Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the June 11th meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission. I'd like to call us to order and go over a few housekeeping items. If you have a cell phone with you, please silence or put it on, turn it off. Turn it off. If you haven't been with us before, here's what you can expect. We'll begin with some simple administrative items that include minutes and continuances. Then we'll move on to cases that are on the consent docket, and these are just straightforward cases that can be approved as a group. After that, we'll hear cases individually, hear them, discuss them, determine if a recommendation or decision can be made, or if more time and a continuance is necessary. There are certain cases where this body is the final decision, makes the final decision, but for most applications we provide a recommendation to city council and are not the final decision. For those, no matter what the decision is, you'll have another opportunity to share your concerns at city council in approximately six to eight weeks. There are certain items, such as homeowner association CCRs and agreements between private parties that are outside the purview of this commission and are not factors in our considerations, and we ask that for the sake of time that you refrain from using those as a justification in your case. If you're here to speak on an item and are not the applicant, please fill out one of the forms and provide it to Elena or Jared down here below. When that item is heard, you'll be called to the podium. Please come up, give us your name and address for the record, and you'll have up to five minutes to speak. If you're here to speak on an item with a large group of people, we encourage you to elect a representative to share your group's concerns, and some additional time for speakers will be considered in those instances. where several speakers are heard on the same item. We just ask that you do your best to limit comments to those concerns that we haven't heard yet. We're just trying to limit extensive and repetitious comments. Lastly, please direct all your comments and questions to the Commission. If needed, we'll ask staff or the applicant to respond. So we appreciate everyone's presence here today and the time that you took away from your other commitments and obligations and just ask for your cooperation upholding the decorum of the meeting and that you don't speak from the audience. So thank you for your attendance, your attention, and your assistance. With that, we'll move to the receipt of the minutes from the May 28th meeting. Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes from May 28th, 2026.

A motion to receive the minutes from Commissioner Noble. Seconded by Commissioner Meek, please cast your votes. Do we need a voice vote? No, got it? All right, and the minutes are received. Item three is continuous requests. We'll start with uncontested requests.

Item 15 is case C7761, request to defer to June 25th. Item 16, SPUD 1827, defer to June 25th. Item 17, SPUD 1838, also defer to June 25th. Item 18, case SPUD 1843, defer to June 25th. And item 19, PUD 2141, also defer to June 25th. Okay.

I'll just confirm there's no one here to be heard on those items. Seeing none, we're ready for a motion.

I will make a motion to approve the uncontested continuous request as read.

Motion to approve the request, seconded by Commissioner Privett. Please cast your votes. And those requests are approved. There are no new requests that I'm aware of. So we'll move to item four, public hearings, and we'll start with the consent docket.

There's one item on the consent docket, item one, case C7811, final plat of Buffalo Farms Phase 2, located south of southwest 29th Street and east of South County Line Road.

All right, is there anyone here to be heard on that item? Seeing none, we're ready for a motion.

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

Motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the consent docket. Seconded by Commissioner Newman, please cast your votes. And the consent docket is approved.

All right, items requiring separate vote. Item two. This is PUD 2112-SP01. This is an application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of PUD 2112, located at 3925 Northwest 178th Street.

Good afternoon. Caitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. This is a specific plan application for a 600-square-foot office building to finish out the personal storage. The site's predominantly developed, and permits have been issued for the majority of the building, so we kind of have this one outlier piece. We agreed to the specific plan when we came through with the PUD to modify facade regs. Staff has determined that it's consistent with the PUD, and we'd ask for your approval. Happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner Noble, this is your ward.

Anyone signed up to speak? I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Anything from any other commissioners? Well, this one's pretty simple. With that, I will make a motion to recommend approval or approve PUD 2112 SP01.

A motion to approve the specific plan. And for the record, I'll note that staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with PUD 2112 Master Design Statement and the Master Development Plan. That has been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes when available.

Thank you.

That item is approved. Item three. Item three is CE 1161, application to close a portion of the east-west right-of-way of Kings of Leon Lane and a portion of the north-south right-of-way of Charlie Christian Avenue, located south of East Sheridan Avenue and west of South Lincoln Boulevard.

Good afternoon, Mark Zidzow with Johnson & Associates. The address is 1 East Sheridan Avenue. Before you is a redevelopment project. Our client is working to put a new escape room in this property. I don't know if the front elevation picture is there. It's an old warehouse building in Bricktown. It sits about three and a half, four feet up to the front door. It is a solid concrete. There you go. So you can see where the existing door is. there's actually like almost four feet of solid concrete before you get to the threshold of the door and so the staircase is the only way to access this property we are redoing the staircase to make it uh... more eighty eight compliant in any patio after discussions with staff It was determined the revocable permit wouldn't be acceptable, so we've sought the closure, which I think staff supported. Ultimately, it's what led us here. So that's the closure request on the south side of the building. On the east side of the building, the building is built on the property line, and it is a concrete block that is painted our client wants the ability to put brick on it to clean it up make a little bit nicer and the brick would then encroach into the right-of-way so we have included that to close and ultimately vacate one additional foot on the east side so we can clad it with brick i'm happy to answer any questions there's no teas

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

Any other commissioners have anything? Seeing this simple enough, I recommend approval. And like noted, no TEs.

I actually just not necessarily, well, it is specifically about this. The idea of vacating right-of-way in little pieces all over downtown and Bricktown where this issue is prevalent prevalent is this is not a good way to solve this problem. I don't know why staff determined their revocable permit was not the way to go, but be it that way or some other way, I'm not in favor of vacation of tiny bits of right-of-way to solve these kind of problems. So let it be known.

All right. Thank you.

I appreciate that and would also love revocable permits.

Yeah.

All right. I move approval. All right. So we have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend approval of the item to City Council. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

And that item is recommended for approval.

Thank you.

Item four. Item four is KC7801, Preliminary Platte of Eastern Heights. And this is located west of North Eastern Avenue and south of East Britton Road, along with variances to the subdivision regulations.

Good afternoon, Jason Spencer with Blue Associates 13900 Wireless Way here on behalf of the applicant. So before you, as he says, Pernille Mayor Platt of Eastern Heights, 20-acre single-family subdivision. This is to be a gated subdivision, consists of 20 lots with private streets, public water, and it'll be on private septic systems. This sanitary sewer is not available in this area. So the proposed lots in this subdivision are larger lots that range from 0.7 acres to just over one acre. We are asking for two variances. The first variance is to the requirement for interconnection. That's TE number two. So because this is going to be a gated addition with private streets, we have not stubbed, put stubbed streets out to connect to the other additions. The second variance is the variance to the maximum length of a cul-de-sac. And so our cul-de-sac is approximately 1,400 feet. Because this is a quasi-rural estates development, if it was classified as rural estates, it would be allowed for up to 2,600 feet. So we'd be under that. But we think this meets the character of the subdivisions with only 20 lots in that and would ask for your approval of that variance. We agree with the TEs. Staff has recommended approval. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

OK.

Mr. Harrison, this is again Ward 7. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Does any commissioners have any questions regarding the TEs? Okay. I spoke with the applicant as well, and I think they had a little something with the neighborhood, but they worked it out to my understanding. Yes. Okay. Well, seeing that, and if you're okay with the other TEs, Don? Good.

Start with variance.

Okay. So I need to move for the variance? Yes.

Before we do that, can I ask you, is there some particular reason, as I was looking through my packet, nothing jumped out at me in terms of why this particular piece of property should not be subject to the same kind of interconnectivity as other residential areas are?

Well, I think because not only is it going to be gated, it's private streets. I mean, there would be a gate across the streets. We wouldn't allow traffic there. You know, it's been reviewed by the fire department, and they had no comments on it. So we don't see the need for that.

Separate apart from the fire issues, I think, you know, our policy of interconnectivity is something that we are pretty consistent about, unless there is some reason why.

Well, so the Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintaining the streets within the subdivision, so therefore it'll be gated. I mean, there won't be, even if we put the street subs there, they'll never be used.

I'm not a big fan of private streets for residential properties, having owned a piece of property that was on one. It's just, it's problematic. I don't understand this move at all, and I frankly am not in favor of it. Yeah.

The only thing I would say, Jason, as a surveyor and a drafter, put your CA number on your plat. Gotcha. As far as the private streets are concerned, I don't know if there's something we could do to keep them from going away from private at some point, because I know that's probably the only thing that could happen. Because they could give them up and try to give them back to the city.

A lot of times, though, in this more rural areas and larger acres, acreage is itself is that they would do a private street and gate the neighborhood, put a gate all the way around it, and then

And that goes along with kind of the character of this neighborhood that they're trying to establish here is a gated community with larger lots. And, you know, trying to leave some of the trees and leave some of that too. But that's, you know, the type of home that they're trying to look at building here and the people that they're going after is somebody looking for that gated community feel.

Any other commissions? I think that's it. All right, so we'll begin with the variance. Make a motion to accept T number two, which will be the question of variance to the section 5.3.1.D.5 of the Southern Division.

A motion to approve the variance from Commissioner Harrison. It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. variance is approved the second variance yes motion to approve the second variance item 3 MT a motion to approve variance table 5.1 in section five point three point two point a of the subdivision regulations from Commissioner Harrison that's been seconded by Commissioner Meek please cast your votes And that variance is approved, and now we're ready for the item.

I move that we approve item four, which is C7801 for Lerner and Platt of Eastern Heights.

A motion to approve the item subject to technical evaluations from Commissioner Harrison. It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes.

That item is approved. Item 5. Item 5 is case C7810, final plat of Eastern Heights, located west of Northeastern Avenue and south of East Britain Road.

Good afternoon. Jason Spencer again with Balloon Associates, 13900 Wireless Way. On behalf of the applicant, this is the final plat for the preliminary plat approved on the previous application. We agree with the TEs. We will add the CA number and ask for your approval.

All right, Commissioner Harrison, I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Fantastic. Any commissioners have anything else left? Okay, if that be the case, then I recommend to C7810 final plat of Eastern Heights to City Council.

All right, this is a final plat, so we approve it. So we have a recommendation to approve subject to the technical evaluation.

Subject to these. Yes, please.

And that's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. And that is approved. Good luck. Thank you.

Item six. This is case BC11003, application to rezone 25 Southwest 50th Street from SPUD 1448 to R2.

Good afternoon. I'm Caleb Smith with Kraft and Toll on behalf of the applicant, 300 Point Parkway Boulevard. We're asking to rezone this property from Spud 1448 to R2. The current plan that we have right now is that site is about 4.98 acres, and we're proposing about 20 dwelling units on it. Nine of those would be duplexes and two single-family. and those would all be under by right in the R2 district. That comes out to about 4.02 dwelling units per acre. The comprehensive plan for this site shows that it should be urban medium, which has a suggested density of 10 to 40 dwelling units per acre. And the total common area on this site is 1.91 acres. I'll go ahead and talk about that here in a moment. The zoning around it to the north is R1 to the, all around is R1, to the west is R1, to the south is R1. And the PUD to the east is also R1 base. That mobile home park just to the north, that is the Alpine mobile home park. I am assuming that that has a conditional use permit. So there are mobile homes there right next to us, but it is, however, R1. So then getting back to the common area, the reason that we left that common area in there, this kind of ties into why we are going back from Spud 1448. Spud 1448 is a base R2 zoning, but in that conceptual plan, the way that they were trying to work the access and everything with it, they were getting really, really close to that concrete channel, which has channelized the drainage through the site. And that is a tributary of Lightning Creek, which has some history of some flooding, just concerns over in Lightning Creek area. So with that, we were a little bit hesitant to move forward with the engineering of it. And then also around that time in 2024, FEMA revised their maps and some of that floodplain expanded. was a better engineering decision to keep our properties as far away from that tributary as possible and to utilize the existing street infrastructure there on Southwest 50th Street, which is a local street, and then also to limit access to one location on South Santa Fe Avenue. So that is why we've come back and then that spud, 1448, limited access on Southwest 50th Street to three points of access. And the companion item to this, the preliminary plat, which is the next item, shows all of those lots taking access to 50th Street. So that is why we're coming back and asking for an R2 base zoning. Funny enough, in 2020, it was zoned from R1 to R2. So we've gone from R1 to R2 in 2020, over to SPUD 1448, which was the base of R2 in 2022, and here we are in 2026 asking for R2 zoning. So with that, I believe that this is perfectly compatible with the history and the neighborhood of the character. And then I would also add a few things just in favor of this development. It does fit the comp plan and it does also encourage infill development within the city and it does utilize the existing infrastructure and utilities that are already there. There is service for water and sewer that are already extremely nearby. And then also the last thing that I would add is in the staff report, the 2025 GO funding has Sidewalk included for South Santa Fe Avenue, so if this project were to beat that We would be installing the sidewalk along Santa Fe Avenue with the building permits and so that might help save some city funds there So I'd ask for your approval on this we are acceptable to the te's that are mentioned in the staff report and Ask for your approval be happy to answer any questions

Thank you. Commissioner Privett, this is your ward.

I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay, and I don't have many issues with this being less dense than what we had previously approved. If anybody else has got anything, chime in. If not, I'll recommend approval.

A motion from Commissioner Privett to recommend the item for approval. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. Subject to the TEs. Recommend subject to the TEs. Is there TEs on this one? Oh, there's not.

Oh, sorry. That's for the next one. It's on the plat. There is, I believe.

All right. And that item is recommended for approval. Good luck. Thank you. Item...

7. Item 7 is KC 7809, preliminary plot of Santa Fe Point Revised, located north of Northwest 50th Street and west of North Santa Fe Avenue.

All right, again, good afternoon. Caleb Smith with Craft & Toll, 300 Point Parkway Boulevard. This is the preliminary plot for the zoning that we just did. I'd be happy to answer any questions. As far as the TEs, we are acceptable to those, just to reiterate that. So I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Privett?

Yep, same on this one, Companion Platt. So if nobody's got anything, I'll recommend approval or actually approve C7809.

And there are two TEs on this. With the two TEs, yeah. All right, so we have a motion to approve the item subject to technical evaluations from Commissioner Privett. That's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And that is approved.

Thank you. Item 8. This is case number PC 10993, application to rezone 1636 Southwest 35th Street from R1 to C3.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I've been hearing you many times. It's good to see you again. I come here and I thank you for Commissioner John Maynard and come with me to visit the site a month ago. I come in here ask of you to approve or to resign from I-12CG.

Thank you. Do we have anybody signed up to speak? Do not. Okay. We have. Mr. Ho and I met at the site. I think it was two months ago that we were there. I think it was in February where we had a conversation and I said, I think we'd really like to see this come back as a SPUD, but I also said, you're welcome to bring it back as requesting it to be C3 zoning. I will add that I know we're just talking about the subject property, but the applicant owns the property to the west and south. That's already zoned C3. It's my understanding what you're trying to do is get this rezoned so you can develop it as a whole. It's already there. So one thing as a commission we need to talk over is the properties abutting this one are already zoned C3. I know we've got a staff recommendation of approving C1. We've talked about it coming back as spud just so we can get some protections in there, but I I've wrestled with this one I've gone back and forth but at the end of the day the majority of the property that the applicant owns that he's wanting to develop on is c3 This one is just needed to complete And we've got commercial to the north. We've got some commercial across that actually we've got quite a bit of commercial going up And I also want to confirm that you spoke to the neighbor across the street that initially submitted a protest letter.

Yes, we spoke with him. And you talked to them. We talked with them, and we agreed with them to what the concern about it for the design. We already to send the letter, agree with them to send for the planning committee.

I don't think we received anything else on them. I'm just asking that you're verbally confirming that you met with them and they are okay with what you are trying to do. This entire property is now just vacant, and we've got an abandoned car wash sitting there, so we just need to talk this out. I think I'm just at a point where I can be okay with just a straight rezoning because we could exempt this out and the applicant could just go carve that out and go develop C3. The zoning's already there.

And does the property owner, does he own the property the next R1 to the east?

You own that residential property, don't you? Yeah.

So he owns the property that he abuts also. Yeah. That's helpful. I can get behind the straight zoning on this. With all of the guardrails that the C3 has within it, owning the R1 property, I think that it can be developed in a way that it would meet being on an arterial on that hard corner.

and the redevelopment of this parcel is going to be a huge benefit to the community. Yes.

I'd love to see this piece redeveloped. I mean, I'm familiar with it. I just, I don't know, I'm still on the fence.

Well, the recommendation is for straight zoning approval at C1, not at C3.

No, there's two. It's approval of the application or modify to C1.

Yeah, because the request is to rezone it to C3, correct?

Yes. And the uses involved in the C3, the commercial uses that this community needs in this location, that's why I could get behind it.

Okay, any other questions, comments? Ready for motion?

I think I just would like the input from the commission, though. How do we feel and what direction? Is it the applicant's original request of C3, which will put it in line with the property surrounding, or the step down to C1?

I'm good with it. I'm good with C3.

OK. The main one I was concerned with was the adjacent property to the east. And if he owns that, then that kind of takes that out for me.

well if there's no other discussion then i would uh... motion we make the recommendation for approval of pc dash one zero nine nine three right we have a motion to recommend the item city council from commissioner millner it's been seconded by commissioner meek please cast your votes and that item is recommended for approval thank you thank you

Item nine. Item nine is SP 614, application for a special permit operated drinking establishment in the I-2 district located at 500 Southwestern Avenue.

Good afternoon, Caitlin Turner. I'm Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. So yes, this is a property that's right on Western. We're just north of I-40, about 600 feet. We are not in the Farmers Market District, but it's just to our west. And of course, to the northwest, you're familiar with 2nd Street. There's other bars and operations with similar hours of operations operating similarly to what we are proposing now. We have Anthem Brewery to our east, a very heavy industrial area, mostly I-2 surrounding us, and again, just close proximity to I-40 just to our south. So staff recommends approval. We have not received any letters or protests from surrounding property owners. I'm happy to answer any questions.

all right um mr milliner this is your ward and i do not have anyone signed up to speak okay i don't have any additional concerns or questions on this unless commissioners have any questions for the applicant i i'm okay with moving on with this okay if not then i move approval of sp-614

All right, we have a motion to recommend the item to City Council for approval from Commissioner Milner. It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your vote.

Thank you.

Item 10. This is case SBU 1816, application to rezone 2844 Lancaster Lane from R1.

We have an applicant present?

I'm going to pass these out. Caitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street. On behalf of the applicant, I do have a revised Exhibit B that I'm going to distribute to you all right now. Okay, so this application should look familiar. It just came before you all in March. The property owner purchased an additional lot to kind of complete the rectangle. So we are coming back before you with the same exact master design statement, just with the addition of that lot to make it more uniform. We do have one TE that is now addressed with that exhibit that I passed out. Staff does have the exhibit, but this basically shows the prohibition of access on Lancaster, which was discussed back in March, and then also relocates the dumpster so it's out of the setback from May and then over 50 feet away from the residence to the east. We do have a couple of additional TEs that we would like to read in. The first one is to remove both of the animal sales and services use units, so that's gonna be animal sales and services grooming and animal sales and services kennel and veterinary restricted. We would also like to further limit the drive-through speakers. Right now they must be 100 feet away from the east property line. We also want to add and locate it on the west side of any structure. And then the last TE we would like to add is to prohibit off-premise signage. So right now we have a prohibition on EMDs. We would also like to add that no off-premise sign will be permitted. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. We have not received any protest on this one either.

Thank you. Commissioner Powers, this is your ward, and I do not have anyone signing up to speak.

I will just say for the record that it's a shame in the environment that we're in now that we're going to lose four modest homes for this commercial development, but you can't stand anywhere on May Avenue and not think it's more commercial as the future. My basic concerns about the application as it stood have all been answered by the TEs that have already been read in. I don't really have any problem with this application. We've already approved it once more or less, so. Any of the commissioners have any comments or questions or concerns or nobody else wants to be heard? I'm going to move approval.

Okay.

Subject to the TEs. Both those written in the staff report and those read in by the applicant.

Was what was read earlier sufficient?

Yes. Okay.

Well, that's more from a minutes.

I'm sure she'll provide them in writing. We'll get them to her.

Okay. All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item to City Council subject to the TE and the staff report and the three additional TEs as read in and that will be provided to staff. That's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval.

Item 11. This is SB UD 1842, application to rezone 2800 North Oklahoma Avenue from R4.

Sam Gresham, 400 Northwest 23rd, here to represent the owners. This property is zoned R4 in the middle of a bunch of I2 all the way around it. Or I1. I1. Despite... The owner is also owner of the adjacent property to the... I didn't leave it off, but it's also zoned R4. I didn't include it. It's just this parcel. It's a commercial building. It's an auto repair shop. And he's looking for... zoning to be appropriate to that use.

Okay. Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward, but I do not, and I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Commissioners, you all have any questions? I'm familiar with the space. It's just...

I just wanted to ask the applicant if he was familiar with the TE and you're in agreement with it. TE is fine, yes. Okay.

All right.

Seeing nothing else, I move approval for SPUD 1842 with the TE.

Motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item City Council for approval subject to the technical evaluation. It's been seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes.

That item is recommended for approval. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you.

and twelve this is a speedy eighteen forty four application rezone five nine oh two apparently drive from our one between marks it's out johnson and associates when he shared an avenue uh... before use a request for an s p d uh... with an idea base you could see if there's a pretty well-established northern by two line uh... with all the property along fifty nine being like you While there is R1 to our north, if you can go to the site plan, you'll see that the tributary that's there is a pretty wide floodway, and we've stepped back off of that, so we think that provides a sufficient buffer. Our client is proposing some shipping containers for storage purposes, along with some outdoor storage. And so we worked with staff. We amended the application. They've recommended approval. We have no TEs, and no one has called, and I don't believe anybody is here. I'm happy to answer any questions. We would ask for your recommendation of approval.

Um, Commissioner Privett, this is Ward 4, and I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Um, I'm not fond of the outdoor storage and everything, but I also know what's around it, and it's quite a bit worse. This would probably be quite a bit better than what is existing. Um... So I'll leave it at that. If anybody's got any other comments, I notice there's a big cutout for the waterway, which is probably. Did you have this?

I guess my one question is there's a lot of uses in here that's being permitted.

And I don't know if they're actually permitted or what the deal is, but.

So a lot of them are the I-2 uses. We think we took out some of the ones that are more intense. And you can see the outdoor storage immediately to our east. It's uncontrolled. It's probably been there for a long time. We will have to abide by all the regulations in the code, including the 12-inch concrete strip that goes around our gravel area to keep it and contain it. So we think the protections that are currently in the code and in the SPD is a much better outcome than kind of the unchecked storage areas that are all along.

I agree with that. I mean, I find it ironic. We've got it labeled as a learning center next to their, like, you know, what are they learning? But there's probably some violations going on there, I would say. Well, I mean, they could be teaching welding, and it would be fine.

Yeah, I guess.

Yeah. Yeah, well, that's, yeah, that's all I got.

All right. Any other comments, questions from commissioners? We're ready for a motion. All right. I'll move to recommend approval SBUD 1844. A motion from Commissioner Privett to recommend the item to City Council. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes.

That's recommended for approval.

Thank you.

Thank you. Item 13. Item 13 is SPOD 1826, application to rezone 3522 Westmont Avenue from R1.

Good afternoon. I'm JJ Gritz with ZJ Holdings. Address is 8051 North Classen. We're here with Spud 1826. Basically, our application is to develop three housing units on this 9,675 square foot lot that previously housed two dwelling units on it before they were demolished by the previous owner. So again, there were two units existing on it previously. We're seeking to increase that to three. We originally tried to go much denser than that. Didn't feel like it was appropriate for the site and the neighborhood, so we pulled it back to three dwelling units. We worked pretty closely with Sarah with a lot of guidance from her and the department on making some adjustments to our original application. I spoke with Commissioner Powers about this, and I believe we have a couple people here to speak from the neighborhood. one of which is one of the letters that we received to you all. I went out and spoke with him personally. Another neighbor sent a letter in. I don't believe they're present today, but I did speak with him as well just to provide clarity. I know that the gentleman is here. Mr. Smith thought originally it was going to be six dwelling units, and I you know tried to explain that it's only three that we're going in with But yeah any questions comments concerns from you Commissioner powers, this is your ward if you want to lead our discussion, and I do have two folks signed up to speak I

And you know, I would like to hear from the folks that are here. I have spoken to the applicant. We've already agreed that we're going to meet with the neighbors before we have a vote on this item. So I think that's a good thing. I think maybe there was a little bit more, you know, how information leaks out and it takes a while and people get wind of things and then you know I think the applicants done everything right so far they reached out to the people that they thought were most concerned and so on but I think it's going to take a little bit more and so and I'd like to hear from the folks that are here okay wonderful we'll start with Danielle Wilkerson

Speaking in public is my worst nightmare, so please excuse anything here. I'm Danielle Wilkerson. I live at 3515 Northwest Mott, which is two houses south of the property and then across the street. So I'm opposed. I bought my house about 19 years ago, and I really love my neighborhood. We all know each other and help each other out. It's a really great neighborhood. kids playing in the street, you know, and we have a lot of elderly neighbors and everybody's like, you know, let me help unload your groceries or, you know, we take care of each other. And when I heard that there was going to be a lot with like maybe four units, I was like, how is that even going to fit? The two little houses that were there, I always called them cupcake houses because they were so tiny and so cute. And I was like, oh, maybe one day I can buy those and make them look like real cupcakes anyways. So I'm just going to read some of the stuff here because otherwise I'm going to ramble. So that lot is already a small property. I called them cupcake houses because they were tiny, but still took up most of the land. Why not provide two units that are a livable size for families instead of trying to make it small and uncomfortable and packing three families like sardines into that lot? There are too many companies trying to take over small neighborhoods. They don't care how it affects the people. It's all about getting more money for them. We have to set boundaries or it will all get out of control. Also, parking will be a nightmare. It's only a small two-block street that is capped off at both ends. The street parking situation already can get crowded when neighbors have company. It's not made for what the applicant wants to do. And then please don't let a company swoop in and uproot our peaceful neighborhood. The applicant won't even be living there but wants to create some chaos on our streets for a few extra bucks. It sounds kind of harsh. I don't mean for it to sound harsh.

But, you know, it's...

Even when they said three plots, I still don't know how it's feasible to fit three units on that land. It is going to be squished. And I saw that maybe they only have like 10 feet for their backyard. It's like, man, why don't we just, you know, I, how much? Oh, well, so do they share the backyard or do they have their own?

So each individual being with... Oh, I'm sorry.

I don't know how...

I'm going to ask if you address us and... Oh, I'm sorry.

I have no idea how this works. That's all right. Okay, so... But yeah, it's just... It's... I don't see how three can fit there. Like, I welcome new neighbors. You know, I love getting new neighbors. Over the 19 years that I've been there, you know, we've had some neighbors pass away. And, you know, we've got a couple of rental houses, and we can already kind of tell... It's kind of making the neighborhood a little more livelier than we would like, but it's okay. We deal with it. If I was squeezed into a three-unit place on that property, I'd be irritated almost every day because where do I park? Why is my unit so small? I don't know how much he's going to charge for it, but it's like... Again, I don't see how it's going to fit three units.

Okay.

Anything else you want us to know?

No, I'm sorry. I'll keep rambling if I keep talking, so I better stop. You're doing fine. Yeah, thank you for listening.

Thank you. David Smith. Hi.

I'm David Smith. I live at 3521 Northwest Mountain, directly across the street. I'm in opposition. These are really small lots. The whole block is they're small houses, mostly all single car drives, so a lot of people park in the streets. It's already an elderly block. A lot of... There's a lot of emergency vehicles that come through there that's already kind of a hassle for them with the cars parked there and whatnot. But I went around and spoke with the neighbors that would be affected. 19 people signed in opposition of this. And I didn't even talk to everybody. Some of them asked for a continuance because they didn't get the letter, whether they threw it away as trash mail or whatever. And this was just two days ago, and I hadn't had time to really talk with anybody else because my wife's in the hospital down here, and I just hadn't had time. really, I would just like a continuance.

And I think that's what we're looking at, as Commissioner Powers referred to earlier. We know that you guys came down, so we wanted to hear from you, but is there anything else that you'd like us to know?

No, I just, I mean, I think it's a bad spot for it. It's not a corner lot. It's not on Main Street. It's It's a small area. That's big. That's a big building.

All right. Well, thank you for coming down, Mr. Smith. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Powers, did you have a question for him?

Yeah, I was going to ask Mr. Smith, have you submitted your petition to the staff?

I didn't. I didn't know how any of this works, and I had a day to...

They walk up and down the street talking to people.

You can have that. I took a picture of it. Oh, you did?

Okay, thank you. I was thinking... Thank you. I spoke to one gentleman who kind of offered to be a point person for the neighbors, and so I think we are in a good space to get people invited to a meeting and get one scheduled between now and whenever we're going to hear this again. I think Mr. Gritz told me that he's not going to be here for our next meeting. Is that still... That's correct, yeah.

I'm out of town, so I think the next one would be July 9th or something like that. 16th? Oh, well, that's nice. That's the next one I can be at, so...

So and that's fine. It'll give us plenty of time to get everybody to the table, I guess. Do any of the commissioners have anything that they would like to tell Mr. Gritz before we embark upon that process? I think he was wanting to give you all the opportunity at least to give him some input if you want to.

Nothing from this side?

I mean, I believe it's probably too dense also. Okay. Just as a triplex. Or is it condo?

Townhomes technically is what we're seeking to do these as. Just because it's mid-block, it's just a lot of units on one small lot. So 14.29 dwellings per acre. You want to see it more in the range of 10, 12.

Yeah, and the other thing is, I mean, you could build two single families and two ADUs. Yeah, the lot slopes. And you'd end up with more units in that way, but it's just the way it's built, the way it looks at the curb, just more inclined with the existing houses. Appreciate that.

I was, what I was going to offer, I don't, kind of on the fence about the density I think I could get there but I would want to see some I guess just some more architectural character maybe offsets the facade so you don't have three garages all on the same plane or three front doors all on the same plane they are it may be hard to tell from the plans there they each unit does have a step back from the garage to the entry Well, I see that, but all three garages are all aligned, correct? Yes, those are. So I think I'd want to see just a little bit more. I get that the entries are recessed, but it's still going to look like one solid front wall because the recessed areas aren't that big. So that's what I would like to see is maybe look at that, see if there's something that could be done.

I agree. It's one gigantic structure in a neighborhood full of... not gigantic structures. If it was two units that had a separation in between, it'd be a lot easier to fit the character of the neighborhood.

Yeah, that was going to be my comment. I looked at it on Google Earth, and it didn't seem to fit the character of the neighborhood to me, because everything else around it appeared to be single family. And it was the only building, and I may be wrong on this, but there's only one I saw that was two stories. Everything else looked like it was single story.

okay okay yes so if nobody else has anything else I want to add I'm going to move that we continue this item to our first meeting in July is that correct and what day is that 23rd no no the first meeting in July oh my gosh okay

You can come to the other one if you'd like.

No, no. That's fine, that's fine. I'm going to move this item to our first meeting, our only meeting in July.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Powers to defer this item to the July 23rd meeting. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. All right, that item is deferred.

Item 14. Item 14 is PUD 2143, application to rezone 10324 Southwest 29th Street from R1.

Kaitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant here with me is also Kendall Dillon with Kraft and Toll, who's the engineer on this project. So this application actually started as a straight rezoning application. Upon hearing concerns and protests from surrounding neighbors, we had a very well-attended neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Meek was also in attendance. We decided that the best path forward to mitigate their concerns was to go ahead and withdraw that straight rezoning application Proceed with our PUD so we went ahead and went that route obviously we had another neighborhood meeting that was extremely productive We were able to hear additional concerns and comments that we were then able to address and bake into the master design statement that you all have before you and I also just want to thank our Commissioner Meek for all of his efforts on this made it much easier to get everybody together and to make it as productive as possible So with this PUD application, we have two tracks as you can see We have tracked one which is going to maintain the r1 that the site is currently zoned as we have tracked two is an r2 based zoning district which as you can see has been shoved up towards the turnpike and Of course we have the RA to our east so we kind of have a natural transition from a little bit lower density to the higher density where it's abutting the turnpike. Some of the concessions that were made and are now in this master design statement are we agreed to a 30 foot landscape buffer along the east PUD boundary line where it's adjacent to that RA neighborhood. We also have included street trees along Southwest 29th Street and two trees per lot within this PUD. We have screening along the right-of-way and the rear property line abutting the 30-foot buffer. So that's going to allow our neighbors to the east to enjoy that buffer, which of course will be maintained by our HOA. And then you'll get the privacy fence along the east before you get to the rear yards of the homes along the east. Another item that we discussed is connecting to our east, which is a TE that we'll discuss here in a moment, but we would seek to strike it so that we are not connecting to the neighborhood to the east. And then lastly, we have a cap on the maximum height for all of the homes along the east, so they're one story. Staff does recommend approval of this application We've got three te's the first two we agree to the last one as mentioned is that requirement to connect to Southwest 33rd, which is the stub over to the neighbor to the east We would seek to strike that and we would also seek to add a te to require That brick column shall be placed on a hundred foot centers along Southwest 29th Street where adjacent to residential lots so that's essentially every other lot line and But we did 100-foot centers. I don't believe anybody is here on this. Again, we had a really, really productive neighborhood meeting last round. We're happy to keep this moving forward. And we'll, of course, continue working with the neighbors and Ward 3. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you all have.

All right. Mr. Meek, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman. And that's a miracle because we had 50 homeowners represented on the first meeting and probably 40 on the second. And there's been, I will tell you, I've gotten several phone calls and emails this week that there are people at home watching right now. So to those people, hello. I agree after sitting in the meeting twice that the neighborhood of Wimberley, their main condition is that they want the TE number three struck, and I'm in support of that. And with that being said, I appreciate the applicants. They've worked really well with the neighbors. Not only is three quarters of it, in my opinion, just simplifying it, 75% of it's back to R1, but we got a lot of extras out of it being a PUD that they wouldn't have got on the straight R1 zoning, which they have the entitlement to do right now. So thank you to the applicant on that. If any other commissioners have any comments, I'm open to them.

Go ahead. I'll just start. The only thing I would comment on is on the Southwest 33rd Street, since you're not going to connect to it, I'd like to see that easement vacated, the road gone. Not being the responsibility of the City of Oklahoma City, but the responsibility of the developer if that's what the developer wants. and I don't know exactly how you can get there, but just my thoughts.

That was brought up at the meeting with the two homeowners that owned the two lots on each side of it were there, and they spoke with Box Law about possibly representing them and coming back with a closure, which they would take over half and half each. I believe... that's probably gonna happen, but I don't know how to address, I don't know how our applicant addresses something that's not within their boundary of their PUD, so I don't believe that's.

You don't have to be those property owners that are.

Right, yeah, right.

Is there driveways on that?

Yeah, two driveways. But past the driveways to the left. I'm not a fan of stub to nowhere, first off. And so if it's stubbed, it's supposed to be built, then it should.

Well, it's been a stub to nowhere for like 25 years, and it has barricades at the end of it. Right.

With straight R1 zoning, it would have been required to connect to it. Right.

I just want to add, you know, knowing the history of this case and the opposition and the concerns of the neighbors, the fact that there's no one here today I think speaks highly of Commissioner Meek and the job that he's done to work with them and the applicant to address those concerns. So I just want to say good job. Thank you.

thank you so for the sake of consistency I will say that I raised with the applicant the issue of connectivity and they were able to persuade me that in this case you're talking about a disparity in the type of housing that's going to be constructed there the age of the existing neighborhood and the larger lot configuration of it and so forth but also the use of a PUD for exactly what it's designed to be used for, which is a negotiated trade-off. I mean, there is a lot that is being given here in exchange for things like closing off the streets. So I'm persuaded in this instance that there's a significant justification. Awesome.

And this will, of course, you'll see it again when it comes back for a variance with the preliminary plot. So we just wanna keep this out of the PUD and it can be the variance whenever the preliminary plot comes back to you all.

Yes, ma'am, thank you.

Okay, I do wanna bring one thing up. If there's the potential to close that public street, We're going to need the developer on the west side is going to need some way to access that strip. And right now, the only thing I see is basically up through the detention pond, which is possibility. But does there need to be any kind of pedestrian connection or an easement through there to access that area?

I'm not sure I understand.

The 30 foot buffer on the east. I think one of the questions that was asked in a premium, how do you get to there? And they're like, well, you've got a public street on the east side. Well, if that goes away, potentially, if they close that, then you can't get there because it's behind all those houses that are going to be fenced. And that's going to be common area, right? Yeah.

For the record, Kendall, Dylan, Kraft, and Tull, we will, obviously, there will be a preliminary plot that's coming back before you. So if that happens and that's vacated, we certainly will provide access for maintenance to the common area. And we'll demonstrate that with the preliminary plot.

It's gonna be some tough maintenance with those trees.

Okay, anything else?

Well, if not, with that said, I'd like to recommend to council approval of PUD 2143 with the TE's number one and two as are written in the record and striking TE number three. all right we have a motion from commissioner adding the te for the brick columns on oh yeah and adding te number four for the brick columns on 29th street on 100 foot centers where they are in front of residential units

Yeah, actually Sarah asked for me to go ahead and read that, so I'm gonna knock that out real quick. So TE number four is going to be brick columns shall be required and placed on 100 foot centers along Southwest 29th Street where adjacent to residential lots.

Perfect.

Yeah, it's gonna be under the screening regulations, so that's gonna be under the screening reg section. You don't like that? What do you need? I can further specify that this will be under section 9.4, if that helps.

So we think the TE is just as read and screening per 9.4? Correct.

I believe that should do the trick.

Sarah, can we have this conversation at the podium?

I think she wants to make it say modify section 9.4 to read.

Okay, okay. So TE number four, we're going to redo. Okay, here we go. TE number four is going to modify section 9.4 screening regulations to state that no less than a six foot and no greater than an eight foot high wall or fence shall be required along the boundary of this PUD, no, that's a typo, along the right of way of Southwest 29th Street. Said fence shall include brick columns which shall be placed on 100 foot centers along Southwest 29th Street where adjacent to residential lots. And then we'll also include and keep the no less than six foot and no greater than eight foot high wall or fence shall be required along the rear property line for all lots abutting the 30 foot buffer.

Good save.

There we go. One more we're gonna say maximum of 100 feet and we're gonna make sure that Staff gets all of this and they approve it before this gets forwarded on to City Council Maximum of 100 foot centers.

I like the maximum. There we go All right So we have a motion from Commissioner meet to recommend the item for approval of City Council subject to the technical evaluations It's been seconded by Commissioner powers. Please cast your vote. I

Thank you all.

That item is recommended for approval.

Thank you for your patience.

Items 15 through 19 have been deferred. Our last item is item 20.

Item 20 is introduction of a proposed ordinance related to zoning and planning code, amending several sections, articles for solar energy systems, and establishing development regulations for accessory solar energy systems in all zones.

Hello. T.O. Bowman in the Sustainability Office in the Planning Department. Today I'm here to talk about, for the first time, having solar energy systems defined in our code. This was brought forth because we were requiring variances in design districts for screening because solar was treated as mechanical equipment. So this provides clarity for that. And then also we've introduced a whole set of regulations for accessory use. So principal use will be addressed in the forthcoming zoning code update. Ah, it does work. So previous actions, we've been to downtown design committee and urban design, both unanimously approved this ordinance. And then we met just this afternoon with the development regulations committee who recommended the introduction happening today. We've noticed for the 625 PC meeting for the hearing and recommendation to council. So I'll talk through some adopted plan connections to this action, and then also some issues that were presented by the way we were approaching solar. Right now, solar is allowed. It's just not defined. So it's happening right now. Development Center has a specific solar permit for residential, and commercial goes through an electrical permit application. So connections to Plan OKC. We have several references to encouraging the use of renewable energy sources in policies and issue focuses, and then taking that one step further in ADAPT OKC, our sustainability plan that was adopted in 2020, and we're working on an update to this plan as well right now. but also has goals and initiatives and specific policies to allow photovoltaic solar panels. The policy says by right in all zoning districts. This doesn't quite go that far, but I'll explain the nuance there. But most of the zoning districts will have access to solar. So some issues with lacking definitions in our code. Of course, we create uncertainty, introduce risks to investors and property owners who are looking to invest in solar. And then with screening requirements or treating it as mechanical equipment that needs screened, we can increase costs to projects and decrease productivity of the solar energy systems themselves. And then we're also introducing a permanent roadblock for a temporary aesthetic issue that solar panels can be removed and not affect the structure of the building. So a quick overview here of all the things the ordinance does. We're adding definitions, as I mentioned. We're excluding solar from the measurement of the building height and screening regulations. We're adding a certificate of approval requirements for certain special purpose districts, so that will still be reviewed in those districts. We're establishing use standards for all of these districts. We're adding exceptions to open yard requirements because solar is not impervious, allows water to pass through it as long as the ground underneath is vegetated. So we'll talk more about that in a couple slides. And then we're authorizing staff for administrative approval of solar building integrated and solar on the roof in those design districts. But again, if there are other applications that come forward, staff can always bring those to the full design committees. And then at the bottom I've mentioned that we're requiring meeting accessory use setbacks, so any other accessory structure, or like any other accessory structure, solar energy systems that are ground mounted would have to meet all setbacks of their zoning district. Here's the definitions. So we've introduced a new kind of modified definition of equipment to be more precise in the things that we intend to screen in design districts. And then a definition from a best practice guide through the SolSmart program through the Department of Energy is where we pulled the language for the definition of the solar energy system. Three types of systems are being introduced here. Building integrated, ground mounted, and roof mounted. Ground mounted and roof mounted are very straightforward. Building integrated is when a piece of the building, an integral part of an accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device. So it's substituting for an awning or it's substituting for a window or a skylight. You sometimes see hot water systems used that way. So these are the definitions. Under regulations, we're requiring permits, of course. They're already required. As I mentioned, utility notification if interconnected. Not all solar energy systems are connected to the grid, excluding from the calculations of open yard and of building height. And then the only exception for the front yard on ground mountains is for carports. So where carports are already allowed, solar can be the roof or it can be attached to the roof of a carport. exempt from screening requirements. We are requiring that all conduit, wiring, and inverters are screened or covered using a color and material matching or compatible with the colors and materials found on the facade. And this is largely for those design districts that are already reviewing for these things. I mentioned principal use solar energy systems, so this will be addressed as part of the development codes update where we'll be adding definitions, setback, buffer requirements, but we thought it a more appropriate conversation to be contained with other types of uses that are more similar that may use up a lot of land or be contained in more rural areas. This will be considered separately from the accessory use ordinance. I would be happy to answer any questions.

So the staff report indicates that these are to be permitted in all zoning districts. That's going to include HP and HL?

That's correct. And solar is permitted in HP right now. There's guidelines that require that you can't see it from a street level. And so we're not affecting any HP or HL districts with this ordinance. All that stays in place, and the guidelines are still the thing that governs HP and HL.

And they were represented in the meeting that we had before this about this. And I asked Katie directly, and she was behind this. And this truly is really for those areas that already have oversight to clean up some of their language. Because right now, it's just allowed in the city. There's not a lot of... There's no guardrails. How about that? And so this is like the first of the ordinance that will be written, and then a larger solar will be brought into the code update.

So we're just introducing this today. This is kind of a big bite. I would have thought maybe this would be an appropriate thing for like a study session, or... You know, I'm all in favor of... us getting a handle on solar, but yeah, it's a lot to bite down on, so.

And if there are questions, we'd be happy to meet or do whatever you'd like.

Well, I'll give this a read. I just want to add that there's another, there'll be another conversation with solar with the code update, correct?

I believe so, particularly on principle use. As a principle, yeah. Yeah.

So I think, T.O., you've drafted as part of the use code that exists already in draft form, as I recall. I've helped work on it, yes.

Okay, thanks.

So we'll bring that forward again, and you'll have a chance to review that as a main use.

I think what this is, I mean, like Commissioner Noble said, there is no language, there's no clarity on definitions or anything that's out there right now. So this is kind of a small step forward and starting to get some of those things in place. And then there's the bigger conversation of the larger code as a whole.

So will this require you to get permission from the city if you were to get solar panels installed, or is it? I think you still have to get a permit.

Yes. Right. So it is permitted.

It's just not regulated about design or pretty much anything else. If it's residential, you get a solar. There's a specific solar permit. If it's commercial, there's a commercial electrical permit. And if you're building a thing, if it's ground-mounted, then that's a building permit also.

So it's the same but a different kind of different? Because I had solar, and I know there was permits we had to get, but I'm just wondering if it changes that process or is it... We're not changing the permitting process. No, no, no. Okay.

Okay. Anything else? All right.

Thank you, Mr. Bowen.

Thank you. All right. That was the last item to be heard. Additional items, communication and reports, planning commission committees. We need to vote on that. Pardon? No. We just hear it. It's introduced. uh... playing commission committees uh... as you heard the development review committee met to hear that introduction uh... I think one of the more interesting things that came out of that was Commissioner Meek and his vast experience brought something to attention or came up in the conversation. It's not under, we wouldn't necessarily consider it a zoning, but it's more of a safety and building code, and that's making sure that these solar systems have cutoffs for first responders to basically cut off power to any residents. when they're on scene. So I think that's a great suggestion and that needs to be addressed on the eighth floor. But I think that was one of the more major things that come out of it. Anything else? Okay, Planning Commission members? Commissioner Powers?

Commissioner Meek?

Commissioner Privett? No, I'm good. Commissioner Newman? I don't have anything. Commissioner Milner? Commissioner Harrison? Noble? Nothing.

Planning Department. A couple things. Just with regard to the code update, update the commission. We had a policy committee meeting, which includes four planning commissioners and four city council members. At this point, mainly focused on the core of the city, since that's where the main focus is, but we do have broad representation as well. BUT WE MET RECENTLY AND WENT OVER THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEYS, THE RESULTS THAT WE RECEIVED BOTH FROM THE COMMUNITY MEETING IN MARCH AND IN THE SURVEYS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING SINCE THEN. SO THAT WAS REALLY PRODUCTIVE. some focus groups we're going to go forward with. So five focus groups. Sent an email yesterday to the policy committee members. So please take a look at that and let me know if you have any input. But we will proceed this summer with setting up those meetings and further developing, refining the code. And so that's what's going on there. So we look forward to that. And we'll meet again on the 23rd and discuss kind of some issues related to how we're gonna package up and roll out the code and the timing of that and so on. So also just mentioning and reminding you that there is a study session next week for the downtown plan, which I'm excited about. I think it has a lot of really interesting things that you'll enjoy, but we're doing this now so that you can give, you can kind of receive give feedback prior to it coming forward in a draft form where you can again review and give more detailed feedback in response to the more detailed information you'll receive there. There's still a lot to come, but this is a good point now because you can kind of see all the vision, the projects, generally speaking, the programs that they from a high level are going to be recommending. Still to come would be the implementation chapter where they'll get into more details, programmatically speaking, and cost estimates for projects and that sort of thing. So that will not be covered next week, but you will see that in the coming months. This is a project that's moving quickly, so I think August... August September would be the time where you'll be seeing drafts circulating things will be getting I guess closer to coming to coming to you with a study session and then for adoption so looking forward to that so that's all I have all right municipal counselors office

Yes, actually y'all need to go back and vote on item number 20 in order specifically to set for the year. Thank you to those friends watching and advising.

So we need a motion to... For June 25th. You have to say the date. Fire it back up, Delana. So I will make a motion to set for public hearing June 25th, 2026, the recommendation, introduction and recommendation of public hearing.

We're not recommending that.

Say that again. What are we doing? We're just setting for hearing.

Yeah, just set for public hearing June 25th, 2026. Next month.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Noble, seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. Thank you. Thank you for setting us straight on that. All right. Citizens to be heard. Mr. Lodge, did you feel that you missed out on any podium time? OK. Just wanted to check.