they don't get zoning you know it's hard to be able to serve them but we're evaluating that um from a utility perspective and that evaluation when it comes to um you know rates and some of the things that go around that do go before the corporation commission. So it's sort of governed in a separate way if that makes sense. Anything else?

I guess I'm going to try to keep convincible. So I always hear this phrase will not impact. I'm always concerned it's not will not impact either directly or indirectly. I can understand how it may not be a direct tie to um impacting. It's the longer term uh indirect effects of well now there's been a proliferation. and there's this big energy demand and there's a lot of different factors changing suddenly rates are higher but you can't quite directly tie it to that data center right there is the reason um so with respect to I'm going to keep trying to keep it simple this respect to this letter it may be that I I read about I got all kinds of things over here right now been reading a lot about it um I may not have visited the center but I've followed a some settlement you're working with somewhere. Okay. And says if that settlement doesn't occur, then OG cannot exactly say what will happen. Well, maybe that type of settlement needs to occur now so that then maybe you can give this type of letter that's being requested. Um, again, for now, I agree. Yes, sometimes we disagree with staff's recommendations. We've done it multiple times in this list of seven. On this one, I personally want to follow the staff's recommendation. I want to I believe it should be in this TE. You can disagree with this TE and you can make all these arguments as city council and they can determine which of this is in their purview. What is I'm thinking a lot of it may not be ours, but maybe it's city council, maybe it's not city council, maybe it's corporation commission, maybe it's a mix. We can defer this until we have further guidance of what is within this commission's purview if you'd like that. or we can move this along with your objection to that TE and you can deal with the city on that one, the city council.

I also want to say that I think we're reading deeper into this TE. I believe you are than what it says. This TE is asking for the electric provider to explain the electricity generation capacity impact of a successful application. We've never asked that when we've released 675 homes out at Richland Road and I40 where there's nothing out there. We've never asked that they could serve or provide capacity. Understood. And this is a unique application and the staff recommends it in this case. And if the city council does not want to require it in this unique case, then they do not have to. I do want to follow the staff's recommendation in this instance. And we may have more of these instances. We may have had them in the past that you don't remember. I don't maybe it was before you were here, but in this situation, I want to follow the staff's recommendation. And if you all don't want to, that's fine. I I can vote without it. If we're on that one, maybe commission [clears throat] me, you decide if you want to include it in your I assume you're going to make a motion to approve. You're pretty favorable on it. You can either include that TE or not maybe if that's where we are. I think you covered the others.

While while you think about that, Commissioner Meek, um staff wanted to add a TE8 that the applicant is to work with staff to refine noise levels in exhibit D prior to council. What if we say on seven a letter from the local electricity provider is required explaining the electricity generation capacity impacts and take out the rest. Okay. I I don't understand what the rest of it's even asking for. Give me a second. Was this a planning TE or a utility or a public works? Uh yes, it was a planning TE. Um there are concerns about the power.

What's that? have the well I I I think it's relatively clear that the concern here is about the impact as it says to the kind of the surrounding area. So that that is the concern.

If we're going to tinker with this one and negotiate it, I would make it broader. I would strike the words within the transmission station service area and have it read to all citizens of Oklahoma City or we cannot negotiate this TE and we can move along. You want it narrower. I would rather it be broader. I would rather include the words in there all phases of the project. You're wanting to strike the words all phases of the project. It's not just day one. It's what about in the future. So I'm TE8 the

yeah staff was wanting to add that the applicant TEA8 applicant to work with staff to refine noise levels in exhibit D prior to council. We add TE9 as it relates to the striking of uh the uses mentioned by commissioner me. Yeah, I'm good with that. We at with with all TE's as read into record, including TE number seven as written. I mean, it's not a killer for me whether it's in there or out. I don't see the need for it because it's again I mean they're a regulated regulated industry, right? for us to be up here telling them what to do is say something.

And we've never done it before, Rusty, ever that I've been here or asked any multiple of these questions of somebody. Earlier today, we said we had never converted a public road to a private road. I was here one time when we did, but nobody remembers it. We do that. You're old. Yeah, you're older than I am. I'm older on this.

Do you have something? I was just to ask Sarah Welch planning department. So, it doesn't happen very often where the applicant doesn't agree to one of your TEES, but one of the choices is you can make a staff recommendation with a TE that they do not um recom that they do not accept. When we move the item on to council, they will incorporate all of the changes that you they have agreed to and we will note for the council they did not agree to the one TE7 if that's an acceptable outcome. If it gets your vote and makes you happy, that had me 15 minutes ago, that's what I said. But yes, still. And I will vote yes for that. Let's do it. I will vote yes for that. Right. All right. I think we're there. Mr. Meek, do you have all the tees in order?

No, I don't. They've been read into record. I thought they've been read into the record with the addition of eight as it relates to the noise and nine as it relates to striking of the uses. Use groups being removed that I already read into record. And we're deleting two and three. Say it again. We're deleting tees two and three. We are striking. Hold on. Let me get back to it. Striking. Um, no. TE2 was modified to say not to exceed 30 ft in height. Okay.

Um, we are striking TE3, striking, excuse me, adding irrigation to TE4, striking five, striking six. not to exceed means they don't have to do it.

And I think we should just change exhibit D and strike the TE and add a TE to change exhibit D on the height of the wall. Yeah, we we we have to fully shield the generators, but said wall shall not exceed 30 ft. Maximum height of 30 ft. What's the minimum height is the question?

Yeah. What's the minimum? Is there a minimum that's we good with that? Okay. All right. What's the minimum though on the generator wall? Does not exceed 30 ft. But but it requires full blockage cover and it's just if there's apparatus the wall should be as high as the generator set. Correct. Not but shall not exceed 30 ft. Yes, sir. Okay. That way if there's something that is non-generator that exceeds above 30 ft, we're not building a wall taller than 30 ft.

Right. Okay. If we're good with all the tees, I'd like to move to recommend approval of PUD 21105. I have a motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend city council approval of PUD 21105 subject to the technical evaluations is read into the record.

Give me one second. Doing a refresh. There it goes. We're waiting on a second.

Do we have a voice second? I'll second it. Seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes.

All right. As recommended for approval. Thank you. Item 14. Item 14 is PUB 2124 application uh to reszone 13 921 Northwest 23rd Street.

Hello. Uh yeah. What's that sound like? Northwest 23rd Street from AA and PUD 1637.

Good afternoon. My name is David Box and I am here on behalf of the applicant who are all here with me. I guess procedurally I would like to ask city attorney what we need to do here. My hope would be um we will agree to what was just agreed to in terms of the TEES on the previous item. Happy to spend the next two hours discussing it. Um really look forward to TE6 when we get there. Um there is no TE1 as relates to sidewalks on this. So, Susan, what I mean, they're identical applications. Exhibit D is identical except for a few things on the other one that dealt with FEMA. It's the same TE language. I don't see the need to walk through it, but we're happy to do it.

Does it have the same um TEES that they added as far as like deleting uses and all that kind of stuff? Well, I mean, so there's only six here instead of seven. Uh the other one had a seventh one, the Devil sidewalks. That's not here. It's the same stock [clears throat] TE6 that we would modify in the same manner we just modified on the previous application. We'd add the TE7 as it relates to the DBA and then we'd add a TE8 as it relates to striking the uses. I think you can do that, but I think you need to give I mean that that would be my preference. Whatever the commission wants people opportunity to speak or Yeah, Mr. chairs and said, "Well, I think we would all like to just move on with it identical because it was unfortunately a second application. We probably better give the

right public a chance. You might encourage them to not repeat because we're going to do the same thing." But probably got to give them a chance if anybody wants to speak again. Yeah. I'll So I'll just I'll sit reserve the right to come back up if need be and you know where we are. Okay. All right. Um so if you sign up on item 14 um may speak Justin Stacy you want to tell them real quick what make sure they know what we're doing and so discourage.

So basically what we've done is we've carried over the technical evaluation all the things that we changed and and put into place on the last application they carry over to this application. So in in the essence of time to save some time uh rather than going through all that again. So

good good afternoon. I'm Justin Stacy. I live at I've lived at 251 North Richland Road uh for the last 5 years. My property borders the proposed reszoning property to the west. After 21 years of service, I retired out of Tinker Air Force Base. Proud of my service. But after 21 years of flying in combat, I do suffer from some anxiety and PTSD. Specifically, loud noises are an issue for me. When I left Moore, upon my retirement, I deliberately searched for homes in a rural area or urban low density exactly for this reason. This development would directly contradict the lifestyle which brought my wife and three boys to this home. Additionally, I have concerns which have been touched on about the water well about my water well due to the this industrial development compounded by the existing saltwater facility located at 23rd in Richland as well as the power grid. Commissioner Meek mentioned this is basically a big lot with a building in the middle, but the drawing attached to PUD 2124 clearly shows a building at the very western border property western border of the property along Richland, a literal a literal stones throw from my driveway. The young lady also mentioned uh regarding PD 21105 before me that the noise and light pollution u and and mentioned several references as to that will my property faces Richland. So now I guess my new view will be some 80 foot tall buildings that are supposedly quiet. So I'd like to ask the 60 dB I tried to read through as much as I could. Um, I saw in a portion of 21105 it talks about the 60 dB along the east facing Frisco, but

does that apply to Richland? Because I know, as I said, the uh there's a building that uh is located at the very west. Uh, and if if that applies to the whole perimeter of this development, the 60 60 dB is pretty is equitable to us having a conversation. less than the noise of a car. Um, that seems pretty hard to believe. U, most data centers uh are closer to the 90 dB. So, I guess this one is very technologically advanced. A 33% difference to what's what is existing and and the data that exists today. That seems kind of crazy. [snorts] They I guess they have it figured out or the data the data just doesn't add up to me. So to reiterate the point made by another gentleman before me, when but not not if but when the sound level exceeds that um then what I just like to clarify the height of the buildings uh that are proposed on the western portion uh along Richland Road. It mentions that there's possible 6 to 10 foot fences on the on the perimeter of the to of the property. Um, and potential 80 foot tall buildings. Uh, are are these buildings right across my from my house? Are these the 80 foot tall buildings? It doesn't really specify in the drawing. It's it just shows two boxes where they're going to put some buildings. So, um, I'd like to I'd like to understand that a little better. and [clears throat] uh 50 foot of offset from from the foliage on Richland. Again, it if I remember correctly, the the previous one of 20 21105 um showed 150 foot offset on on all

sides. Um I'm particularly concerned about what's directly across from me and the way it looked to me. Um it looked like it was there was 50 foot. I'm [clears throat] wonder why why not the 150. Um I wholeheartedly depo wholeheartedly uh oppose this development. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Stacy. Appreciate your services. Uh Stephanie Berdine. Stephanie Berdine to my left. Okay, Charles Scott.

Uh, before I start my statement, I just have a question. On your prohibition on on-site generation, does that include renewables?

Restate the question, please. On your prohibition of on-site generation, does that include renewables? So, let's be clear and say on the last application on this one, we are dropping the prohibition against on-site. So, they can do on-site generation. So, they are permitted to, they may not, but we're not prohibiting it.

Belt Line is an energy company, so you got to assume they will. Um, so I'm going to give a presentation. Uh, realize it will not influence your decision. It's kind of a 10,000 foot level. It's mainly for the record because we will cons continue this fight to the city council. We'll be meeting with OG&. We'll be meeting with the Corporation Commission, public utilities division. Um, but bear with me. Uh, so I am opposed to this primarily because of the location and may have to force me to move from where I thought I was going to live the rest of my life. OG& franchise fees are the only tangible benefit that Oklahoma City and Yukon may receive from these data centers. You will even receive less of those under Senate Bill 480 if belt line energy or the developer provides renewables or other energy that will reduce. However, this is a real and significant cost to residents associated with franchise fees. OG& does not have the generation capacity at this time to provide power to these data centers. The cost of OG& adding this capacity will be paid as statements that they've made to the corporation commission by all rateayers under OG& and not the data centers alone. That's public information. Oklahoma Senate Bill 998 allows public utilities to raise consumer rates to recover costs for construction work in progress. I think we all know what that means. so they can add generation capacity for data centers. OG&D's first application to increase consumers rates in accordance with Senate Bill 998 was declined by the Corporation Commission. They are currently getting ready for their second application. If OG& is successful in getting this increase, all of our electric bills, everybody that gets electricity from OG&

will increase many years before any power is available to for the data centers. This is fundamentally wrong on all levels and people are angry. Affordability is the word now and they are angry that their electricity is going to go up for something they can't even see is going to help them. Oklahoma City's western expansion into Canadian County presents unique conflicts with politics, economics, community services, and quality of life. We just heard a fellow veteran just talk about that. Mayor Halt and other city B and business leaders have expressed concern with the impact on spraw the sprawl will have on infrastructure and services. Uh so you can't miss the elephant in the room. I just got to bring this up. The data centers and the proposed mega industrial project at C Page Airport and your board will compete for scant water and power resources in addition to infrastructure services. And I know this is Congresswoman Avers is is this is top of her mind. She's been thinking about this. Who wins this competition is a priority decision by Oklahoma City because you can't do both not in the time frame. So just to close AI data centers are operate a glo on a global scale internationally. Their products are algorithms and data. They produce no goods or services beneficial to the local community. You feed them massive amounts of land, water, and power, you get little in return. This level of resource veracity is never good for a community. Thank you for the comments. Deborah Brown.

My apologies for getting a little excited while I go. Um, one thing I do have a question. Where is where will the water come from if it's not coming from Yukon? Um there's not I don't think there's really been an an answer to that um for this and it's I'm not against necessarily data center. What I was wanting trying to express um a little too um excited about is how do we know or because the the letters and the the um part D and the tees are changing. What guarantees do we have? Where is it where we're going to see it that it's going to be compatible, quiet? Um because even the things that are in my area that are over the decibel limit hasn't been addressed and hasn't and even talking about where it goes to the action committee. I've got texts and calls from them. So that's my concern. How do we know as citizens that it's going to be compatible with where we live? Thank you. Well, ju just in response to that, I mean, when this goes forward to city council once it, you know, depending on their decision, then it's available online. It is essentially an ordinance that's a that that you can access. If you feel that they are not meeting the requirements that are listed in that ordinance, then you go through action center to, you know, report that. They come out and evaluate it. That's that's the process that we have right now.

And I think you were speaking earlier to towards like a pump jack or a compressor station. This will be a facility with an address and they are under the requirements of meeting the PUD that it was approved under and the action center will have more teeth. Okay. And then lastly, uh Mr. Slatterie, Adam. Okay. Thank you. All right. That's everyone I have signed up to speak. Any discussion, comments from commissioners?

I've got one. Um, since this is adjacent to some residential, David, would you agree to doing zero cut off lighting? That's in the ordinance, isn't it? Okay. We agree. We the gentleman that spoke first, I did show him it is 150 foot setback from the west in this uh PUD as well. But yes, we would agree to zero cut off lighting. So we can add that as a TE. Sure. Okay. That would be TE9. Yeah, that's I'm sorry, it's already in D. I didn't see it. So,

right. Yeah, the lighting per code. In addition, fully shielded fixtures shall be used for outdoor and security lighting which shall be aimed away from streets and residentially zoned and used properties is already in there. Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Meek, you need to add the additional TEES two the TE7 about the decibel discussion and TE uh 8 about the removal of removal of the uses previously on record. Okay. The same as previous case.

Any other comments? Okay, with that I uh move to approve PUD 212 recommend approval 2124 with the TE's as read into record. Have a motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend approval of PUD 2124 to city council subject to the technical evaluations read in. It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. Items recommended for approval. Thank you. Item 15.

Item 15 is SPD 1808 1806, excuse me. Application reszone 1400 Southwest 14th place from R1.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. Uh, this is an application. Jared, could you go the aerial? I think you could see it. Nah, it doesn't go that far. Um, this is a neighborhood that is immediately west of the Wheeler district. Uh, and in fact, Southwest 15th Street is not far from connecting all the way to Western. You may recall on our on our Zoom meeting, you were able to see that. So, I think this is a wonderful sign that the Wheeler District is doing what we hoped it would do and spurring additional investment on that neighborhood to the west. So, this would allow two duplexes. There are two TEES, both of which we agree to, and we are happy to answer any questions, ask for your approval. Then we don't have a W six planning commission member.

Um yeah, so the only the only comment that I had on this and so we've got maximum driveway width of 16 ft, but that driveway is accessing three spaces. Um I mean I don't think they can be done in the manner that they're shown on the on the exhibit, but ultimately that's going to be on them to make that work. I mean, it's it's a pretty small lot, but I still kind of wondered why only 16 ft because you need to access all three of those spots.

I mean, I guess we could allow I mean, a 20 foot is a standard driveway. You know, typically we do 24 in a commercial driveway as a minimum. So, was there was there a specific reason for the 16 foot staff the TE that that uh keeps driveways to a maximum of 16 ft. Um, that's just to kind of preserve. Whoa, there we go again. See if it goes away. Uh, the goal is just for preser preservation. was a dec and out here of neighborhood character.

What if we did 20? It I mean it's a 100 foot wide lot on that side and it is accessing both of those properties. So to me I mean I 20 ft would have been better to at least access that. We wrote it as per code. So I What is code minimum 16 or 12 up to 22 is what I think we we 22 is code is what we can agree to. You can agree to 22. Yeah, we're good with 22. What's code, Jared? I think she said up to 30. Looking that up. 30.

Up to 30. Yeah, let's go. 22 is the minimum. Up to 30. Okay. Well, I I visited the site and I usually don't like multif family on residential lots, but I actually think this is a pretty good project. So, does anyone else have any questions on it? So, where' we land on the driveway whip? I'd like to propose 22. Okay, we're fine. Unless someone has objections. None here. 22 is what the number is with 22. We're good with 22. If not, we'll figure it out in the next six weeks. And are are you good with TE2, David? Yes.

Okay. Uh I'd like to propose um recommending approval to city council uh amending TE1 to 22 feet and TE2 is written. Have a motion from Commissioner Newman to recommend item city council subject to the amended technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes.

Thank you. And that item is recommended for approval. Item 16. Item 16 is SP 1807 application to resz on 2445 Southwest 40th Street from R1. Hello. Fallon Brooks Magnus Jolly Beird Design representing the applicant. Fallon, could you pull that mic and speak a little louder, please?

Sorry. Is that better? Uh, Fallon Brooks Magnus, Jollybe Design, 11 Northeast 11th, uh, representing the applicant. Um, it's just a corner lot. Um, I think originally the MDS had six units and we I think we had a protest on that. So, I I don't know if anyone is here to speak on that publicly, but it has changed considerably since they wrote those letters. I reached out. out. I didn't get a chance to talk to anyone at the neighborhood, but uh we went from six units down to three, so I I feel like we're in pretty good shape. Um yeah, here it is. Uh there are a couple of There's one TE. Sorry, there's three.

There's Okay, this is the one with three. Yeah, we're good on those. Yeah, you're good on them. Yeah. Okay. Uh this is W six. Of course, we had a letter um of opposition, but no one signed up to speak. I got a question. Could you do five foot internal setbacks? I mean 3 foots, 3 foot, 5 foot. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think originally we had we had multiple buildings and that's why that setback was that low. It didn't get changed. So, we can we can five foot internal. Yeah. Absolutely. No problem. Yeah. Yeah.

Uh, wait, it was only internal, right? Is that what your your question was? The three-foot internal setbacks the exterior the Yeah, my question was okay. Relative to the internal setback. Okay. Just making sure.

Anything else? I think we're ready for a motion. I'll go ahead and make a motion to recommend approval to city council. Um, you were good with the tees. Fallon. Y.

Uh, including the three TES as written and adding a TE for changing the internal setback to 5T. We have a motion from Commissioner Newman to recommend the item city council subject to uh the technical evaluations read in. It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes.

We waiting on someone me. That item is approved. Thank you. Recommended for approval. Uh item 17. Item 17 is SPD 1802 application to reszone 1310 Northwest 3rd Street from R3

Fallon Brooks Magnus Jolly Design 11 Northeast 11th representing the applicant. Uh this one is in Metro Park. Uh, I think originally we had 10 units on the site and what we we met with the neighborhood and we settled on seven, but we do we're okay with all the technical evaluations, but we wanted to change two things real quick and we talked to Sarah about it and I've talked to Cassidy, she's not here. Um, we want to add a use which was for a clubhouse that didn't get put in there. And then, uh, we wanted eight units, not seven. Um, so like that the way we had it set out before was we were going to do uh two single families in the front and then two duplexes and then another dup. So the total was seven units. Now we're going to do four total duplexes with eight units and then put all the parking in the back and then where that single family is in the back will just become a small clubhouse. So other than that, everything is pretty straightforward. What kind of outdoor act activities happen at the clubhouse?

Well, so here's where uh I need city staff's help on this because the use there's two uses. There's 8250.2 and3 and one is a private clubhouse and one's a clubhouse and it's both are for recreational activity on site. Um but it's intended to be like a small event space on the site where they can Yeah. common area. But all are all activities going to occur indoors? Say that again. Are all activities going to occur indoors? Uh, I would imagine. Yeah. Okay.

Commissioners, what do you think about the the changes? How many dwelling units is it now? Sorry, say the name. How many? There's seven units currently in the application and we're asking for eight. Yeah. Yeah, I can't get there either. I I think I'm hearing you. It was seven. Now you're wanting eight. Yes. Unfortunately, I can't control what my clients asked me for at the last minute. So, I said I can't control what they asked me for at the last minute, but

yeah. Um, we've talked with with the neighborhood and they were happy with the reduction from originally we were going to reduce from 10 to eight and then we decided on seven just because of the the way that we laid the site out. we could fit an eighth unit with the same lot coverage. So that's that's why he wanted eight was just in case we could fit another one. Turns to 25 dwelling units per acre. Yeah, it's still below much. I like the single family homes, but in the mixture before, but yeah, I think in this location, sorry, barely okay with it.

Pardon? I'm barely okay with it. It's barely It's your precedent, but there's a level of All right. And then the clubhouse use. What was the difference between them? Private was your Were you picking the private one? I think it's the private one is what we'll put on there. I'll have staff verify that, but it's 8250.2 or three. It's one of those two, by the way. And the barely is just pressing it like this in this location here. Even though it's not a corner lot, it does look like an appropriate place to press it a little bit. I don't even need Commissioner Go in here to talk me into it. Right. And the land just south of it is even denser.

Actually, same client is currently trying to acquire the lots to the south. So, we'll expand into that eventually. I tried to get them to wait till we had them all together. But if this were up in the spot where it's just a bunch of single family houses surrounding every bit of it, then maybe not. But here, oh, this is looks okay. Sorry, you moved on to the clubhouse, but that's all right. Anything else? No. All right, I think we're ready for a motion.

I wouldn't Is it Who's Who's W six? This is W six. Oh, commission. I didn't follow the TE's well enough. Go ahead, somebody. Bobby, no part of it. Okay. Um, do we know the use unit so we can put it in? It's 80 8250.3. It'd be 8250.3 Community Recreation Property Owners Association.

Thank you. I will make a motion then to recommend approval of spud 1802 with TE number one and add number TE number two for the use unit of 8250.3 and then a max and then a TE3 for max units of eight and TE number three for max units of 28.

Okay. Have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item city council subject to the technical evaluations read in. It's been seconded by Commissioner Forge. Please cast your votes. That is recommended for approval. Good luck. Thank you. Item 18.

Item 18 is SPD 1803 application reszone 2720 South Avenue from I1 Fallon Brooks Magnus Jollyburg Design 11 Northeast 11th representing the applicant. Uh we are just adding a use of Carla on this and we rearranged the site a little bit. We worked with staff to eliminate a drive and uh widen a couple of others and put some sight lighting and things like that requirements for sight lighting and landscaping. So pretty straightforward.

Okay. Um I had one thing that I wanted to ask for. Uh, in the site exhibit, it looks to me like there's a display space um located basically on the on Agnu Avenue right on the rightway. It's in the setback where you have landscape across the front. Otherwise, do we have the site plan? Yeah, Jared, can we see the site plan? So, this would be Next page one more. One more.

Yeah, thank you. So, at the top of the screen at the corner of the property, um whereas you have landscape on Agu in front of the canopy and at the corner, I just asked for a TE that says no parking within the Agnu Avenue setback. Yes, absolutely. So, that's you lose one space. Okay. Yeah, we Oh, I see. Yeah, on the top of there. Uh I mean, I think we can scoot a fence over or something. I think it'll be okay. Are you Okay. Sorry. Uh and then that would be landscape. And what was that about? And that in that area would be landscape. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. So that would add TE TE1 um no parking within the proposed setback along South A South Agnu Avenue and landscape provided um at the Northwest property corner.

Anything else from commissioners? All the display parking spots are delineated on here and then customer parking on the on the north. Did they did say something in the in the application about parking behind the building? Uh I think originally we had like a certain number of cars total for the lot including storage behind the building and then staff had me change it to just what's on display out there. And so I think that they can store whatever they want behind. They just can't be out in the open. Um yeah, I think we changed the language on that.

Okay. Are we ready for a motion? It backs up to a house, doesn't it? Does. Yes. Yes. Okay. Can we agree to have a TE that the lighting would be directed away from that and the rear yard storage? Okay. Yeah. I think I think the way I mean It's hard to tell on here, but there's a sight lighting on some of them are on the building faces and then there's a pole couple locations. Those are all focused in the front of the property. Okay. Any anyone else? Okay. I'm going to make a motion to recommend approve or we approve this.

Read recommend approval. Recommend recommend approval to city council of item 18 with you're in agreements with the the tees subject to the tees right in subject to the tees right in with the addition of removing the parking shown in the rideway in the exhibit and replacing it with uh landscaping. Yeah, it's it's in the setback along a new

I'm having a I'm picking up like every other word I'm having a real hard time hearing. So I was it what did you say? [laughter] I I read it in already. Okay. So I think you can just say that as as the TE is read in and the TE for um all lighting shall be directed away from uh the residences to the east. Okay. Which is TE2 TE four. There's just two TEES.

Okay. I have a motion from Commissioner Newman to recommend approval subject to the technical evaluations read into the record. Waiting on a second. Second by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. That's recommended for approval. Thank you. All right. Item 19. Item 19 is SPD 1804 application to reszone 1120 Northwest 56th Street from R1.

Good evening. Can you hear me? I'm speak up a little bit, please.

My name is Joe Croell. I represent the applicant. Um, we are here to really just build two homes on this one lot on Northwest 56th Street. Uh there are multiple properties on this street that have the nearly identical configuration to what we're looking to build. Um you'll see the site plan here. Front house 1,260 ft, back house 976 ft. Um we met with the neighborhood on Tuesday evening and they had some uh requests that we put in. One be that the front doors of each building face the street and the other be that there's a property owners association in place to determine who takes care of the any common improvements and you know such as a potential retaining wall that may be deemed necessary in the future because they've had problems with homes on their street where you know there's two houses like as you'll see across the street, you know, just to the north west. Um I don't know if they've had problems, but it's a similar development there where they want to make sure that both those people have a defined relationship as to who takes care of what. And so we agreed to that um and have redlined the uh original application. and I presented it to uh Commissioner Powers who is unavailable. Um and she I believe was going to forward it on to city staff. Did you get it?

Okay. And um I also have an email from the neighborhood association president saying that they're in support of this. And if you guys have any other questions, um I'm here and the builder is Brandon Bell is right here and he has some renderings if you'd like to see them as well that weren't initially included. Okay. Um, yeah, in the absence of Commissioner Powers, I'll just let everybody know she texted me before the meeting and said she was good with all the changes made in that redline document and so she was in support of the application.

Sorry, Sarah Welch, Planning Department. I my computer actually died a long time ago, so I don't know if I have your revised, but let me just make sure these are the two TEES that you're speaking of. Um I I've understood the agreement to be that front doors um will face 56th Street and that uh there's a TE2 or another TE that there will be that the maintenance maintenance will be by the HOA of the shared space including any retaining wall. Were those the two items?

Yeah. In red is the changes we made. Okay. So, the two TEES that I read um stand and it looks like there would be a third one to change the maintenance section to specify that maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner more fully discussed in covenants to be established prior to the conveyance of any lot within the parcel. Anything else from I'm going to say that the TE's as written or as read in

as read into the Yes. statement. Okay. Uh recommend approval of SPUD 1804 with the three TEES as read into the record. We have a motion to recommend to city council sub technical evaluation. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. That is recommended for approval. Thank you. Thank you. Item 20. Item 20 is SPUD 1805 application to reszone 1201 Northwest 49th Street from R1.

Yes. My name is David Asf and um the property we're talking about today is uh 121 Northwest 49th Street and I have a very similar spot to him that we're basically taking one lot and splitting it into two. I did meet with the West Helm Neighborhood Association, which Cassid's here. She's the president of that. And um we did make some changes um under 2,300 square feet per building. And she also asked me today about adding a pitched roof deal in there. And I think if we do, we can put like over a 312 pitch.

Could you speak up just a little bit, please? Oh, that we were also wanting to add over a 312 pitch roof because we're trying to prevent square homes in the neighborhood to accommodate with the association. So, I mean, the president of the neighborhood, West um I think we took most of Tad's suggestions on this spot and everything is in the spot as Okay. Are you in agreement with the technical evaluations provided in the staff report? Yes. Okay. All right. Any other comments, questions from commissioners? Anyone signed up to speak?

I do have someone signed up to speak. So, Cassidy Smith Toiver.

Hello. My name is Cassidy Smith Toiver and I'm the president of Helm Farm Neighborhood Association. I know y'all are really used to us protesting, but I promise it's getting better. Um, my address is 1216 Northwest 42nd and we did meet with David and he was very accommodating. Our concern originally had been that it said R4. Um, it does not now. Um, we did ask for some square footage limitations just to help. Um, we do understand it's in the transit oriented and urban medium ludos. Um, we, you know, made sure that there was some green space and then we did there was one thing we forgot. We know that if it's not written in this bud, it doesn't count. So, we asked for the pitched [clears throat] roofs today to just provide some prevention of the square building in the neighborhood. We're really fortunate to only have one or two right now, and we've seen what's happened on the east side of Western. So, we'd like to prevent that.

Okay. Any questions? All right. That was a 312 roof pitch. Uh 312. I would say over 312. Sure. It's not square. We We don't mind after that. Okay, thank you. And then what was the the square foot limitation that you under 2,300 square feet under 2,300 per home? Yes. And that's interior living space not including garages or user.

Okay. This is uh W two. Um so we need to add a couple technical evaluations. I had technical evaluation 4 that roof pitches shall be over 3 312 and techn or TE5 uh maximum square footage of 2300 square foot a unit. With that, Mr. Chair, I will make a recommended approval of spud 1805 with tees 1 2 3 as written and four and five as read into the record. Have a motion from commissioner Noble to recommend the item city council seconded by commissioner Forge. Please cast your votes.

Subject to the technical evaluations that item passes is recommended for approval. Thank you. Item 21 and 20 or 21. Excuse me. Uh, did I skip 20? No, 21. You're right. 21. Yep. Um, item 21 is case SPUD 1792, application to resone 1802 Northwest 9th Street from R2.

Yes. My name is Abraham Santana and it's uh for this 1792 uh 1802 Northwest 9th. Uh, I'm a new builder. Uh, I just earned my first COO just about a couple blocks away from this one right here. And I'm excited to bring housing to Oklahoma City. Uh, this is for four town houses. I've been working with uh with Miss Sarah Welch um on the master design statement and the the plan. Uh, we've accepted all of the suggestions and um I'm here to answer any questions with regards to these town homes that we'd like to build.

Okay, this is another ward six. Um, so we're down a commissioner on this. Um, any commissioners have comments, concerns? Are you agreeable to the technical evaluations provided in the application? Yes. Okay. No one signed up. No one signed up to speak. I just had a hard time with this one because it's in single family neighborhood. What? In a single family neighbor dominant neighborhood.

The corner lots sometimes convince me to be more pro density. I try to be reasonably pro density. So, I thought maybe the corner lot could convince me. What do you think? the architectural style to me was a little bit not in cohesiveness with the neighborhood and so that kind of took me back a little bit. Um, not that we can dictate what you're going to do on that property, but having four units and just all right next to each other. There's a building right to the to the south of that alley that looks very similar in construction. That's why uh we kind of went with that color. I mean, all of that subject to change or depends on what a neighborhood association or anybody uh would like to provide their input on, but we're we we are open to

Yep. Well, no one signed up to speak. We have no protests. I just Oh, great. And we did we did uh connect with the with the neighborhood association and we spoke with them and they were they were actually very um pro what we want to do there. I'm trying to see what the what the houses to the west look like. Not like this. Yeah. The other comment I had was there's hardly any green space or landscaping.

So, and zero setbacks on the south and the west. So yeah, good point. The zero setbacks. Y'all know this stuff better than I do, but these last few I'm trying to be, you know, reasonably pro density I mentioned, but I think we've gotten smaller on a few of these. Now we're down to there was a 32, there's a 0.2. This is the smallest. This only 0.15 acres. So no setbacks. Talk more about that. What's your concern? And can we fit landscaping or is that the problem with the zero setbacks?

No setbacks. Don't Commissioner Noble pointed out zero setback on the what was it? The west and the south. It's 26.7 dwelling units per acre, which I mean again is about over the amount of density that you can get here, but it's just it's very dense. It's I think it's 75% on the building coverage. Yes. Well, we accepted all of the suggestions that that and and Sarah had made. Um, true. We're not we're not trying to do anything outside of what was um in the staff comments.

True. He's checked off the talked to the neighbors and they were okay with it. Work with staff on it. It's below the maximum. I mean, we don't do what it looks like because maybe to us it We try not to do what it what the appearance is, but maybe some landscaping. Is there some reason it doesn't look like Oh, we're we're open to all of that. I'm learning right here. And I'm excited. I sent so many emails and phone calls to uh to planners. Okay. We don't have our former landscape architect here or No, is that you? Yeah, you. So, take over. You weren't speaking up. That's right. I was thinking it was Commissioner Go for a second. I was like, wait, it's you.

Unless she does something, I don't. [laughter] What do you No, I um I was going to ask a remaining architect um if we could I mean roof looking at the surrounding homes. So there is one twotory unit to the south. It's got a man's type roof, but everything else is like hip uh or gable roof. like if we included a TE the roof pitch so matt shall match you know homes on Ninth Street or I I just I think I think roof pitch is important here much like it was in the last case I think it would help immensely

I'm I'm uncertain if we would be able to do a different type of roof roof pitch just because the the product that we're going to be putting on this on this uh

on this property it's It's uh pre-fabricated and it's a modular. So, it's going to be very difficult for us to be able to change that right there. And it's our way of being able to bring affordable housing here to Oklahoma City. Uh this is going to be a great product because it's it's very close to Midtown. Uh it's four units and it still fits within FHA um lending standards. So, it would be a great house hack for young professionals that want to live nearby. Uh otherwise I don't know if we would be able to do something that stick build that's going to work right here in in this like for us at least as new developers that are trying to break into to development.

Well, I appreciate that. I mean the affordable housing and and the prefab units, but I've also seen some stuff that like up on North Penn. I mean, they just they don't look good, but and they're not in a neighborhood uh like this like that has character. So, and you said you did meet with neighborhood representatives.

Yes, I I'm sorry, I forgot her name. Um but she mentioned that there has been a push in Metro Park before to to uh revamp the neighborhood in the 80s or the '9s and that there wasn't enough momentum. and she encourages us to to continue with our with our plans. Is there he's convinced me by checking off all the boxes? Even though we may not love it, he's like it enough and he's checked all the boxes for me. Okay.

A quick question. Is there a reason that the parking is in front in the front yard instead of behind? It was to be able to um to fit the units that we wanted and still be within the the Oklahoma municipal code for two parking spots per dwelling unit. I'm just talking about the location of the parking, not the amount. Could you swap the building and the parking lots? I worked with our drafts person and she did every single configuration to try to um to try to do something different and that was really the only way that we were going to be able to fit what we could on there. Well, I would so we tried.

This is what I would say is like no access onto Ninth Street. You only need one access off of Indiana. flip the parking in the building so that the parking is behind. That doesn't make any That's That's gonna actually get you another space. Um, yeah. I can't support this the way it is. What are you saying? Put the buildings on the corner and the parking off the corner. Is that what you're saying? I'm saying right now the parking is on 9inth Street and the building is set back along on the alley. So, the the the flip the parking to the rear of the lot. Why do you prefer that? It off the alley. It just looks better. It's got curb appeal.

You've got you've got single family residential that you've got a you've got a setback line on 9inth Street that's consistent and then you're just going to put parking on the corner. Got it. Because the other houses on Ninth are farther away from the street and this one's going to stick out close to the street. Is that what you're saying? No. Right now, this way this is frozen. It's going to sit way back from the street. It it just it's a neighborhood thing instead. So you have front yards, front yards, and then all of a sudden you've got a big parking lot. They better put the house and the parking behind is what we typically do. I'm not sure.

Yeah. So the parking lot mean anything if just across the street north of 10th in class and 10 pen there are similar uh layouts as far as corners and parking because there there's there's a lot of them. It is a different neighborhood, but um the field is pretty similar as far as the construction and and um [snorts] there actually is more investment, more uh rehab and new construction going on over there still with parking that's similar to this. I'm looking at just the four corners of Indiana and Ninth Street. And this is going to be the odd the odd one out

for me. Building the building needs to go on ninth parking behind it and I want to see some roof pitch. It for me it's just too far out of character the rest of the neighborhood. I'm just having a hard time getting there. Uh, architecturally, which I mean, maybe that's not a consideration, but I think it needs a pitched roof and [clears throat] um I don't know. I just the density next to the single family housing. I can't get there.

Sorry, I wouldn't follow. I had it backwards for a while. So, what you said flipping the building, the parking, can you do that or not? What did you say to put the building up matching with the other buildings? So to move the buildings to the north and the parking to the south. Yeah, we can try. He feels strongly and I and I see why. So we don't want Yeah, if you could try that. You think you can make it work? Probably. I mean, I'm pretty simple on this. It looks like it just Yeah. But there's utilities or whatever. And there would not be a driveway on 9inth Street like it's shown now. You just need the one You just need one access from Indiana. So you actually gain a space. Yeah.

Would there be any possibility just in case the driveway makes a difference to get a little bit wider than the 16 ft for this? Yeah. I mean, you can have 22. Mhm. Yeah. That's great, Sarah. Um, so we could do a 22 on on this one because you're going to you're going to need 20. Well, you've got you've got 24 um on the interior island. So, you need that. say parking have a 24 foot driveway. Yeah. So you'd have 24 foot drive because we we accepted the the revision to bring the the the driveway.

Yeah. You'd have you'd have to modify the driveway width from what our technical evaluation says or what your SPD says. Um you also may need to modify the front setback from Ninth Street or the setback from Ninth Street. setbacks to match existing well to I I I I am not recalling what this the setback is for the homes to the west. I have it right here. Your computer died. It did a long time ago. This was the recommendation.

20 years there 21 all the way across. That's what we're going to have this fit.

Yeah. Um, sorry, uh, Sarah Welch, Planning Department. So, um, we're just discussing if you want them to flip the building, then you'll probably have to make a front yard or a separate or a concession for the setback from the ninth street from Ninth Street on the north side because at 20 ft he's you can park in a setback, but you're going to have to if you want to push the building up, you're going to have to give him some relief. Uh, yeah, I don't I don't it can stick out further. I would rather have it on the corner. Okay. Yeah, I I think that's doable because that was that was our our issue was with the 20 and and also that the house I'd be happy about that. It'll be more attractive.

Our comment our I believe if I remember right on our comments that we commonly are we're trying to keep those front setbacks the same if you have um homes along the residential street. Right. Right. So you would you would you would be approving them to come forward. Would you rather us defer this to just make those simple changes and then come back. Well, um, if you're I mean, if you're okay with the driveway width change and the modification to the front setback, then I think that's something that we could get done at the day.

If I'm following, I don't love the different setback because then these people sitting in their porches are looking next door and there's a house there's a building sticking out a lot farther than all the other houses, right? Yeah. Then we can't get the I mean, then they can't get the units. What do we normally do? What do we all the time allow these differing setbacks to stick out farther or is it just because we're trying to work trying to Usually we do try to keep it but sometimes on the corner we we have allowed to change that setback. So you've got these units are 10 foot wide. No, they're 16 16 wide. They're just shy 16. So you're talking about 64. And what's the lot width?

130. Is that depth? It's 150 deep, 50 wide. 50 wide. Okay. So, we're to we're 14t over if we spin in the building.

Could we do one and a half parkings per dwelling unit and a bike rack? I'd rather do that than they are. Well, I say that. I might rather do that than have the setback off. Okay. Then what happens? The negative is people might park in the street. More people might park in the street. I'm fine with it. I I would like that design a whole lot better than this right here, too. Okay. I'd rather do that. Okay. Watch all of them.

Appreciate it. and I'll relax my roof pitch.

All right, go. We ready for a motion? I'd like to defer it just to see it all together really. But you want to defer? Yeah, I'd like to defer it because I'd like to see if he can do something with the roof edge. Yeah, I'm going to make him defer the next one anyway. So, all right. All right. Will you take four weeks tidy this up? Yes. So, it would just be the to move them forward the one and a half a bike rack and and we want to see the roof and we want to see what you can do with the roof pitch. All I can do is try, right? Yeah. Sure. We just want you to make an effort. Oh, of course I will.

You can do it. I got faith in you. You could set the down like this. I I have to think. I mean, that's just the top. I mean, you can you would you can make the top anything you want. These they they come off of a of an assembly line. It's actually a local uh factory that's producing these modulars. I think they do about 500 a year and this is just one model. So, they they already have their their design. I've toured it. It's amazing the way that they put these together. Let's see. Let's see if they have an option that we I'll discuss it with them. I'd love for them to be able to add a garage as well, but they said that that's in the works.

Yeah, just do a hinge drive. Pops up in the field. They do it all the time. Okay. All right. So, we're we're going to defer this to the the 26th 226 two weeks. You want is two weeks acceptable? Two weeks is okay. Uh we would just need all changes back by Tuesday. Can you do that to get the design back to and the Yeah. And we'll modify your master design statement. Yes. Put you back on. Come back. Okay. Yes. Oh. Will I get staff commentary or for some notes again? Well, that'll reach out. We'll work with you.

Okay. All right. So, the 12th then defer to 212. That gives me time. Okay. I will make a motion to defer case number Spud 1792 to February 12th. Have a motion defer the item to the February 12th meeting from Commissioner Noble. Second by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. And that item is deferred. We'll see you on the 12th. Okay. Um, thank you.

And then the last item is is yours as well. Uh, the 22nd. It is item 22. It is item. Abraham. Hold on. Let me call the item. Uh, SPD 1798, application to reszone 2331 Northwest 18th Street from R2.

Yes. Again, uh, Abraham Santana on, uh, 2331 Northwest 18th Street. Uh this is going to be the similar um construction. Uh the difference is that this one's going to be more in line with what you all suggested as far as where the building will will sit and where the parking will be. It will only have one uh driveway, but this one is it's uh deeper than the other one. So a 16 foot uh driveway will be perfectly fine on this. And it's consistent with everything we just talked about other than the roof pitch. anyone signed up to speak on this? No.

So, there was two written, I think two or maybe one written protest and then had multiple names in the neighborhood. Did you happen to talk to them?

So, we actually hosted the Aurora Neighborhood Association. They came by. I uh I was very excited to meet to meet them. I've brought donuts and coffee and pandul and everything and everybody was smiling. Um, I answered all of their questions well as much as I could because we hadn't even received staff comments yet for us to know exactly what we were going to present. And um, I thought it went great and then we got the letter. But after doing my research and wanting to go meet everybody in person again and see why there was uh any deviation from our uh personal uh interaction, I realized that only two of the the numerous people that signed that protest were within the 300 foot radius. So, I actually went and I talked to other neighbors and we got support letters, nine as opposed to the two that were uh objecting to it that all signed and and would like to see us develop that that corner. This is a home that probably needs to be torn down. The owner is going to sell it to me and my partner, so we're under contract to purchase it, and it's all based on what gets approved. But this home probably needs to be torn down and the homeowner wants to see it developed as well.

Did you happen to talk to this Maria? I did. Yes, we I talked to her and um she brought everybody over. We met in person and then after that we just found out that they were opposed to it by Thad Johnson. He he gave us the letter

[clears throat]

I mean, they're they're asking and they're saying that they didn't get enough or they didn't get to have community engagement. Sounds like he had community engagement. There's nobody here. Yeah, I do have some of the same feelings on this one as it did the other one.

So, here's here's a couple things that I saw. One, we need to require sidewalk on North Cross Avenue for the entire length of the property. And then that entrance on Northwest 18th Street is too close to the intersection. It needs to be flipped. And in my opinion, the entrance needs to go to the east. You park head in toward Cross Avenue with a landscape buffer in front of the parking. This is another one I'd kind of like to see another iteration of it. Real quick, what' you say? What' you say about the sidewalk? Sidewalk. We should require sidewalk on North Cross Avenue.

So, will it work there? Can he? You see how he's going like through the parking to a sidewalk and then through the parking again. It's like concrete the whole way, but that doesn't work as it's shown. It doesn't work. What? It's not ADA accessible. It's It's It needs to be public sidewalk. This is on private property. Okay. So, he has to put Is there room over there in that grass to put a sidewalk? I believe there is. There is. Well, okay. I think there is. A sur a survey would be needed to determine, but as as it's shown, it looks like there is. Okay. ect. I suspect there probably is. And if you got the public sidewalk, you really don't need the sidewalk he's got shown anyhow. That's true.

Yeah, most people aren't going to go that way anyhow. They're going to walk through the parking lot the way he's got it drawn to the building. So, defer this one meeting. Um and and that'll bring me to we got to go back here in a second on the last one. Um, but this would be deferred to the 29th. That's two weeks. Is that what we're going to do the last one? That was what was intended on the last one, but I gave the wrong date. So, we'll need to reconsider that one. Um, but if we can get a motion on this one, take two weeks to the 29th again. So, you need to get information on this and the previous one back to them on Tuesday, back to staff on Tuesday

as a as uh in terms of the roof pitch, right? Uh, sidewalk. Yeah. building orientation, where it is on the site plan and and and so site plan. So the building orientation, does that need to go anywhere? Oh, the driveways, the building. I mean, you like it in the middle of the lot. Do you have the renderings,

Andy? Are the renderings on they were uh Yeah. Yes.

Sorry. Would you would you object to February 12th and bringing them just bringing them both back and we'll continue to take these comments and take another swing at it? Sure. Okay. Cuz I think on the last item we continued it um maybe potentially in we meant to do two weeks but we did till the first meeting in February. Is that right? The first meeting that way. Yeah. And so if we could I think it'd be better to kind of keep them together if you're okay with that. Yeah. And um the city's closed on Monday. I was just thinking that. So Yeah. Okay, that that's good. That that that way nobody's under the gun to get everything done uh so quickly and we we make sure that we cover everything,

right? And and as long as you're hearing these comments from the commission and that'll help us all and we'll we'll try to bring it back um to you on February 12th. Have you everything by Tuesday if if No, that'll give you more that'll give everybody more time. Yeah, just keep posted and just we'll just Yeah, we'll just We'll just work. We We'll just hear what the commission is saying and we'll bring it back. Okay. So, you won't be in such a rush. You'll get two weeks. Appreciate it. More time. And I and I have a little sketch of from from a site layout if that would be helpful um as you as you revise. So, I I provided that to staff. So,

I will make a motion to defer case number SPUD 1798 to February 12th. All right. We have a motion to defer the item February 12th. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes and that item's deferred. Thank you. Thank you. Last item. We have to go back to item five.

Thank you, commissioners. Item five is case PUD 1770 SPO4 application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 1770 located at 97 Northeast 82nd Street. Hello Tanner McGrevy uh 13016 Amberwood Place. I'm here with Fitzroy Associates as the owner's rep. I apologize we weren't here earlier. We were at the county uh meeting. We Yeah, you learned your lesson, didn't you? Yeah. So we missed it. But I'm here to answer any questions. We don't have any uh problems with your comments.

All right. Uh this is a special permit. It's in ward 7. Um any comments, questions from Oh, excuse me. It's not special permit, specific plan. Any comments, questions from commissioners? No. Has anybody signed up to speak? No. And for the record, staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with the PUD 1770 master design statement and master development plan.

Uh seeing we no other comments as I make a motion to approve uh PD 1770. I believe it as SP4. There we go. I have a motion to approve the specific plan. Second by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. That item is approved. Thank you. Good luck. Appreciate it.

All right, that concludes items to be heard. Uh additional items, communications report, planning commission committees. There are none. Planning Commission members, no comments. Planning department, I'll just say one thing. Sorry for speaking out of turn so many times. No worries. No worries. Chad, planning department.

Um, yeah, [clears throat] one real quick thing just just for the record uh in case in case it's not known what was referred to earlier about some error being in some exhibit or uh MDS. So PL the planning department posts the what's the application online for all to see the the original application and that stays there. So I think there was some confusion about what's online. Well that we post what we get we post it online that's the original application with the original documents and so on. Um, so I think people must have seen that. Um, and we put it out there for all to see so that they can review it, but you know, they're not going to see all the red lines going back and forth until uh it's actually posted on the agenda online. So, u just in case the just want to make sure everybody's aware of that's that's kind of how it works

process. Yeah, that's all I've got. All right, citizens to be heard. All right, we are journ. Thank you.