Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the February 26th meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission. I'd like to call us to order and start with a few housekeeping items. If you have a cell phone with you, please silence or turn it off. If you're here to speak on an item um and are not the applicant, please fill out one of the forms available outside and provide it to Elena or Jared down here below. Uh when the item that you wish to be heard on is called, you'll be asked to come to the podium and you'll have up to five minutes to speak. If you're here to speak on an item with a large group of people, we encourage you to elect a representative to share your group's concerns. And in those instances, some additional time will be given to that speaker. where several speakers are heard on the same same item. We just ask that you please do your best to limit comments to concerns that we haven't heard yet. Uh we're just trying to uh limit extensive and repetitious comments. Um please direct all your comments and questions to the commission and if needed we'll ask staff or the applicant to respond. Um finally, we just appreciate everyone's presence today and the time that you took away from your personal obligations to be here. We ask for your cooperation upholding the decorum of the meeting and ask that you don't speak from the audience. With that, uh we appreciate your your help with that and we'll begin um with the receipt of the minutes.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes from the February 12th, 2026 meeting. Have a motion to receive the February 12th minutes. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. and the minutes are received. Next, we have continuence requests. We'll start with uncontested requests.

Item 13 is KC7784, request to defer to March 12th. Item 14 is case SPUD1808, defer to March 12th. Item 15, KCE 1156, defer to March 26th. Item fif or 16, case PUD 2110, defer to March 26th. And item 17, case PUD 21108, continue indefinitely. Okay. And I'll just confirm there's no one here to be heard on any of those items. Seeing none, we're ready for a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the uncontested continuence request as read.

A motion to approve the uncontested requests. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. And those uncontested requests are approved. Uh there are no new requests. So we'll move to the public hearing. There is nothing on the consent docket. So we move to items to be heard individually. We're going to take a few out of order. Oh boy.

Um we're going to start with number five. Okay. Item number five is a resolution of the city of Oklahoma City Planning Commission finding that the proposed amendments to the amended and restated quartershore reinvestment area project plan are in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan and recommending approval of the amended core uh to quartershore reinvestment area project plan dated 2026.

Good afternoon. Joanna Mcpaden, Finance Department. We're going to get the slides pulled up and I've just got kind of a summary of the changes we're looking at. So this is an amendment to our quartershore project plan. Um if you'll So the next slide kind of highlights the changes. So we're we're making amendments to the budget. We are making amendments to the increment districts. We have some objective changes just to kind of uh align with new goals. Um and then at the end, just kind of a a note, we are adding the authority for OCDt to approve minor budget amendments or minor plan amendments. This is the language from the local development act that describes what a minor amendment is. We have this in most of our other tiff project plans. So we're adding that to this one for you know kind of consistency. So the next slide. So these are the main changes to the objectives in the project plan. We're adding a housing focus. We had it there but we're kind of highlighting it along with commercial and you know um other development. Uh we've added a consideration for the arena and the multi-purpose stadium. In the prior version it mentioned the Cox Center which is no more. So, we're just kind of bringing those up to date. Um, and then looking at focusing on encouraging development of underutil underutilized parcels in commercial areas. This is primarily focused on that um section that we're adding for Capitol Hill. Um, so these are the budget amendments we are um we are adding. If you'll go to the f the next one, Jennifer, I'm going to talk about that one. So, we're adding three new TIFF districts to the project plan. Um and so that's the primary increase for the budget or the primary um change to the budget. The other increases we've just added a little bit to these other districts just to bring them up to date from 10 years ago. A lot of things have changed. Construction costs and financing costs are a lot higher than they were before. And then if you go back one slide, Jennifer, so this will just show you where we've aligned the same the tiff district budget with the um use of the use of the

funds. So two slides over. So, here's the map. Um, it looks similar. So, this is the the current version is on your left and then the proposed changes are on your right. We have carved up some things a little bit different. The um TIFF G is Boulevard Place. That is unchanged. TIFF A, we are taking a piece out where the Paycom is. We feel like that will probably activate at a later date. Um, we've removed the sitter entirely because that's going to be used for the arena public purpose. We've also carved out the multi-purpose stadium in TIFF E for the same reason. Um, and then we've added TIFF H, which covers most of Capitol Hill, and we've also cut TIFF D at the bottom. We've we've separated that kind of more um what we believe will probably be a higher density section of that TIFF so that we can activate it separately. Um, those are the main changes. Happy to answer questions that you have.

Thank you. Um, any comments, questions from commissioners? Okay, I think we're ready for a motion. Yes, please. Uh, with that, I'd like to make a motion to recommend. Are we recommending or reapproving?

It's adopt the resolution. We're adopting the resolution to the amended and restated core toshore reinvestment area project plan. We have a motion to adopt the resolution from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. [snorts] That resolution is adopted. Uh now we'll move to item 11.

Item 11 is uh annexation. Uh this is a petition requesting an annexation pursuant uh to well I'll skip that part for an approximately 148.7 acre tract of land in section 21. Um and this is located roughly uh 2701 North Gregory Road and it's bounded on the north by Interstate 40. And Keith Coleman is here to uh introduce this. It's related to the next item of deanexation. Uh we have a an agreement uh anou with the city of Yukon uh related to both of these, but Keith's going to cover the annexation aspect of it.

Very good. Thank you, Jeff. Um commissioners, u my name is Keith Coleman. I'm the vice president of economic development for the Alliance for Economic Development and uh we represent the Oklahoma City Industrial and Cultural Facilities Trust. Um, this track of land, we're requesting it be moved into the the city of Oklahoma City. It is adjacent to the C. Page airport. Um, the um purpose of this is just to bring it in as far as uh part of the employment lands comprehensive plan uh for the city of Oklahoma City. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. All right. Um, any comments, questions from commissioners? This is W three. Yes, sir. I've uh I've been through this with uh spoke to several people regarding this. I think it's a good uh good process. Um, if any any other commissioners don't have anything regarding this, I'd like to uh move to approve the NX 2026-00001.

Yeah. So, just to be clear, this is a recommendation to city council. Okay.

To proceed with an ordinance of annexation. So, we have a motion from Gisher Meek to recommend the item to city council. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval. Item 12. Item 12 is a deanexation or a detachment of territory from within the corporate limits of the city. And this is located east of South Yukon Parkway and south of Northwest 23rd Street. And I believe Benerio is going to give us a brief uh overview of that. Next one. So this is uh detachment is for approximately 24.76 acres. Uh it's located east of South Jukan Parkway inside of Northwest 23rd Street. Um this is part of an MOA between the city of Oklahoma City and Jukon and it's part the other part of the of the agreement. I don't know if you guys have any other questions. Um, this is my ward. Um, again, it's just kind of a an agreement with Yukon. I do have someone signed up to speak, so I'd like to hear from them. Um, Steven Parks, [clears throat] good afternoon.

How you doing? I represent uh Sharon Jowen uh the property, I guess. side that's in the pink behind the church. You left the church in Oklahoma City and all the properties south of that to 10th Street all the way over to South Highway 4. Uh this property has been in the family since 1850. it's homesteaded land and uh she highly objects to for all of a sudden Oklahoma City wants to trade for airport property so they can land cargo planes at C Page Airport and take and but what you guys don't understand is you're flooding all our property if from 10th Street and I try do you have a a person in your office named Boyd that works for you? Well, he's a city employee, I believe.

I'm sorry. I believe he's a city employee.

Okay. Well, I talked to him and he was going to have somebody named the noob, which called me two weeks later, which was three weeks ago tomorrow. I've not heard back from told him what the problem is. Yukon has on the west side of the street, there's retention palms all the way down all the way to the high school. And then on the east side where the 7-Eleven is, there's supposed to be a retention pond there, they didn't put. So all that water that comes down Yukon Parkway to 10th Street instead of you would think it has enough force to make it across the street, but it just takes a bank right into and floods over there. And then if you go further down where you're actually annexing it, there's two 60-in drain pipes underneath the railroad tracks, which we also have a railroad spur uh aotment in our patent because it's not a deed. And uh on the east side of Highway 4, there's okay, there's the two 60in drains that go underneath the railroad track. On the other side of that, which is the north side of or south side of Highway South Highway 4, there's two 4x6 concrete things that go underneath the road. And then if you go up to where the pond is right there to where you're just getting ready to you see the ponds, well, they also got 4x6 drainage. And if you follow that creek all the way down, it's washed out our road that we can't even access our property. I called your office to get somebody out there to look at it. Nobody ever calls. So I I don't know what to do on that. it. And then we don't have any idea because I went to the Yukon depart uh development department and they said

that they're switching it because Oklahoma City doesn't have the infrastructure for that to do whatever they plan to do there. And so that's why they're trading it for Yukon. really you're trading it because you want to be able to land cargo planes at CE Page and you need more runway and you're by doing this I don't I mean we don't care that you're switching in it doesn't matter to us but our problem is you're flooding us out every time because nobody is thinking about water and where the direction of the water goes.

No, I understand that. Um so just a couple points of clarification. Um so just you referenced you guys up here. So, the commission is all volunteers. We're not city employees. So, we're up here making a recommendation. We're hearing cases and making a recommendation. I think I'll think if I could give you Mr. Lodge's number in the back. He's one of our uh deputy city engineers. He can provide a little bit more insight on that. If Barry, if you can circle up with Mr. Parks after and give him some information. I to your point, yes, at the edges of the city, our infrastructure is stressed. I think that by taking this to Yukon, it's going to improve the chances of the drainage improvements getting implemented.

Well, I I technically I really don't see that. I mean, no matter what they build, they may move it on down to where it doesn't flood where they're at, but it still pushes all that water. And that 10- inch rain that we had in like an hour, it devastated. I mean I Okay, you got we had a 3inch tin horn a three three foot, excuse me, a 36 inch three-foot tin horn and it washed another three-foot besides the 10 horn away to where we can't even access our property. I've been called the Canadian County, oh well, it's incorporated into Oklahoma City. So, I called your office because everything south of 10th Street is another councilman's per pro uh district and they can't talk to me about it and it's they're all their waters is what doing it.

So, well, I'm I'm sorry you're getting the runaround and you can't find the right person to talk to. Um I believe this is ward one. So, Councilman Carter uh would be the council person over this ward. So, um, you're welcome to reach out to him. Again, if you talk to Barry can get you his information, uh, get your information. I think he can probably provide some insight as well, but this is a recommendation, um, that we're hearing today and it will, it's not a final decision. It it's going to it will go forward to city council for a final decision.

Okay. Well, I mean, I know back in the 80s when Xerox was built, they asked Yukon if they wanted to expand their city limits, and Yukon said no. And so here we are 20 40 wait 40 years later now we're trying to do a swap for this for that. I mean why I mean if you need the airport why don't you just buy the property or deanexate that and don't give Yukon anything. I mean in that imminent domain if you need it just take it. It's a question. It's a question. Yeah. I Does anyone have an answer for that? I mean, if you imminent domain it, you just take it from Yukon and say tough luck.

I I just don't think that's something that's being considered. So, I'm sorry. I don't think that's something that's being considered. So, okay. Well, I just Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parks. Okay. I think we're ready for a motion.

Anything else remaining, commissioners? No. With that, I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of case DNX 20260000001. Have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to city council. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval. We'll return to our regularly scheduled agenda and item one.

Item one is KC 7783 preliminary plat of Prairie 74. This is located south of Southwest 74th Street and east of South Council Road and there's a variance uh also to the subdivision regulations.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. This is a preliminary plat on a PUD that you actually saw this site two separate times. I think uh Commissioner Meek when he first came on um my office had uh submitted an application for a a semi-truck parking facility. Uh that went away and said we reszoneed residential and now we're here on uh the plat for it. So this is uh 87 lot single family residential. There are seven TEES all of which we agree to. We do need the variance on TE2 given the shape of the the property. There's no way to avoid the variance. It is worth noting, however, we do have a stub to the to the west as well as the south. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Right, Commissioner Reek, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and you did say you're good with all seven tees? Yes, sir.

Okay. Any commissioners have any other comments regarding this? Um I uh I've looked this over according to the uh PUD that uh designed it and agree with staff's recommendation. Um so I believe we have to take the variance first. Correct. So with uh I'd like to uh make a motion to approve the variance to section 5.2.8B.3A. [music] We have a motion to approve the variance from Commissioner Meek. So second by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. That barrier is approved.

All right. Now the item. And with that I uh I'd like to move to approve the preliminary plat for C7783 subject to the technical evaluations. subject to the seven TEES. Yes, sir. Right. We have a motion to approve the the item. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. Thank you.

That item is approved. Item two. Item two is case SV uh nine, application by more public schools requesting a variance to section 5.4.2E.5 of the subdivision regulations. This would allow a private drive to be named in the Bridges of More Development location. Wrong one. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Gift number two. Um, everybody else was confused. I wasn't confused. Good afternoon. Steve Rollins, Arc Engineering Consultants. One thing. Let me let me let me call it out real quick. I I'll get it straight here.

Okay. Uh this is PUD 1768 S SP02 application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 1768. This is located at 17825 North Portland Avenue. That's correct. Good afternoon. Steve Rollins, Arc Engineering Consultants, 135 Deer Creek Road, representing the applicant. This is a specific specific plan as required by PUD 1768 projects located at the southwest corner of Northwest 178th and Portland or State Highway 74. Uh, as you can see by our application statement, our site plan and building are in compliance with all parts of the PUD. Um, staff has recommended approval. We would ask for your approval. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. Uh, Mr. Doug Hog and Mr. Jim Trent with Bank First are here if you'd like to ask them any questions directly.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Noble. This is your ward. You want to lead our discussion? I will. I'll just make a couple of points and one point is on the sidewalks. There will not be sidewalks along the the highway on Portland and you've agreed to interconnection within the development for pedestrian. That is correct. All along all of the interior streets within the development. You can see that probably best on the site plan. Well, there it is around around the outside edges of the parking lot. We've agreed to put sidewalks there instead of along the highway. Yes. And then all of the materials are consistent with the Bank First buildings that you see in the other locations.

That is correct. Yes. With with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve PUD 1768 SB02. We have a motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the specific plan. It's been second by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. And that specific plan is approved. Thank you. Item three. Okay. Now, item three. This is case SV9, application by Moore Public Schools requesting a variance to allow a private drive to be named in the Bridges of More development located south of Southwest 89th Street and west of Southwestern Avenue.

Great. Good afternoon. Hi, my name is Stacy Bruce and I'm the executive director at Bridges of Oklahoma. This is a collaborative effort between More Public Schools, More Public Schools Foundation, and Bridges of Oklahoma. Mission being empowering high school students in family crisis to pursue education without obstacles. We're building the 10 duplexes, total of 20 apartments, two resident advisor homes, and a student center right behind Sky Ranch Elementary. Yes. Our request is for a variance from the subdivision res regulations to be able to name our private drive accessing the property from Southwest 94th Street. Um, and naming that drive to honor some very special donors to the project. Wonderful. Um, Commissioner Newman, this is your ward. I do have someone signed up to speak, but I just want to confirm or Elizabeth [music] Basden Borth. That's okay. So, it's the applicant. So, we don't have it. We don't have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Um, I talked to Elizabeth yesterday and examined the um application and I'm in support of it. Does anyone have any objections, comments? Okay. Um, is this approved or recommend approval? This is approved. Okay. So, I thought um I'd like to make a motion to approve SB00009 uh application to for the variant for section 5.4.2. E.5.

All right. We have a motion to approve the item. It's been second by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your vote. And that item is unanimously approved. Good luck. Next we have item four. Item four is uh I I will be recusing for this item. Item four is case SP 607 application for uh by the city of Oklahoma City for a special permit to operate uh spectator sports and entertainment use unit high impact. And this is in the DVD uh business uh district. Um and this is located at 200 Southeast 8th Street.

Good afternoon. Mark Zitz with Johnson and Associates. Address is one Sheridan Avenue. Uh before you is the maps for multi-purpose stadium. It was just referenced in the court to shore plan. Shared if you can go back. The stadium sits within a larger district and I uh want to give special thanks to the planning department. We had a fairly intensive meeting on the best way to go about this. the approval process. And so we're here today with a recommendation of approval uh with no tees, but we're happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Harrison, this is your board.

Glad anyone I'm pretty sure not signed up to speak. Uh any commissioners have any questions, queries, complaints? Not I recommend approval. With that, we have the recommend recommendation for approval for SB607, seconded by Commissioner Meek. Vote when available.

And it passes. Thank you. We already heard item five. So next is item six. Item six is case PC 10993 application to reszone 1636 Southwest 35th Street from R1 to C3.

Good afternoon. I'm be here to ask for to approve result 10 R1 to the C3 because and if I bring this to C3 that bring the sign into the alignment with the current pattern and comprehensive plan. The C3 retail would be to replace under utilized lot R1 lot 10 with the reinvestment shop sale type and generate reason the ser for nearby neighbor resulting see-through improve rather than harm neighbor condition. This design will go for commercial and retail activity including neighborhood serving shop and service.

Okay. Thank you. Um Commissioner Milner, this is your ward if you want to lead our discussion.

Uh yeah. Uh I appreciate the uh information we got just prior to the meeting. Um which is this document right here, which is uh it appears to be kind of a rendering of what you're planning on. This right here is what I'm referencing, but you provided us what you're planning on beating. I um apologize. I I just got pointed so I wasn't at the January 15th meeting when this was heard. Um but it appears um are you is there a plant here? I I'm just trying to see how this is going to be oriented on the property. It's a little bit difficult without kind of a site plan here because I'm looking at this kind of wondering if you're trying to allow for a drive-thru.

That is why after we decide we don't know maybe right through maybe we Okay. Yeah. Okay. I really feel like if if you're wanting to do a drive-thru, I can only speak for me, but I I think I would like to see a little bit more of a site plan about how we're going to be moving traffic through this property because you're abuing residential and I'm just assuming how you're moving traffic through and that's going to spill out close to that residential there. That will be uh you see that's a subject the small one we in incorporated with the horn plan. Yeah, the big one. And we have enough for to write through. We don't

Yeah, I think we just need a little bit more work on this and I I I would be in favor if you're okay deferring this again. And since I'm now here, maybe you and I can get together and talk and we can talk with staff and we can get just a little bit more information about how this is going to lay out on this property. Okay. Is that correct? I will do would you be willing to do that to work with you on that? I appreciate that and I'm going to ask to defer this four weeks just to make sure we have enough time to talk and get potentially a kind of a site plan put together. Yeah. As soon as possible with you give me the time and can to meet with you. I'm going to say what what what's the date of in four weeks from now of our

be before we take action on that. Um, I I'll just say for what it's worth, um, there's no way I'm going to vote to approve commercial at this location without an SPD. It doesn't align with the commercial to the north and south. It's directly next to residential on straight zoning. We cannot site plan or otherwise, we cannot impose any kind of limitations or regulations or other than what are in the subdivision plan. So, it's going to have to go into an SPUD to get my vote. Sure. I agree. Yeah.

And and I'm sorry for that because I know I'm all about the mom and pops, but um you know, it's it's it's another layer. It's probably a little more money, but um yeah, it's it it needs that to be this close to this residential. Yeah. And not just the one next door, but around it. So, it's not a 35th is not a come did this come up in the the past comm because I think staff maybe suggested you do an SPUD on this because because that area we have the C3 we have the small is for

for get through with the whole comprehension that's easy for us that we go to S spud very hard for the costly money and time consum right and and I understand that yeah staff can help you develop this. The staff members can help you develop the spud if you need help.

But but it would it would probably be wise to hire an engineer and get this actually put with a site plan that that is legible and that we can figure out because it is backing up right to R1 and you have stepped down in size and height and it's just that intensive use right next to R1. It needs to have some constraints and an S spud will will allow that to happen. Yeah, that's planned and we have the landscape and we think that's in very close with the SBUD. Sure. Sure. And and I appreciate that. I I I still think we should just look at like a four-week deferral.

You and I need to talk and and let's just talk through the SPUD route. Let's get with staff. Yes, sir. And we we'll work through this. Yes. Is that okay? That's okay. Can somebody I'm sorry I don't know the date the 19th. So I motioned to defer this to the March 19th. Before Before we do that, I think Mr. Butler had something he wanted to add. Oh yeah, I just your earlier point. Um, we had recommended u an approval of C1, but if you're deferring it, oh, it kind of depends on what the motion is, but

what we could do if if [clears throat] you if the commission is wanting to do a spud, uh, it would be helpful to staff to know that what about C1 is not appropriate and what what would we need a spud for, that sort of thing. So, but if you're going to continue it regardless then and work through it. Yeah, I'm just you can work with work with the applicant to decide whether C3 is the uses that he needs or C1 and and come back with each. Yeah. Okay.

I have no problem with the C1 base, the SPD, but even even a C1 straight zoning is just not sufficient in my view this close to residential on what is basically a side street like this. And it doesn't, as I said, the the line of commercial up and down pen does not go this far back off pen and so on. So, if if this is what we're going to do here, and um yeah, I I hope it's not going to look like this. I mean, I I don't think that what we want is a mini strip center on this piece of property. So, Sure.

Okay. I think we were looking at the 26th. This four weeks. March 26th. Is that four weeks? Yeah. Yeah. I'd like a motion to you. [snorts]

Uh, hi Sarah Welch, Planning Department. It we continued this prior so that we could do an SPD. So, it's been continued since mid January. If if the applicant's agreeing to do a spud, then we'll need to go later than March 26th. Um, and I'm also available to enter anything you need to know about the C1 versus the C3. The either either way you go, if it's only this piece of property that's developed, it's going to be I would think a spite will be less restrictive. Honestly, it might limit uses, but the C1 currently has a 25 ft front yard setback and a 15t sideyard setback. So if it's oriented north, you're going to have 15 foot setback with a 5ft landscape strip on the east side or if it's oriented the other way where it's part and that's the part that we're still struggling with is to understand if it's going to be developed with the rest of that C3. Um you're still looking at a 15t setback from that residential property and a 5ft landscape strip. So, I think that if we're if this is going to be developed via a spud, we're going to have to reduce the setback almost and and change setbacks and change parking requirements to make something fit on this site. I just want to I'm just looking for direction, I think, for what the commission is seeking if we do help the applicant with an SPUD.

I'm not in favor of being less restrictive. So, the idea that we're going to have to do that, I I'm not going there. Okay. I if he owns both pieces of property, would he continue that and put both together in the SPD? I just question. We could do that. It would just require renoticing and a new legal description and more time. Yeah, that would really be the better idea. So, he owns the corner. Possibly does.

Okay. So I the I thought that the that the continuence was for the purpose of figuring out what needs to be done, how it's going to work, and when it will be heard. So I think the four weeks is fine, and we'll see where we are. That is that okay? I mean, that'll give me time to Yeah, we'll see where we are. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I guess I should Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this item? I guess I should No, I don't have anybody signed up. We don't have anybody signed up. Uh I would like to make the motion to defer this item to is it the 26th? Is that four weeks from now? To the March 26 commission hearing.

All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Milner to defer the item to the March 26th meeting. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. Thank you. And that item will be heard on the 26th. Item seven. Item seven is SPUD 1794, application to reszone 544 Southeast 14th Street from R1 uh MH and SROD.

Hi, my name is Dakota Desai 100 Northeast 5th. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. This is just a spud to allow for reduced lot sizes for single family homes. Um three single family homes on the lot. Um we worked alongside with staff to resolve um any issues that came up. We went to urban design yesterday and they recommended approval. Uh the only thing that came out of that really was that they wanted us to include a provision for following the SROD guidelines for street trees and we plan to include that in the application. Otherwise, there were not any tees. Okay. Um Commissioner Harrison, this is W seven. If you sure is anyone signed up to speak?

I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Uh, are there any concerns from any of our commissioners about the orientation of property? I' I'd just like to bring up the idea to use the platted alley rather than a private drive. So, we wanted to do that, but there's power poles there and the cost to move them is going to be pretty substantial. So, if possible, we would prefer to just keep the drive on the property and do cross access and shared maintenance agreements. Um, just the the cost to move the power poles that are there is a little prohibitive

and and and it it could be I just think pull the pole down and and move it to the to the west and and put it underground right there. It it just makes for future development as we develop further to the west so much better because if they have to take access from the rear and they design the alley, then you're going to have an alley paving and a private drive right next to each other. And for me, it it just makes for a better development for them and the future development in this area to not do the private drive. I know there's a there's like two blocks to the north. There's there's a private drive midb block that comes in and serves like five houses and it just as far as use and how it looks and for future it's so much better to use the alley.

I Yeah, I mean I I understand the the constraints and the concerns. We did go back and forth with staff and they didn't seem to have any issue with us with our preference for the private drive. I mean I'm looking at a street I would disagree with that. We did. We did. Um Okay. I'm Whenever I spoke with them, it was something that was brought up, but ultimately it wasn't included as a TE. Um I'm looking at a street view, and it appears to me that there's one power pole, and it looks to me like it would sit at basically your southwest property line. Looks like it's on be on the west property line,

right? Is is that the one that's too expensive to move? Is it is it on your property? The It's not I don't believe it's on the property. I think it's in the alley from my understanding. But it's on the west side of the property in the alley. Yes. Okay. Then should be clear. I'm sorry. If it's on the west side in the alley, it should be clear of being able to move the driveways down into the alley.

I was under the understanding that there is a power pole that would be in the way of being able to put a private drive in the alley or not a private drive a drive in the alley. Right. If there's not a if there's not a power pole there, then it's not an issue because it's not cost prohibitive at all. But if there is a power pole there, the preference would be to not have to deal with that. However, we're amanable towards reworking this if it's necessary.

Maybe we need an answer to this question then before we vote. I don't, you know, I I'm very much in favor of the idea of using the alleyway rather than doubling that paving and so on so forth to accommodate future development. I think that's a good idea. There there is overhead line. There's a pole on the east side and then the other pole looks like it's on the property line of the west property. So I think you could get it in and I'd say maybe we just say the alley gets paved to the third residence which I really don't like but or as far as it could go west to the power pole. That's my opinion as well is to I'm sorry that's my opinion as well is to look for the power to stretch it as far as we can to the actual power pole and include that as a te uh in order for us to approve this and move forward.

We agree. Any other questions?

Okay. Okay. If that's the case, I then I recommend approval of spud 17 TE added as red. If you would Don with the TE added as red, if Don could give us TE again regarding the alleyway to the power pole. I think we just want to restate that. So it would be applicant shall construct alley improvements um public alley improvements west to the power pole and all residential drives shall connect be given access off that alley.

Which power pole we're talking about? Do we need to specify the one on the west property? West property line. Yes. Do we need to add anything? I know it's it was in um the UDC notes, but the street trees required on all street frontages spaced a maximum of 40 ft. TE. Okay. So, wait. Then we'll add a second TE. Street trees shall be required for all street frontages spaced at a maximum 40 ft.

I was checking with Sarah to make sure she did. Good. Okay. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Harrison's to recommend approval subject to the two technical evaluations read in. It's been second by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval.

Item eight. Item eight is SPUD 1814 application to reszone 2020 Southwest 10th Street from R4.

Good afternoon. My name is Mike Aurora. I am the applicant and I'm here to I'm sure you guys understand what's going on. Um, it's already zoned R4. I gave you guys full plans and everything been developed for about six months now. Um the issue that we are having is SROD does not like parking in front of the buildings which is causing us to have issues um where we can't satisfy zoning um which is I think two parking spaces per unit. We are requesting it to reduce down to one parking uh space per unit and the parking will be in the back satisfying SROD's requirements. This was all approved by THAAD as well as uh Katie and Laura Griggs. I'm here for any questions, comments, and concerns.

Okay. Thank you, uh, Commissioner Milner. This is W six. Uh, yeah. Thank you, uh, for being here. Um, I think really just the only concern I have about it is just the parking though, the window. The parking. Yeah. I mean, I I appreciate the fact that you've I know you've worked with staff. You've got it moved to the back, but these are you got four twobedroom units and I know you've reduced parking down to one, but I I sure hope I'm not missing some, but I'm only really counting six parking spots.

Oh, yes. Sorry. Uh uh SRD did recommend to reduce it to six. Still don't understand why. I wanted to do eight, but they said to do six and I said okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I just follow their orders at this point at their mercy. You know, I always think when you're talking about parking, it's hypothetical because you you don't know what is going to be the makeup of tenants that move into these units, but if it's just one car per you're you're already putting two cars out on the street,

um I think that was just my the only concern I have. I appreciate the fact that you dressed the fronts up a little bit that are going to be street facing to 10th Street. um the little awnings and porches. I I appreciate that. Um I just I don't know if there's anything you're going to add to the parking, but I that that's just kind of it. So, but but you can fit eight on here.

Um so, I think the issue that we're going to run into is that we're going to be 2 feet over the park uh the property line. Not the property line, but there is an alleyway and every single neighbor on the whole block, actually the whole neighborhood has fenced. Even there's a brand new construction behind me about six months ago. They've all gone into the alleyway. If I was to do that, I have to go through variance, which could take eight months, cost a lot of money as well. Um, they just recommended uh to do a spud instead. Um, but I wanted to do actually more than eight parking spaces. I'm going to keep these buildings and if I was a tenant, I like parking, but SRD recommended there's a lot of street parking, so I'm just going to go with what they say. Is there eight units total? Is that right?

That is correct. Yes, sir. Eight twobedroom units. Two ones. I I just have hard time with the density. Yeah. You take one building away, that's 25 units per acre. Yeah. Very dense. Mid block

and is already zoned R4. That's my thought as well. If it if it's if it's not possible to fit everything you need on the land, it's probably too dense. The property has already been re uh zoned R4. It's been like that for multiple years. We're just Yeah. And R4 has a a basis of two. Um again, for me, I I like to see good planning. I don't mind the use at all. and and the just one building less, you can get your one parking spot per. And I know this is all about math, but

Okay. So, if we were able to get eight parking spaces, this is something you guys would be um I I I'd need a minimum of eight parking spaces. Okay. No, I will go back to SRD. I personally wanted eight as well, but SRD pushed back and said six. So, doesn't doesn't sound like you need to go back to them. They're recommending bodies. So yeah, sorry. They're just a recommended recommended body and so you don't have to go back to them if if we can get to eight spots and get your development in. The proper setbacks and and yeah, everything else. Okay. I I believe just requiring the eight spots will take take out the extra building that he's got shown

or shrink it or shrink them. Yes. Okay. But if you're in agreement with that, I could do uh I would have to go back to the architect. I don't want to say yes right now, but I mean I Well, you kind of got to say yes right now. I would say just let's go with yes. Yeah, we can continue it if you want yes right now. Right. Oh, no. Let's go ahead and do because it was eight before and it shouldn't have been an issue, but it was SRD that pushed back on it. So, but it satisfied uh zoning. So, and other I don't even know what to say, but yeah, I think it should be good with eight. I personally prefer eight. So, because if I like I said, if I was a tenant, I want parking spaces. One per unit would be solid.

I know I know parking's working on that right now for the past eight years to reduce it to one uh parking space per unit. Hopefully, we get there sometime soon. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so knowing that there's eight units, two bedrooms, but we're just doing eight parking spots, any thoughts on providing bicycle parking? Yeah. Oh, there's already on there. I don't know if you should be two or three. Yeah, I think it's on there. Okay, great. You're way ahead or what? So, it sounds like you're you're okay with us deferring this and No, no, no. We're He's agreeable. Oh, he is. I'm sorry. [clears throat] I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. If you need a deference, just let me know.

Okay. No, no, no, no, no. Yeah, if you're agreeable to that. So, we would add a technical evaluation that the applicant shall provide a minimum of eight parking spaces. I thank you, Sarah. Sarah's got awesome. Sorry, Sarah Walsh planning department. Could I please recommend one parking space per dwelling unit? Yeah. Okay. That way, if he can only build six, then he'll have that he won't have to build eight for anything. Okay. Okay. Got it. That makes more sense. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I got to go. We'll make a mo. Do we have anybody signed up to speak? No. On this one? No.

Okay. Motion uh to recommend approval of SPUD uh 1814 with the addition TE of Sarah. How do you want me to word that? That the parking shall be amended to be one parking space required per dwelling unit. Okay. Do I need to repeat that? Do we got that? We're good. Okay.

All right. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Milner to recommend the item city council subject to the technical evaluation is read in. It's been seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended. Item nine. Item nine is SPD 1799, application to reszone 5401 South Mustang Road from R1.

Good afternoon, David. Box 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, before you is an SPD that would allow for uh an office development along South Mustang Road, just north of 59th Street. When we originally had filed this application, the SPED looked uh significantly different than this and it was a C3based SPUD that would allow for a host of commercial uses that um lots of protests came in indicating, you know, a lack of support concern for that. So, we did have a community meeting uh at the Mustang Community Center, which is just south of 59th Street. That evening, Commissioner Meek was actually doing double duty. He had two meetings that night going back and forth room to room uh as Mr. Zitz and myself were getting uh yelled at by various citizens. Just kidding. Colin was there. He was very [clears throat] kind. [snorts] Um so after the meeting, it became clear that any form of commercial was going to be something that was not favored by the neighbors. And so worked with our client, went back to the drawing board, revised the SPUD to what it is now before you. And what it is before you is now an 01 uh limited SPUD with only a handful of office users allowed. I frankly had never seen 01. Obviously, we see O2 a lot. Um but we went a step further um less intense than that and went 01 and then further restricted to the the uses. In addition, what we've done within this SPUD is modify landscaping, modify setbacks, all done in a manner to hopefully make this a compatible uh development next to this uh single family neighborhood to our west. Now, as you all know, a typical landscaping buffer between commercial and single family residential is 5T. Okay? Again, this is 01 office. What we are proposing in our SPUD is a 20ft landscape buffer. So despite not having commercial, we are still 4x what

commercial would require next to single family residential. Um we are also willing to limit one of the TE's TE1 asks us to kind of specify architectural regulations. What we're willing to do is limit all these to singlestory uh require pitched roofs and require these to be residential in style. Now I'm open to language on that. I understand that that is uh fairly broad, but the point being, if you were able to join a Zoom with me, we walked through several other office developments that exist in Oklahoma City that are frankly far more intense than the four buildings proposed here next to high-end homes. And almost always they they look like homes. They're they're brick. They're pitched roofs. It just happens to be a CPA's office or a lawyer's office or or whatever it is. So the reason that that I think that's important is from an architectural standpoint there exists consistency with what is going on to the west of this site. But more importantly if you think about I think what our our goal here here is today is is this a compatible use? Is what is proposed compatible with the surrounding environment? Jared, could you go to the zoning map, please? There we go. Um so let's start with what Mustang Mustang is. Mustang is a state highway. It's a major interceptor uh between Mustang proper up to I40. It carries a tremendous volume of traffic. It is a four-lane presumably major arterial. Uh so having office of a limited nature of fronting on a state highway that's a major arterial four-lane roadway I don't think is a problem from a traffic standpoint. PED265 is a it's an old PD clearly by the number. It's a commercial PED. you have just recently approved that C1 that's immediately south and east of us uh just recently to that it was AA it's now gone C1 so I think there is um there's an expansion of what's happening

along Mustang Road Mustang is growing southwest of Oklahoma City is growing um and having office there I think is appropriate the other reason I believe office is compatible is if you think about the way that office gets used compared to how residential gets used. They are not on the same time frame. Typically, people go to work 9 to5 and that's the same time people are of course out of their homes cuz they're at their office. And conversely, when these offices would be closed is when people would be coming back. Typically, offices don't work on the weekend. And so, they tend to be good neighbors for that reason. Um, we tried to to try to find a solution that that would be um amanable to the neighbors. it was clear that there was nothing uh that would be allowed to to move forward that they would be supportive of and and I understand and respect that. It is worth noting this is zoned R1 right now. So this is not AA. Oftent times in these fights we see um these zoned AA and it's a big change. We're going from agriculture to something else. It's zoned R1. Um and why I mentioned that and why it's significant looking at that map all of you know it's R1 and what's immediately south of us public sewer, public water. Um, so what that means is you're not going to see likely if this were to be denied and a home were to be built, which I don't think is going to happen. Uh, but if it were, you wouldn't see a single home on three acres. You would see somebody tried to subdivide it based upon the ability of the public infra infrastructure to get sewer and water there. So you're really looking at, I don't know, 15 20 lots on three acres. So we believe limited office uh of four buildings, I think, is what's shown in our site plan. We're willing to limit square footage. We already limit height in the PUD. We have maxed out a landscape buffer. We're happy to talk about architectural res that can be

placed in here. But the bottom line is a nice well done office building next to single family is absolutely a compatible use that has been done over and over again across the city. So, we would ask for your approval and I'm happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Meek, this is Ward Three. Uh, if you'd like to lead our discussion. I do have several signed up to speak. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, yes, I I believe they have representation and I would like to hear from the people that have signed up to speak. Okay. Um, Colin Walk.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Colin Walk 100 North Broadway suite 2900. I am here behalf on behalf of Thoroughbred Acres and I'd ask that my clients please stand to show how important this is to them. They took the time off of today to come in here. So, thank you for that. For 37 years, for 37 years, this property in this area has been agricultural. That is why there are five acre tracks throughout there. And what's even more important, and while I know you generally don't care about this, it will become relevant in a moment. If you look at the covenants in this particular issue, uh you will see that everything in there is geared towards agricultural. For example, there are currently cows and horses still out there on these tracks of land. Now, I don't know how many office buildings you've been in which you look out the back window and you see a bunch of cows and horses. You don't. And the reason is is because even though that was 37 years ago, as we sit here today, that area is still rural low typology, which means that whatever goes in there cannot negatively affect the rural characteristics of that residential development. So developing this in the first place to office would violate that typology requirement. But secondly, if we were to look back at the Ledgestone property where they talk about the commercial development before or that's currently going on, what they don't point out is that there's 180 houses in that neighborhood that is clearly an urban style neighborhood. The one to the north where Thoroughbred is are all 5 acre tracks saving except for one and two. Why? Because they are all rural in nature. And then if you look at their proposed entrance plan to this, the other big difference is is this is a private road. They are seeking access

off of a private road that my clients have to pay for. They haven't asked, they haven't volunteered to pay for any money to use our road. And then let's think about the most practical problem that they're going to face. The city is starting to look at covenants to determine whether or not to issue Airbnb short-term rental requirements. That is setting a precedent. And so you need to look at the covenants in this case because it specifically excludes anything related to office buildings. It permits retail sales, which as we all know, there's a difference between retail and office space, at least in zoning. And if you look it up in the Oxford dictionary, retail means a place where goods are sold, not where services are provided. So if they end up building this, there will be a lawsuit resulting from this because none of this would be in conformance with the covenants. Finally, I'd like to point out that find here. Oh, the office buildings themselves uh don't appear in rural areas. You don't see office buildings in rural areas. So, this development for 37 years has been agricultural. It remains agricultural. They want to use our private road for ingress and egress, and they're completely disregarding the actual covenants that are in place that would prohibit any of this development. Consequently, my clients would ask that you deny this application as not in conformance with the rule low typology that is required.

Right. Thank you, Mr. Walk. Uh Corey Franks. That was fun, huh? My name is Corey Franks. Um, I live right next to the piece of property that this this proposal is going to affect. But what I wanted to do, Could you just provide that address for the record, please? 11500 Southwest 54th Street.

Thank you. What I would like to show you is originally this this HL Todd property was a 20 acre ranch. I currently reside in the old HL homestead. The proposed plot is going to be right here in my backyard. Another thing to note is this house is the only house in the neighborhood that faces the east and west. I'll get to that in a minute. But there's that picture. Um, I get a little nervous, but I'll get through it. So, my family and I currently reside in the old HL to HL Todd Homestead. This property was originally a 20acre show ranch. that the covenants were were worded to allow for the selling and working of high-end roping horses, cattle, horseboarding, training, roping clinics, and such events. [snorts] The wording in the covenants to allow HL Todd to operate such an operation in a residential development are now being manipulated by the surviving family members to maximize profits on the remaining the remaining land. Numerous comments have been made by the petitioner that HL Todd always intended for this property to be commercial on the frontage.

So this home was built by HL HL and back to it's the only home in the neighborhood that faces the east and west. HL built this that way so he could see his property. He could look outside and see his horses. He could see his roping arena from anywhere in the house. He never intended to look out there in his backyard and see buildings. This was set up to be a ranch, a working ranch, show ranch, dealing with high-end clients of the horse trade, cattle trade, boarding as such. Um, obviously I object to this very much, but I the neighborhood was never intended to be a commercial facility. It's private road. We're on septic well. Everybody in there has like like was said, horses. you know, you move to a neighborhood like this to be able even though you're in the you're in the city, the amenities the city offers, but you've still got space around you to get away from the cement. Um, I indeed I I I do a farmtotable beef beef, you know, I raise cattle on my property because of what the covenants say. I can do that because it's a small trade. But anyway, that's basically what I had. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Franks. Mr. Franks, I just had one question for you. Sorry. There there's a black pipe rail fence along your That is mine. Is that the property line? Yes. Okay. Mine just for my reference. I wanted

which was modified. It went from there was four 5 acre tracks. When HL started selling it all off, they modified that was another deal. So if he intended for that to be zone commercial, he would have laid he would have originally laid it out to fit those five he would have built his house within the boundaries of that five acres that it was on. Instead they've moved it to fit the covenants of to to be able to sell the house. So those were originally four five acre tracks and that is your property. Yes, sir.

Okay. Um and just we heard Mr. Walke and Mr. Franks both mention covenants and just a reminder since I know we have a couple new commissioners. Um covenants are private legal documents that we have no purview over. Um so while they may be applicable in the private realm as we uh review and consider it's something that we don't is not in our purview. So okay um Carrie Barker. Thank you very much. I'm uh [clears throat] Carrie Barger. I live at 11648 Southwest 54th Street, Private Road that you've heard referenced here a couple of times. Uh the reason I'm here, I'm the HOA president now for close to 30 years. Why they keep me electing me president each time. I don't know why. It's a highpaying job. But uh in any case, I met Mr. HL Todd, the original owner of that. And as you've heard, he owned four lots. and he did ask for that to be his forever home the way he built it. And he did a mighty fine job. And we got along great. He wasn't happy about mowing the yard to our specifications or paying the dues on four lots, but he did so. And I will tell you, over [clears throat] that period of time, they honored their commitment not to move a commercial property. They went to their graves not doing so. And I hope that you allow us to live out our dream homes in our neighborhood and the covenants is very important. Everyone has abided by it up to this time, including HL. And I just think that they're taking advantage of our uniqueness as thoroughbred acres. And as

you've heard, we have horses and cattle there. And it's a unique place. And so changing it where you have commercial businesses uh that have already gone out of business up and down Mustang Road. What happens when that business goes out of business and it sits there empty? We have very little control over that. Also, we just have no nothing in our covenants to control or uh manage a uh business of that type. As you know, homeowners, yes, I can tell them to mow the yard. I can keep the fence in good repair. I can do all those things. We take care of the road and pay for it ourselves. But how do I govern an office building that comes in there? How do it just is incompatible all the way around. So, this is not a good idea. So, please allow us to turn this down. Um, it's not a good idea.

No, I understand where you're coming from. I do have a question for you. I mean really it's a question for all. So this is zoned R1 and as Mr. Box stated um I mean if this didn't become office, if it didn't become commercial, I mean somebody has the right to come in and build single family homes in here and at 3 acres I mean they could they could conceivably put 15 homes in here. Is that something that you would you would be agreeable to? We would not be in favor of it obviously because again the neighborhood is built for horses and cattle

and that's the way we would like it to remain. So [clears throat] we would not be in favor of it. But obviously we would honor the covenants whatever uh it would allow. We will stand by that. But in nowhere in the covenants does it reference any commercial business in there. And so that we are totally against uh there. But we will speak to a residential building uh coming in there obviously. Um so we're we're open to that. We will honor the covenants as it's written, but we are not in favor of u of this point. Also, it presents each of us uh pay dues each year to keep up the road and the fencing and so forth. So if we have five more or six more, 10 more tenants in there, each one of those people would be subject to the same amount of dues that the rest of the people pay. So again, this is just not a good merger of a business plan. We're not against business up and down Mustang Road, although it has impact the traffic horrifically, but strategically placed. You can work around that, but on top inside the boundaries of our neighborhood. I mean, that's our addition. They're putting it inside the boundaries. It's not alongside or across the street. It's in our neighborhood. And we will have to turn down that deadend road each time and pass by that every time we come in and out of there. And so, it's not like we're I live there. I'm retired. I still have horses. We enjoy the community. Everyone in the community has either likes to live around horses and cattle. That's the theme and nature of it and that's the purpose of that neighborhood. It was designed around that and HL never mentioned developing that into a commercial in the future. I uh I just know that because we spoke many times on that

subject. So I appreciate your time. Any other questions? Any questions, Mr. Berger? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Waly. Did you have something to add? Yes, Mr. Clair, if I can make one one point of clarification just real quick. Uh, while I agree that Mr. Box is a great lawyer and he and I may end up having a big fight over the definition of retail in the covenants, one thing I want to be abundantly clear is under no set of circumstances could more than one residence be built on those lots under the covenants. That's indisputable. Okay.

All right. Uh, last I have signed up to speak is June Roy. I am a resident of Thorbred Acres. I live at the very end of the road, the Culac. Can we have that address just for the record, please? 11749 Southwest 54th Street. All right. Thank you.

I have a beautiful home there. All the all the houses on our street, I say it's one entrance in and out, which we pay to pave, um, are a nice almost to a rural look, even though we're so close to everything. Basically, in my home is what I have to leave to my children. I believe that allowing that property to be zoned commercial would lower the value of my home and therefore my legacy to my children. And even of more concern to me is the danger of putting commercial buildings in there. The traffic on Mustang Road in our area is horrible. We go through at least three rush hours a day and they last over an hour each and the traffic is backed up from 59th Street to 44th Street totally during those times. I have waited five or more minutes to turn turn left out of our neighborhood onto Mastang Road because of traffic. And putting in two more entrances off of Mustang Road would make the traffic much worse, much more dangerous. And putting one off of our personal road that we pay for into that property would be disastrous for us. But I'm I'm very concerned about the safety of putting more exits and entrances on Mustang Road. I know personally of two wrecks, one to a current resident of Thorbred Acres and one to a previous

uh resident of Thorb Red Acres. That happened right at our intersection where they were trying to get in and out of our neighborhood and were hit. [clears throat]

It's it's just a very dangerous situation already and allowing commercial to go in there would make it much worse. And I know there are other commercials, but there's there's no turning spaces. It's just our two-lane road. There's no interest in exes beside that and really no [clears throat] place to put them. Uh, so I highly object along with all of our other neighbors who are here and the ones who add or other commitments and could not be here. This would be a horrible thing for our neighborhood and we strongly request that you deny this resoning. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Roy. Okay, that's everyone I have signed up to speak. Uh, Mr. Box, do you want to Yes.

respond to any of that? So, um, on the access piece, so our site plan that was originally submitted as part of this does show access onto the neighborhood street. After the neighborhood meeting, we did revise the SPD and the access provisions now say access may be taken from a maximum of two driveways on South Mustang Road spaced at least 200 feet apart. So, we we do not allow access onto that residential neighborhood. If we want it to be stronger, we can add a TE that just says access is prohibited from uh Southwest 54th Street. Um there were several implic indications of the comprehensive plan being rural low. This is rural medium. Certain office non-residential uses are compatible within the uh rural medium designation. This is not rural low. Jar, can you go to the um go to the aerial? But again, more fundamentally, if you're familiar with the area, um I understand they have a rural style neighborhood uh that was developed many, many years ago. If you spend any time on Mustang Road, specifically at this intersection, there is nothing rural about it. Mustang, the city of Mustang has a massive community center there, uh that has a, you know, their library, their outdoor pool, their city hall. There are gas stations on two of the corners. There's, you know, commercial up and down Mustang Road. And again, it's a major interceptor from this area and south all the way through Mustang to I40. So, I think it's a bit of a misnomer to say that it is a rural area. This is a um residential area that is now fastly becoming a commercial area. understanding the nature of their neighbor and how long it's been there. We tried to be sensitive in our SPD by limiting it to 01, further limiting it to um just a handful of uses, maximizing our landscaping, um requiring pitched roofs. Now, there's indication of retail. I assume my friend uh Colin

didn't indicate that he wanted to see retail. Uh but it's a bit strange that retail would be allowed, but an office building wouldn't. So, we think it's appropriate. uh the technical evaluations on the recommendation part two we agree to all three of them and on the TE1 we would say uh singlestory with pitched roofs residential styled buildings um our intention is clear these are single independent office buildings this isn't intended to be u a strip center with multiple bays each office building to be independent perhaps we even limit the maximum square footage of any single office building shall be 7500 ft². That's what's drawn on our uh site plan. We're happy to commit to that. Um so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and we would ask for your approval.

Mr. Box, did you say that you're that you're willing to limit the number of buildings to four? Yes. Because that's all okay.

Thank you. Um, I've got a lot to say regarding this. Um, I know I'm only one vote and, uh, I know that staff's recommended denial and there's reasons for that, I'm sure. And many of them I agree with. Um, we still have to look at it both ways until there's a vote. We know which way this is going to go. Um, so I have I wanted to go on record and say I do agree with David that the the site plan basically is no good. Um, because it it does show the access to 54th Street, which I would, you know, definitely want a TE that allowed no access to 54th. And I have a list of them to speak to if uh if this thing goes that direction. Um, I did want to say that there's a confusing spot in the application where it talks about, let me get to it. Building setback [snorts] lines have to be 25 ft on the southeast and west. Then you get into landscaping in item seven and it's a 20ft landscape buffer. So, do you agree that it is a 25- ft uh buffer

for building setbacks? Yeah. Yes, it's a 25 ft building setback and within that 25 ft 20 of it will be consumed with landscaping. Okay. in speaking to the city's TEES um TE number one providing additional details regarding the architecture of the proposed office buildings. I believe in um I believe baked in with the 70% masonry and 30% other like we always do that's sufficient other than if uh we could increase or add te to say singlestory residential style buildings with uh pitch roof.

Nope. One more with pitched composition shingle roofs.

That's fine. because if this thing goes that way, it needs to look like a house and and uh I believe without putting that on there, it could be, you know, metal lock seam roofs that don't look like the houses around it. Um so I would I would request that. Um this is a agricultural AA big lots that have livestock. The other thing that I would request if this thing goes for approval that um a masonry fence must be put on the west complete west property line. Um that's a 8ft masonry fence with a continuous concrete footing. Um that would have to be agreed upon by the neighbor that spoke that has the pipe fence. But I believe if this thing was to come to fruition that to keep livestock in, you need a masonry wall, not stockade fences. Um, so with that, that'd be TE number two that I would request. Um,

well, sorry, sorry to interrupt. I I just, um, maybe TE4. I want to make sure the record is clean. No, you're good. TE4. Um [clears throat] in let's just keep going with number five then. Um I would like if this thing goes for approval that it we limit uh we make a TE number five that limits uh four buildings to 7500T each. Well, I don't want to say each. I want to say a maximum of 7500 ft. Perhaps they would be less. That's what I meant. But four also put the word four. No more than four buildings. That's fine

because that matters. Um, and then kind of in the application, it's really unclear. Usually there's a better statement regarding water and sewer. I assume and would want a TE that public water and sewer would be required. Um, they speak to in the sections regarding those, they speak that the 8in wastewater man is adjacent to the site and a 12-in water man is adjacent to the site. So, the last thing you would want if this uh got approved is for them to drill wells and have uh you know some kind of septic. So, but I didn't see anywhere where that can connect. If you can connect, you have to connect, but I would ask for a TE number six. Are we on?

Yes, sir.

That a public water sewer would be required. Um I'm sure some other commissioners have comments regarding this. Um, I think both sides have, you know, you guys, W three is wild wild west. We see all kinds of stuff. We had a case like this last meeting that um, and I believe you represented it that the neighbors begged for retail and begged for, you know, a Starbucks, a a you know, an Aldi's grocery store surrounded on three sides by homes. and they begged for it. And and then you get to this case and I understand every neighborhood's different and I did I do agree that this neighborhood is a a a 5acre plus neighborhood. So it is different. Um and in this case you guys don't want anything there. I understand that. That's that's a stance you can take and it's respectable. Um, but we have to look at this um to try that if if this was to be approved to put as many guard rails on it as we could because like I said, I agree with staff on the recommendation for denial. But, uh, I'm only one vote. So, with that being said, I'll open up to any other comments from any other commissioners.

I I'll start. Um, and I just want to I'd like to add the slope to the pitch to guarantee. Sure. 612 minimum or what? Whatever you Thank you. We can agree that we're agreeable all the ones you said. Yeah. And it would go to the idea that if you were looking from the property owner the that lives there looking to the east that they would see the the fence maybe the tops of the windows then the roof line. It would look just like a house. Yeah.

So the architectural uh the materials I want to move the cementus siding out of the 70% and just have the brick, stone, rock. Say that one more time. On on the architecturals on the material you want to remove the siding. Yes. It could still be ephus or 30%. 30%. Move it to 30% to 30%. Okay, that's fine.

What's TE8? And I want to talk about the fence uh itself, the masonry uh wall that would be built um along the the uh south property line. Right now I think it's well it's pretty open.

Yeah, it's adjacent to that. Um, well, you got one home, but then you've got a common area, which is a drainage channel or ditch for that neighborhood. And that's why I didn't bring up that side because I, you know, I drove by there and and I' I've looked at it and it looked to me like it would cause a drainage issue. Yeah. Which obviously they wouldn't have to create a drainage issue, but they'd need some kind of sight proof screening on that side. What if we do it to the extent of the home of the single family residents that exist there? I don't want to. We may get an issue putting footings next to the right the drainage area,

but we could agree to the extent of the single family home that exists to our south. Then on the or on the on the north side, there wouldn't be a fence, right? It' be landscaping. It'd be landscaped and open, but no no access. But yes, but and no accessing. But kind of keep with that rule. look of the grass. Yeah. And you have the um the landscaping. It's a 20 foot landscape buffer on the north as well. So, north, west, and south have a 20 foot landscape buffer.

Well, and speaking to that, TE number two is asking for it to be increased, which means we would then have to state that to effectively meet this TE number two. And then T number three kind of confuses me. If we bake it, if you bake in all the requirements, all the setbacks, all the heights, but they still want staff still asking for revised exhibit B to reflect all this stuff, which we can do. So we just can't I mean we get this, you know, over the weekend. There's not enough time to do it between Thursday, but it has to be done before council. But I'm saying if it if if we recommended denial today, T number three doesn't matter. If we recommended approval today, how does TE3 matter? because it's you recommend approval subject to that TE.

So it would have to be done before council. Correct. Okay. And so in TE number two, we're going to need an increase of 100%. I mean, typically what we've done is the maybe at least we do it on the well, maybe we do it the north, west, and south are the trees, the the language that Commissioner Claire has suggested in the past, the um Xin caliber trees on I think 20 or 25T centers. Yeah. On 20 or 25 foot centers within that 20 foot landscape buffer on the northwest and south, which would be agreeable to. So, let's go with 20. Okay. Canopy trees. 20 foot canopy trees.

2 in 20 foot caliber. Yeah. Minimum. Two and a half inch. 2 and 12 inch caliber canopy tree on 20 foot center. And I still would like to see something on the points a percent increase. Yeah, there needs to be some Yeah. quantification of the increase. Like what are we That's fine. My guess is when we do 2 and a half inch caliber trees on 20 foot centers, we're going to blow through the point system, but I I would Right. And so I want to see something on the ground too. Um, you know, so what if we say it? So it's not 20% increase in the points required. How about 50? Oh, I like 100.

100% increase. Yeah, we like that. I don't know what I'm Nate. would you and they they don't know but the truth is I mean even the landscape requirement on 3 acres this much frontage it's not that much well and and probably what I mean you'd probably get down into a granular level if you're going to require one canopy tree 2in caliper every 20 ft then for every 20 ft then you should you could require um you know five three gallon shrubs

well or it's you're the landscape architect, but I believe we're we're talking about two different issues. You got the buffer upgraded requirement that we're going to state in a TE and then you have the parking parking landscape requirement that's going to be derived through the development center. If we put a increase requirement on the parking landscape, that's what would help uh what this looks like. I'm just trying to soften the whole look, the whole edge. The whole edge.

Okay. So, what if we the the the language we've already stated about the trees, an increase in total points by 50%. I I don't know what that looks like on the ground. It's just not that much. That's why 100 is probably Well, did you say by 50 points or 50%? Okay. So if it if if the site plan they drew the sizes of the buildings they drew required certain amount of parking spaces those parking spaces are going to come up with their landscape points and you had to uh add 50% more than that. I believe it would there I believe there's a point it gets too much. What what if we

Yeah. I mean you just have 20 ft of of room to put that in against that back wall. What if we doubled the required parking landscaping points? I disagree with your statement. Uh the TW the the buffer is a whole separate issue. The point system is going to drive the parking lot plantings and those plantings can't be put behind the buildings. They have to be they have to be approxim they have to be approximate to the parking. So let's just double the required landscaping points required in the parking in the parking points. Yes. I trust that my office is watching this back carefully. And again, yeah, and I and I still want to soften the that I mean 20 I'm with you.

Escape is I'm with you. I think I think it's not just about the parking. Yeah, and that's fine. I mean, that is where it will be most felt. If you think about what's going to happen behind the building if we have an 8ft concrete wall, I don't know what a bunch of shrubs do there for anyone, but along that north side, the north side. Understood. So maybe we limit it to that the the increase the 100% in the buffer on the north side. I mean that's where it's going to be most noticeable and then do the the upgrade of the parking as well. Everybody's making a face. Yeah. I mean I I I agree that there's not a whole lot of of reason to put

more landscaping. I'm just trying to once again I wish we had a representative from the development center here. Um because when you submit a building permit and you and you come up with your required site parking points, if it's 254 points where a trees 12 and the shrubs, you know, three, um you're allowed to put them so many feet from any parking space where and in this case is going to be the north side, the south side, and the east side. And so I believe that parking point increase needs to be able to be put anywhere on those three sides. Not if you called them all out on the north, it could be a jungle there. I was talking about the buffer park. Okay. Okay, I understand that.

Yeah, the I I mean I'm I'm all in favor of beefing up the parking landscaping. And you know, there's more there's going to be more area that's covered by that than there is by the buffers. If we double the parking landscaping points required and then double the landscaping points required along the northern edge. I think that's at least something that has impact rather than behind the building. I'm with that. Although I like the trees and love behind the building. No, I mean we'll do the trees. I'm saying you know putting something other than the trees behind the building when you have an eight foot wall. Okay, I can live with that. How about you?

We can live with that. Yep. Is a specific plan required on this on in spuds? There's typically not a section for specific plans. I I didn't see that. Really like to know what these are going to look like. We That's fine. I mean, we can require a specific plan. Good idea. I I'll be here anyways. I enjoy coming hanging out with you fine folk. You guys good with the landscaping?

I think so. Okay. All this being said, um I think that the offices are definitely a very compatible use of residential. That being said, when I look back in living in area very similar to this, the overall site plan, Jared, can you go back to the one you just had it on? Um I think this when originally conceived and platted was very deliberate. And to me, this feels like a square peg in a round hole. And I just Sorry, I can't get behind it. That just doesn't fit to me. Well, I I say Yeah. What more do you want to see? We can see it in specific plan.

Oh, I mean I'm fine with all the changes you guys have made. I'm just saying the concept I can't support. So, the concept of office on a state highway. No, the concept of taking what was obviously obviously divided into five acre tracks for the purposes of rural development and taking one little chunk out of it and turning it into commercial. If the entire furnish was originally designed for that, then maybe I could get behind that. But from what I'm seeing, the way it's laid out, the way it's been developed, this piece does not fit to me.

Well, fair enough. None none of Southwest exists if we just stuck with what was originally intended, right? When you when you reszone that PC1 across Mustang, that was originally a farm. That was intended to be a farm until it wasn't until somebody decided that it was time to sell and things were changing. I mean, that's the nature of zoning. Every time that someone stands at this podium, they're seeking to do something different than what was originally contemplated. Right. And so, different land owner, different idea. That's right. I I just get

Well, I get that and I've been on that side of the podium, too. But in this particular case, my opinion is this does not fit. I get that and and I'll respect that. But I would take the time since these folks have taken the time to come here and say to me this is sort of simply an acknowledgment of the change that is occurring has occurred is occurring and will now accelerate not because of this but just because of where we are in this area. Um, the idea that this is going to be 01 instead of almost anything else it could be other than, you know, empty property is to me a big plus. I would not be able to support this if I did not think that it was going to be an improvement to the area and that it would not impact in any significant way the existing neighborhood. I mean, the neighborhood's there. It's been there a long time. The city's grown up around it. It's it's pushing at the boundaries for sure. H, but this does not seem to me like an encroachment. And the idea that that a piece of land I mean, the only thing we're really here to decide is whether this use is appropriate for this piece of land. And it's really just impossible for me to look at this and say no. So with the limitations, restrictions, improvements that are being baked into it and yes, it has to have all that. So um that's where I am.

I mean, we started with three TEES and now we're at eight or nine. So I don't even want to make the motion because of that. But

you can say as read. I mean I are you comfortable with where all of the language is on the TEES? Okay. Let me give my shot of where we think we are. Um okay. On TE1 we will say singlestory residential style buildings with pitched composition style shingles. The pitch being 612. Uh TE2 increased amount of landscaping. That would be within the landscape buffer 2 and 1/2 in caliper canopy trees planted on 20ft centers. TE3 we agree to. TE4 would be the 8-foot masonry fence on continuous footing along the west and south on the south limited to the span of the single family residential lot that exists on the south T5. No more than four buildings with a maximum square footage of 7,500 square ft per building. Six public water public sewer required. Seven would be a requirement that the landscaping points required within the parking shall be doubled. Let's go to E8. The landscaping points required along the northern boundary shall be doubled.

I think that's it. And and we were going to add the specific plan. Oh, a specific plan nine. A specific plan shall be required. And the materials remove the cement sighting from the 70% allowable into move it into the 30% allowable. Is that enough? How about the uh do we need to put the access was prohibited out to on the southwest 54th Street? We can. Yeah. Like I said, the way it's drafted, it's already done. Okay. Does that we can add to either says Yeah. No access shall be permitted to Southwest 54th Street.

Okay. I will then Can we make just one quick suggestion the roof pitch? It's 612 like that means it has to be that and nothing else. Do you want to make that a minimum? Minimum. Minimum. Okay. Okay. Minimum 612. Okay. Try. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a recommend make a motion to recommend approval of SPUD 1799 with all the tees as read into record.

All right. I have a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to city council uh subject to the technical evaluations is read in. and for the for the benefit of the neighbors that are here. So, this is a recommendation of the city council. It's not a final decision. City council will make that final decision in approximately six to eight weeks. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval.

Thank you. Item 10. Item 10 is case PUD 2020 2125 application to reszone 17412 North May Avenue from PUD 1843.

Good afternoon. Mark Zitz Johnson and Associates. Address is one Sheran Avenue. Uh so this application uh was I don't know that it ever actually made it here. We received significant protest for the back portion of the property. They were seeking to do a kind of a build to rent single family detached product. After a couple meetings with the neighborhood, uh our client has decided to remove that portion and keep what is permitted today. And so we've amended this PUD to be just the frontage uh of the putt. So uh and it doesn't look like any of the neighbors are here. We initially had about 30 to 40 people and I'm sure that's reflected in your packet. It's extremely difficult to get folks to withdraw a protest letter, but I does I do think it says something that uh no one is here now. And so we have three TEES from the staff. Uh we believe that we are in agreement with all of them. I just think for the record it' be helpful to have staff clarify TE2. Uh this is a private commercial development and we intend to construct it in accordance with the city's parking lot standard. It didn't specify one way or another, but this has come up on a couple other cases. So just want to be clear there. And then based on a couple conversations, I would like to add two TEES. Um if you see our property boundary and look immediately south, there's an office park. There is one home that we share maybe half of their property line. So in order to ensure that there is some landscaping behind it, TE4 would read, "One large tree as defined by chapter 59 of the zoning code uh shall be placed within the southeast corner adjacent to the existing single family home." Uh and then we would add TE5. uh should the building be designed to interact more directly with the existing pond uh screening on the east may not be

required and would be reviewed at the specific plan stage. So, under the current site plan, that wasn't anticipated. But in talks with the developer, if an office user uh if a different user comes in and they redesign the site and the building to have a more direct connection to the pond, we do not want to have to put an 8 foot uh 6 or 8 foot fence along that backside. Our client owns both sections that connect. And so if this got developed first or this PUD is uh approved, anyone who purchases or lives in the piece to the east would be well aware of what existed uh on the other side of the pond. There's also a significant gap between where the first single family home would be and the back of the commercial. So with that, we'd ask for your recommendation of approval.

Okay. Thank you. Um Commissioner Noble, this is your ward. No one signed up to speak. I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Can I ask a question just from your lead in? You're not telling me that what we're voting on today is something other than what I have here. No. No. And uh what makes this one unique is even though that the I think the size of the putt or the size of the tract uh is smaller now. We still initially filed it as a PUD and so using the specific we can still put a specific plan application requirement in this and so spec specific plan is in the application so they have to do that. Okay.

Anything else? the the the fencing requirements that you will have. So potentially to the north and the south the material on that I would like to see more than just the standard stock a fence. So So I can you have the zoning map Jared? Yeah. So to our north is C3 and to our south is office except for that one resident in the back 50 ft in the back. So, and that existing neighbor already has a fence. So, I I don't know what And there's a flume there, too, but I don't know that it [clears throat] goes it doesn't go all the way to May Avenue. I think it stops right there at that corner.

Mhm. Oh, just to make sure that's fenced into there or double fenced somehow or just in that one spot. Yeah. I mean, I know it would look very strange probably because it wouldn't stop access from anything. But is that something that we can come back at specific plan with and show you the fence treatment at that time? Yeah. That way they can design it properly and we don't commit to something that would look odd. So, we'd add uh I guess that would be TE6 that fencing the fencing solution in the southeast corner should be specifically reviewed at the specific plan stage. Yep. kind of tie that to five anyway because yeah that's screening.

Anything else? I don't want to deprive us of hearing from Mr. Lodge today. Um if he would like to come up and clarify the intent of TE2. Okay. Barry. Oh yeah. very large public works that the intent of TE2 is and and we can change the wording in that at y'all's discretion, but the intent of that is that any portion of the private drives that will be constructed within the public right of way must be constructed to the city standards. Okay.

So, the approach basically the approaches but if anything else went in there. world. That's what that would translate to. Correct. I wanted to give a better more language to that since chairman was giving me my opportunity. Yeah, we're in agreement with that. Okay. Anything else? Do we need to hear from Dustin for anything? No, cuz he's good. He's got I think we're ready to wrap it up.

Yeah. and didn't maybe and no questions on that development of the pond and what it would need to entail. It'll be in the specific plan. With that, I will make a motion to recommend approval of PUD 2125 with the written read in adjustments to the five TEES. A motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend the item to city council subject to the written and additional TEES as read in. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And that item is recommended for approval.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh as we moved items up uh earlier in the agenda, that was the last item to be heard and we'll move on to additional items. Communications and reports. Planning Commission committees. [snorts] I don't believe there are any active right now. Planning Commission members. Actually, there were some things I wanted to bring up, but um I'm my brain's fried, so I'll think about it for next time. Okay.

There was a there is something I would like to bring up. My brain is not quite as fried. Um [laughter] I was in a involved in a meeting the other day um concern or just talking about our ongoing code update and I had a question and I don't staff answered it but I don't think they answered it correctly so just want to ask how many trees are required to be planted per lot in Oklahoma City per subreg lot is it two onear Jared is it Two. Thought it was one. Trees per residential lot. You're saying it's one. Is it one? A moment.

Okay. Sure. I'm not sure if they were talking about the a proposed code or the existing code or Well, no. It was just me just an observation in a neighborhood with lot sizes of like 40 feet that have two trees on them. And I couldn't believe why they would be, you know, unless they were required to, why they would try to cram two trees on a lot that Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz a lot of times it is written in the pud that there'll be one tree in the front yard. Yeah. Where the garage is 20 ft some statement about that. These are, you know, look like they would give nightmares to utility departments and, you know, sidewalks and everything else where they're planted. So, it was just something that I observed and was curious about. So,

I watch that on puds then. Yeah. Dustin loves trees and wants them planted as close to utility lines as possible. Oh, yeah. I'm sure he does. Dustin Dustin loves 30 foot lots, especially ones with deep roots and Yeah. Actually, your question [clears throat] reminds me that the code update will be right. And that's the code meeting will be before we meet again here. Oh, Ich wouldn't want to mention that. So, at Bell Ale, Bell Ale. I guess we need to coordinate if everybody's going to show up like who needs who gets to show up. I know this guy does cuz he's part of the committee. And Nate, are you on the Yep, I'll be there. It's in my calendar. [clears throat] Okay. All right.

Very good. Commissioner Newman, nothing. Right. Commissioner Milner, Commissioner Harrison, Commissioner Noble, nothing from me. planning department. Uh just one thing uh we since uh excuse me Dan uh Commissioner Galvine has departed uh we need we are in need of a new person for the development review committee our DRC obviously. Um so I think uh who remembers who's on it? It's been a while. Don and Okay, I think I'm on it. So I think the two of you and and Don I'm not sure if Nate was on it.

I thought so. Sorry, I meant to I meant to note, but we do need an additional person. Um, we do have a couple things coming forward. Obviously, the code update itself, the major things, but we've got u a few things coming forward um that we would need uh this committee for in the near future. So, so John, as in your I nominate the gonna nominate Mr. Miller. [clears throat] Yeah. And W six is probably pretty important to be on there. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. And it's not extensive. It's maybe three or four times a year. Yeah, no big deal. Thank you.

And the purpose is just for whenever there's a a a new development related ordinance um like the sign code or subdivision regulations or any number of things. It gives the opportunity for the development community to kind of it's like a study session but it it's a little bit different. The development committee or community members are invited to come and hear what's proposed and give their feedback as well as the members of the commission that are on the committee. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay, that's all I have. Okay. Um, municipal counselor's office. Nothing.

All right. Uh, citizens be heard. I see none. Other business. We have a presentation on infrastructure and development initiatives in W 3. Man, you set a high bar. Are you guys ready for the next three hours? [laughter] Do we need a break?

I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. No. Um, I don't know if you guys realize, but time flies when you're having fun, right? Um, so it's been a year now since I've served on city council and W three, and really wanted to take an opportunity to come and just tell you guys thank you for what you do. I know it's hard. I know it's real hard, and I know W three is big and burly and we bring a lot. Um, so I appreciate you. Uh, I know that you're having to make tough decisions every single day and um your volunteer service to our city, our community, our businesses is very much appreciated and I can tell you with clarity how much I can see that after one year of experience. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm working on figuring out how to manage my big and burly world big and burly ward as well. I'm working with the city manager's office and the planning department to to create a communication framework around 143 mile square or 143 square mile spread and making it um more chunkable so that we can have more strategic conversations around planning and infrastructure that will hopefully make your jobs and our jobs easier and just being able to communicate. So, thank you for your service. Thank you for your commitment. Thank you for the long hours. Thank you for making tough decisions. Um, and I hope that you keep keep up the good work. And thank you, Commissioner Meek, for um just driving every mile. I am I I don't know if all of you guys are able to do that, but knowing that you have someone that cares so much that they're driving all over 143 square miles, it's really really appreciated. Thank you, sir. All right, that's all I have today.

All right, thank you, Council Meers. All right. Um, there's nothing else from commissioners. We are adjourned. Thank you.