Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the June 25th 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 turn it off. If you've never been to one of our meetings before, welcome. Here's what to expect. We'll begin with some simple administrative tasks, including minutes and continuances. Then we move on to cases that are on the consent docket. These are fairly straightforward cases that can be heard as a group. After that, we move to cases to be heard individually. We'll hear them, discuss, and determine if a recommendation decision can be made today or if more time or a continuance is necessary. There are certain cases where this body makes a final decision, but most of our items that we hear, we provide a recommendation to city council and are not the final decision. So for those, no matter what the decision is, you'll have another opportunity to share your concerns again when those are heard at city council in approximately six to eight weeks. There are certain items such as homeowners association CCRs and agreements between private parties that are outside the purview of this commission and are not factors in our discussion and consideration, and we just ask for the sake of time that you refrain from using those as justification for your case. If you're here to speak on an item and are not the applicant, please fill out one of the forms available outside and provide them to Elena or Jared down here. When that item is called, you'll be asked to come to the podium, come give your name and address for the record, and you'll have up to five minutes to speak. If you're here to speak an item with a large group of people, we encourage you to select a representative to share your group's concerns, and in those instances, some additional time will be granted. Where several speakers on the same item are heard, we just ask that you do your best to limit comments to those that we haven't heard yet, and we reserve the right to limit extensive, repetitious comments. Please direct all your comments and questions to the commission, and if needed, we'll ask staff or the applicant to respond. Finally, we appreciate everyone's presence today and the time that you took away from your other obligations to be present. We ask for your cooperation upholding the quorum of the meeting, and we ask that you don't speak from the gallery so thank you for your attendance your attention and your assistance and with that we'll move on to the next item which is receipt of the minutes from the june 11th meeting mr chair i'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes for the june 11th 2026 meeting a motion to receive the minutes it's been seconded by commissioner meek please cast your votes The minutes are received. Next is item three, continuance requests, and we'll start with uncontested requests.

Item 17 is case C7761, request to defer to July 23rd. Item 18, case C7813, defer to July 23rd. Item 19, SPUD 1834, defer to July 23rd. Item 20, case CPA 2506, defer to August 13th. Item 21, CE 1156, deferred to August 13th. 22, PUD 2110, deferred to August 13th. Item 23, case SPUD 1827, deferred to August 27th. Item 24, case SPUD 1830, deferred to August 27th. And item 25, case PC 10977 has been withdrawn. I'll just confirm there's no one here to be heard on any of those items.

Seeing none, I'm just ready for a motion.

I would like to make a motion to approve the uncontested continuous requests as read.

Motion to approve the new requests. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. And the uncontested requests are approved.

New requests. Item four, case C7819, request to defer to July 23rd. Item 10, SPUD 1838, defer to July 23rd. Item 11, SPUD 1839, defer to July 23rd. And item 16, PUD 2142, defer to July 23rd. Is there anyone here to be heard on any of those items? The case numbers? Item numbers, so four, 10, 11, and 16.

Okay, I'm just ready for a motion.

I would like to make a motion to approve the new continuance request as read.

Motion to approve the new request from Commissioner Noble. That's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. The new requests are approved. Next we move on to item four, public hearings and the consent docket.

Item one is case C7814, final plat of Sooner Gateway, section one, located south of East I-240 Highway and east of South Sooner Road. And item two is case C7815, final plat of Wheeler District, phase five, located south of the Oklahoma River and west of Southwestern Avenue.

Anyone here to be heard on either of those two items? Seeing none, ready for a motion.

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

A motion to approve the consent docket from Commissioner Noble, seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. The consent docket is approved. All right, then we move to our items requiring a separate vote, and we start with item three.

This is KC7812, preliminary plat of 10 West Center Addition, located south of Northwest 10th Street and east of North Check Hall Road, and variances to the subdivision regulations.

We have an applicant present.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Terry Haynes with SMC Consulting Engineers, 815 West Main Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, we reviewed the staff comments. I know you have a plethora of other items behind us. We're in agreement with the staff comments and just ask for your approval. I'll be here for any questions you might have. Okay. Any agreeable to the technical evaluations? We were in agreement with the technical evaluations. There are two variances that are there a part of the part of the preliminary plat one includes there's a residential community addition to the southeast zoning code or the code requires that we provide a connection point because this is a Major retail development. We don't want to have that access point. I think it's a good idea not to the second variance on this was a Just a moment.

Naming the private drive. Yeah, the private drives to be private.

Naming the private drives as named streets. That was a staff idea. I think it's a great idea. We had this experience with the check hall market at Caddy Corner off of Check Hall. We have issues with addressing over there. So we think it's a great idea to be able to name these streets.

All right, very good. Commissioner Meek, this is your ward. You want to lead the discussion?

Yeah, I've reviewed this, and I agree with staff that it meets all the requirements. I know we do have the six TEs he's agreeable to. So unless there's any other comments, I'd like to start with the variant move to approve the variants 5.3.1.D.5. I have just a question. I...

agree that it's probably not a good idea because it's commercial development but also not a practical idea because where the stub would be would be into common area. But I wonder, have we decided on a sort of policy about stubbed streets and providing some sort of

I think because of the two separate types between the R1 and then this commercial, that it's a good idea there and it was also a request by the R1 in the original PUD to not stub, makes it an easier ask for me.

My point being, have we decided that just stubbing a street and blocking it off is not the best way to deal with that? That there needs to be some sort of, I don't know, treatment of it or whatever?

Removal.

Are we moving in that direction on this?

Well, I mean, I would love to see that, too, so that it's not just a stub to nowhere with a type 3 sign that then gets dilapidated. But I think that it's a public street, and so it's an effort between the city and then the neighborhood to come together to get that.

And in this specific instance, I mean you have the street basically terminates at the property line and there's a driveway There's two driveways that appear right like right there.

So it's not like It's got 50 feet of useless streets more natural than others that we've yeah where it won't look so bad.

Okay you know, I just think it if we're going to have a kind of policy about the way those stubbed streets should be dealt with, that it would be a good idea for us to be clear about what it is so that people know what to expect when they come to us.

I agree. And I also think that the requirement somehow to release the easement and close it would be a good idea.

Even though it's not under the PUD or SPUD that we're hearing, it's always on opposite.

Some of it's property, and then it would then become common. That's the problem. It is, and it's more difficult, but then again, it's the owner of the PUD that's requesting it can make that reach out.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

Put the effort out to do it.

Well, so we won't do that today, but we're gonna think about it a little bit more and perhaps formulate a policy?

I think that would be the direction.

Great idea.

No, you're good. All right. With that, I made a motion for approval of the variance.

I made a motion from Commissioner Meek to approve variance section 5.3.1.D.5, the subdivision regulations. I'm waiting on a second. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. That variance is approved.

All right. And I'd like to now move to approve the variance to section 5.4.2.E.5.

We have a motion to approve the variance from Commissioner Meek, seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes.

That variance is approved. Now the item. All right, now the item. I'd like to move to approve C7812, the preliminary plat with the six TEs as listed.

A motion to approve the item subject to technical evaluation, seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. That item is approved. Item four has been continued, so we'll move to item five.

Item five is a recommendation on proposed ordinance related to the zoning and planning code, establishing definitions for solar energy systems and establishing development regulations for accessory solar energy systems in all zoning districts.

There was a presentation that was, along with this, that we saw two weeks ago. I did not feel that it was necessary to see that presentation again, so I don't know if there's anything to add or if any commissioners have comments, and we're just ready for a motion.

Maybe it would be a good idea, just for the record and the people who are watching at home, if they would just give us some idea of why we're doing this. Sure. Yes.

Certainly. Hi, T.O. Bowman with the Sustainability Office. So this ordinance is for accessory use solar. It establishes definitions and use standards. We presented to the Urban Design Commission, the Downtown Design Commission, both with unanimous approvals. We also submitted, presented to the Development, thanks, Jared, the Development Regulations Committee for Planning Commission. Commissioner Meek, to your question about the stickering for warnings, those are required on residential and commercial. So we did confirm that with the development center. So this, again, introduced its first establishment of definitions of solar energy systems for accessory use only. They're allowed on the rooftop and on ground mount. Ground mount follow the same rules as accessory structures that already exist for the base zoning district.

All right, and as this is new, I mean, I suspect this is gonna be the first iteration and this will just continue to evolve as it's used more widely. All right, any comments, questions? All right, I think we're ready for a motion.

Then I will make a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance to the city council for accessory solar energy systems in all zoning districts.

Motion to recommend the ordinance to counsel from Commissioner noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner privet.

Please cast your votes As recommended for approval Item 6 item 6 is CPA 26 6 Consideration of a map amendment to the conference of plan removing employment land over a urban low-intensity based Luda area And this is on approximately 19 acres north of West Britain Road and east of North Kilpatrick Turnpike.

Baneri Mujic-Ortiz for the Planning Department. So this is CPA 260006. It's basically amending the comprehensive plan, removing the employment land looted layer from the urban load. There's no associated rezoning case with this CPA. This is where it's located. It's located north of West Britain and east of the turnpike Right now in terms of line use is undeveloped In terms of zoning is a zone are a are one sorry In terms of the Luda the line use typology. It is employment layer with a urban low Base In terms of city services, water is available. Sewer is readily available. Emergency services are within the urban response time. In terms of findings, the subject site is an excellent site for employment use due to its proximity to the turnpike and city infrastructure. It's well served and situated close to employment land sites are limited. in the northwest area of the city where sites suitable for residential use are more plentiful. For suburban employment land to facilitate the creation of jobs remains critical to Oklahoma City's overall economic stability and future growth. Removing the employment designation for the site will reduce the amount of development ready employment land available in the northwest quadrant of the city, lessening the city's ability to retain and attract large employers. Based on the finding above, the staff recommends denial of the request. I don't know if there's any other questions.

Any questions, comments from commissioners?

This one or the one with the LUDAS? That one?

Okay.

All right. Hey, and I just wanted to ask too, Baneri, is the land to the north and to the west, is it still in the implement layer?

Yes, can you go to the Luder map? Yes. So all of this area is still employment. And I don't know if you guys remember, a couple of, a month ago, all of this was employment too. And we, it was.

It still is, right? Yeah, all of this still. I just remember, and then the property on the north side of the expressway was, and we took it out. It's still employment. Okay.

Sir, did you sign up to speak?

I didn't. I can spill one out. All right. I'll give you, yeah.

I'll give you an opportunity.

Hello. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. So I was hired on... this site this week, there is a zoning case that either has been filed or will be filed in short order. The balance of this around the purple box is a case that we have already filed. We met with the neighbors on it. This week, or the last week, it's for a residential subdivision that includes residential and multifamily. So perhaps we're filing a comp plan change, Caitlin, on the balance of that? Anyways, this is all in active development with residential development. So much like the mile, I guess, south as you get closer to Hefner, where it was all employment land and one by one we took that away.

uh... all of this is going the way of residential so uh... i would ask that you approve this unexpected surprising conference a plan change request might my understanding is that we just received uh... resigning application for for this particular property and they're correct me if i'm wrong i think we do have a cpa request for the the property to the west

Both it's two different developers this the purple is a separate developer That I think Johnson Associates is perhaps filing the application right now Around it is a separate developer that we have represented for a while and had a very positive neighborhood meeting last week with them with our plan and we surround the entirety of that purple box and

So, yes, we did receive another application that we're gonna be presented in July It's not for the rest of the area. Actually some of it is kind of stuff still remain in employment is for 130 some of the acres. So he's the land to the west and a little bit to the north but There are two big parts that are gonna still remain in within the employment Luda in that area Okay.

So this is ward one and I will, we've seen a number of these cases in this specific area come to us before for this exact same thing and staff has always recommended denial because it was a planning study and plan from years ago that established this overlay and that's all it is, is a line on the map. that says this should be reserved.

And the conditions hadn't changed, and so it still kind of meets the, I can't keep it in the overlay.

My thing is, and we go back to this, if you want to be able to control this and reserve this, there's other ways to do that. by purchasing the land. For this specific area, there is no access to Kilpatrick Turnpike from Britton Road. So one of the standards is the access to major transportation. So I don't... You can get there, but it's kind of a roundabout way. But I think this specific site doesn't necessarily have good access to the turnpike. Also, I attended a community meeting in that community to the east probably about a year ago. And at that time... This site, a little bit smaller, was being considered for a storage unit development, and those neighbors were very adamant that they wanted to see residential. And as Mr. Box alluded, this whole area, if you look to the south, this has all been residential. It's been coming this way for years, and I think it will just continue. So I just... don't see this getting developed. There's been so many opportunities for employment developers to locate here, and they're just not picking it for whatever reason. So I'm in favor of granting the CPA, but certainly open to anyone else's opinions.

Here's the thing. When we did the employment reserves, it was, in my opinion, at the time, a good idea. There was a real concern that there were not enough large tracts of developable land that could be made available to potential employers, generally people we were bringing here from somewhere else. Maybe the flaw is in the execution because it's just an overlay and that's not enough to actually cause it to be reserved, which is kind of the concept, employment reserve, and I get that. But it seems to me, first of all, that it's not a bad idea to do something about that concept. Maybe this wasn't the way to do it. But clearly these things keep coming back to us. I'm talking really northwest. I'm not as knowledgeable about other places in the city, but maybe the logic applies. They keep coming to us. Staff generally recommends denial. We approve them anyway. If we have abandoned the idea that the employment reserve serves a function, then I think we need to get rid of it. I mean, I just don't, it gives me such anxiety every time one of these things pops up. You know, the idea behind these large swaths of land were not just that they were going to build giant things, but that you would have room for supportive residential and commercial development around whatever the employer was. And so having enough room to do traffic circulation and things that made sense for that kind of a use and its accessory uses made sense. It clearly has not worked out that way over the time since these things were established. Every time we talked to people at the Chamber of Commerce about, you know, could we be doing this different? Are there things in motion? And so on. It's never a very solid response in terms of here's what we're doing and here's why we need it. So I think we need to, instead of just doing this piecemeal like this, in this particular one, you're right. There's no access under the Kilpatrick from here. There is access under the Kilpatrick from the bigger piece when it was established. And that would have made sense for an employer like a PACOM or whatever. So now we basically cut that off, and I think it just doesn't make sense for us to continue to see these one at a time if we're gonna just keep doing the same thing, which is ignoring staff's recommendation and approving them, so.

And while maybe it doesn't make sense, we have to because it was put in in the comp plan, and so I think that, and this was way before my time on this board, but if we would have held steady and kept it as an employment layer and we would have had and possibly could have had a large employer, we would have had access onto the turnpike because one brings the other. It didn't happen that way. So the development is coming. This is one of the last pieces, actually. We went all the way to the expressway and we're all the way to Britain Road. So this is just the last little piece.

And I agree with that. I get that. I mean, like I said, maybe the reserve was not the right way. I think that there was real concern as we started this process of carving it up.

But you do see it. I mean, as they built the turnpike, it was all undeveloped. you would have thought maybe we would have had commercial all the way against it or industrial and then the residential further away from the pike and back. It just did not happen that way.

I think there was real concern as individual applications came in that we would have faced litigation if we had tried to deny them. Based on a reserve that doesn't do anything to deal with the property rights of individuals. The reserve may just not have been the right method to try to do this. to your point, you know, but I... And the comp plan was an idea.

It's not written in law.

And it's a big idea, and it's a good idea in terms of having these large tracts of land available. Because when you're doing those deals, I don't do them, but I am familiar enough to know that you don't have years to think, well, we'll go out and we'll assemble it and we'll rezone it before you attract those people. You have to have that available to do.

Right. And you have to own it to have that availability, truthfully.

So...

Did you have something to add? No.

Okay.

I mean, perhaps the motion could be expanded to just get rid of all of it right there and save yourself 30 minutes next time. It would have been.

I mean, it would have been in there. If the staff would have deemed it to approve it, they would have drawn it all in.

Yeah, and this that exact same thing happened a couple of meetings ago where there was a case to do like 20 acres and they expanded it to 120 and did it all in one swath but that was a recommendation to approve or this one's not so well and it wasn't to remove i don't believe it was to remove an employment layer i was gonna it was um yeah binary if she remembers which one it was i think a good example it was a layer i just don't remember which one heavy industrial Okay, it was heavy industrial.

Okay. A good example on how maybe it should have been done is that Project 577 and Ward 4 that was bought in the city and currently being developed and got locked supply there.

But you know what? They bought the property.

Yeah, right. That's a good example. And a property that wasn't really going to be anything else with all the low wells and everything else. Mm-hmm.

I certainly agree that residentials are better used than another storage unit. I have to side with the neighbors on that.

All right, anything else? That's my ward. I can't make a motion, but I support approving, recommending approval of the item.

With that, Mr. Chair, then I will make a motion to approve case number CPA 26-00006. the proposed map amendment to the comprehensive plan removing the employment layer.

We have a motion to approve the item, Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. That item is approved.

Item seven. Item seven is SBUD 1843, application to rezone 1933 Northwest 39th Street from R1 and SBUD 1800.

Good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, This is a site that was just recently zoned into Spud 1800. My client operates a roofing company in the outdoor storage area. It's really utilized to operate somewhat of an outdoor showroom, given the nature of the materials that he sells. The site that we had zoned in Spud 1800 was just not big enough for what he needed, so he acquired the lot to the east, and what we have done is carried over the regulations that were placed upon this application in that item into this item. So with that, there are no TEs, however, In conversations with Ms. Powers, there is a request that we modify some of the SPUD, namely add a TE1 that requires trees along the east to be on 20-foot centers rather than 25-foot centers, which is what was originally contemplated under the SPUD. Page 3 of the SPUD changed language under the 8300.54 use unit limitation. to state permitted by right but limited to the outdoor storage of roof tile, slate, and other roofing materials as accessory use only. Any outdoor storage shall be screened, landscaped as defined herein, and shall be further limited to lots 29 through 32 as shown on exhibit B. Stacking of materials shall be required to be lower than the height of the screening. So with that, happy to answer any questions.

The animal uses.

Oh, and deletion of use unit 8300.8 and 8300.11, which are animal sales and services grooming, animal sales and services kennel, and veterinary restricted.

David, if we're going to say that if we're putting up an eight-foot fence, let's call it lower than the fence, not lower than the screening. I don't want anybody to think the trees are the screening.

So an eight-foot fence is required. So we can modify that to say lower than the height of the fence.

Okay, great. This is in my ward after I stopped coughing at the idea of expanding the outdoor storage and display. and really looked at what this is. I think it makes sense to do this. I'm okay with the application given the amendments that we're making by TE. Did we do the hours of operation?

Monday through Friday 8 to 5, Saturday 10 to 4.

So is that TE3 or 4? 4. Okay. So does anybody else have anything they want to say about this?

I had a question on the idea of the parking or the storage being reclaimed asphalt and just to make sure that that would be bordered with the concrete ribbons. I'm sorry, say that again? If they used reclaimed asphalt, then that would be bordered with the concrete ribbons. Yeah, I think that's a requirement. Just to make sure.

I'D LIKE TO SAY I LIKE THE FANCY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. WELL, IF NOT, IS THERE SOMEBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK?

I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

OKAY. THEN I'M GOING TO MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 7, S.P.D. 1843, WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE FOUR, WE THINK, T.E.s THAT WERE READING TO THE RECORD.

A motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend approval of the item of City Council subject to the four technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval.

Thank you.

Item eight. Item eight is SPUD 1845. Excuse me, application to rezone 801 North Cemetery Road from SPUD 807 to 1845.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. Before you is an application that would take what is currently zoned in SPUD 807 and expand on commercial uses. Currently, the only use allowed is outdoor storage of automotive boat, trailer, and recreational vehicles. This is an area that's changing fairly rapidly in a commercial Path and so this would allow for uses more appropriate with kind of the nature of the area So there are no technical evaluations except and communicating with Commissioner Meek He has requested that we add the requirement of a specific plan, which we agreed to Okay, mr. Meek you want to leave the discussion

Yes, I'm agreeable with that, mostly because there's no master development plan shown. And there's a lot of C3 uses to protect the residential and the component. There's churches on the north and south. I believe this specific plan is a good idea to move this on down the road. So I have the TE language I'd like to use unless any other commissioners have any questions. Okay, then I'll make a motion to recommend approval of SPUD 1845 with the TE number one being added that a specific plan shall be required as defined in 59.14150.D for PUD specific plan requirements.

I have a motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend the item for approval subject to the technical evaluation as read. Seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval.

Item nine. Item nine is case SP615, application for a special permit to operate a moderate impact institutional truck driving school in the I-2 and Stockyards Transitional Development District at 918 South Agnew Avenue.

Hello, my name is Adam Taylor, owner of Superior Truck Driving Academy, located at 940 South Agnew. We've been in business for two and a half years, provide top-notch Class A CDO training. We have 13 employees on staff that consist of instructors with years of truck driving experience and several military veterans. We focus on smaller class sizes so students get more one-on-one training. and are trained properly and leave our school confident. We're connected with large companies that hire our students right out of school, all about giving folks better opportunities to advance their career and better themselves financially.

Thank you. Great, thank you. This is Commissioner Milner's ward who is absent today, so my understanding is that Commissioner Powers is going to take the wheel on this. See what I did there?

Thank you. This is, when I spoke to Commissioner Milner, he did not have a particular problem with the use and asked if I could, you know, do the presentation. There are some things about it, though, that I think I have questions about, and they are. you know, the need for any kind of access onto Young's Boulevard. That doesn't seem to me to be a good idea. The property to the east is zoned for multifamily residential development. And, you know, given its proximity to the river, I think that might happen someday. Okay. Our site plan doesn't give us much information about where the permanent parking will be, where the access points are, where, if any, the sign will be. I guess this is our access point up here. So I have questions.

So the city that are going to close off the east side there to Young's, they're going to close that gate off and they've already installed a gate out on Agnew where we can enter and exit. So that'll be closed off and we'll not park right there where the residential is. We're going to park. We're working on parking across the street. I'm talking to that business owner right now about parking in their lot.

So not on the side at all? Your own parking will not be on-site at all?

Right across the street, there's a space we're working to rent right now, a lot. Right across would be, what is that, Southwest 9th or Southwest 8th?

Oh, to the south. Yeah, right here. I see. Hmm. Okay.

We've been parking right there just east of Young's, the students, but they're closing that off right now and we're gonna park right there to the south in that lot right there.

Okay.

South of 9th?

It would be, yeah, right there.

Oh, over there. I think we would want that to be memorialized somehow in the special permit. If we're not going to provide the parking on site, I think we need to know sort of where it's going to be. Whether it's by access or parking agreement or whatever, I know that's kind of... A business was in there.

Yeah, I would say you need to designate the parking, the student parking on the site, and then if you make another agreement with another property owner, then that is on you, not part of the special permit.

We just can't park in that 2 1⁄2, 3 acres right there at 940 South Hagner. We can't fit all the students in that one lot and be training. So that's why we're working on additional parking.

And I don't want to discourage you from doing that, but I think whether it's your employees and or your students, I think we need to provide within the special permit

parameters can we grant you know where your parking is going to be so I don't think that we can say that it's gonna be off-site I don't think it's outside the limits of the application that's outside the property so I don't know mr. noble's point I mean I it needs to be provided. I think you just say it's provided. And whether they provide it on site or by separate agreement.

Just to say it's provided, if it's going to be provided by separate agreement and it's not part of the special permit anyway. I think if...

I think you need to designate it on the site, and I would just say the park is going to be designated on the west side of the building in the northeast corner along that fence line. Okay. And then what you do after that is again on you.

Okay, sounds good.

I think that makes more sense.

Yeah, we can do that. And I don't know, and Susan's not here, but if we could add any screening to the east side between the R4 and the business itself. Absolutely. I mean, it's kind of a dilapidated chain link fence in its current state. But again, Jeff, can we add anything to the special permit? Absolutely. Yeah, to a special permit, yeah.

Yeah, we get to do that. I do think there needs to be screening, I mean, landscaping along that eastern boundary. Okay. Do we want to decide now for him what it's going to be? Trees on 20-foot centers?

I think you could go, I mean, 25. 25? Yeah.

I'd want to see but evergreen and not canopy trees. That would be my suggestion.

Are you agreeable to that?

Yes. Planting evergreen trees down that side? Yes.

And then the other question, so we're close, I think we need to memorialize the fact that there will be no access onto Young's, vehicle commercial access, or vehicle access onto Young's from the site. And then there was one, your hours of operation. I think if you're gonna operate something like this in proximity to residential, and I'm not trying to say what they need to be, but I think you need to specify what they are.

What are your hours right now?

It's Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. And then Saturday, Sunday as well. It's seven days a week.

Saturday and Sunday at 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.? Yes.

Well, I'd certainly be willing to give you 5 p.m., but I think, yeah, we need to designate the hours, 7 a.m., 5 p.m., seven days a week.

That'll give you all some time to get out of there after it's over.

You actually operate seven days a week?

Yes. We have different, you know, staff.

Okay.

Weekends and stuff.

Anybody else got anything else they want to add?

You're not teaching them how to use the jake break in there, are you? No.

They don't get going faster.

Is there anybody signed up?

No.

Okay, so with those changes and agreements, then I would move approval of item number nine, SP 615, with the modification of the access. The parking to be shown on site. Oh, I did have one other thing. And the hours of operation. The lighting. The language in this staff report about, you know, the lighting being limited within 20 feet of the eastern boundary, I don't really know exactly what that means. Surely they're required to keep it from spilling off the site, aren't they? Like anybody else would be.

And there's no like pole lights because you're closed after 3 p.m. anyway, right? Right. Okay.

Okay. So that's my motion.

So I just want to make sure. So it was the no access on the Youngs, parking designated on site, landscape buffer, so evergreen trees, 25 foot on center on the east boundary, and then hours of operation seven days a week, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. And are you in agreement with the TE, which is?

that there are no more than five commercial vehicles? I mean, you've limited the number of trucks.

On our plan we had eight parked inside the inside the lot. Eight total semi trucks.

So staff is suggesting and asking that you limit it to five. Okay.

Is that doable?

Is that doable?

I mean it... How does that work with your business plan?

Yeah, we need to know.

I mean, it kind of messes me up, really. It makes me park three other trucks somewhere else, you know? So, I mean, eight would be ideal. And you'll use all eight trucks at the same time? I mean, some days, yes, depending on how busy we are.

Okay.

Gary, can you go back to that aerial that we were showing previously?

The little plan they had. Yeah, so there's two places over there. But they're on this plan. Yeah, I was just looking at the aerial.

I don't have a strong feeling about this. Whose idea was it to limit them to five, and what was the logic? Come up and tell us.

Yeah.

bad johnson planning partner uh... the reason for the limitation is because the s whitey overlay that's the stockyards transitional district prohibits automotive and equipment storage so are what we were attempting to do is to make accommodations to have training equipment on site and without it being constituted as an automotive and equipment storage. The number was arbitrary because I just counted the trucks on the aerial when this topic came up. It was mentioned before the application came in, but there was no long general discussion about how many trucks. Five was suggested at the start, and there hasn't been any discussion beyond that.

Okay. Well, that was my initial concern about the application, too. We want to be sure that the special permit is not stretched in a way that it becomes like a truck storage yard. We don't want to do that. So, if the applicant could tell us seriously, what is your, what's your bottom number on the number of trucks you need on site?

We're maxed out at eight there, so we won't need any more than eight, so.

Is everybody okay with that? Okay.

Yeah, I don't have an issue.

Okay, so that would be our final TA, eight.

So TE1 would be revised to be limited to no more than eight. It shall be only those which are used for daily operations.

Yeah, so the motion is subject to the TE and the technical evaluations that we've created.

Okay, so we have a motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend approval of the special permit. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your vote. And that item is recommended for approval. Thank you and good luck. Thank you. Item 10 and 11 have been continued.

Brings us to item 12. Item 12 is PUD 2131, application to rezone 3103 Southeast 104th Street from AA and PUD 1864.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, this is a PUD that would take an existing development plan and modify it. So currently, the PUD that's in place had a significant stretch of commercial along Bryant and then a tract east of that that would allow for multifamily and then single family in the back. What we are proposing to do is to kind of move the uses around and remove the commercial. So that track one would be single family, track two duplex, and then track three is intended to be a townhome development. One of the TEs asked us to commit that the multifamily use unit is limited to townhomes, which we are agreeable to. There are three TEs, all of which we agree to. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from commissioners?

Box, the previous PUD, what was the density like?

So the previous PUD had, let's see, track one was R1. Track two was the C3 along the frontage of Bryant. And then track three was approximately five acres of R4. I don't have gross numbers for it. It was never, I don't think there was ever any effort to plot.

Okay. Yeah, Commissioner Privett, this is your ward if you want to lead our discussion. I have two folks signed up to speak. Sure.

Let's go ahead and hear from them.

Okay. We'll go from there. Very good. We'll start with Shawna Bray. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. I'm Shawna Bray. I live at 3601 Southeast 104th. I'm just east of this property. It was rezoned four years ago. There was a R1. There's a small area that's on Bryant that remained the R3, I believe it was, and then the commercial property on Bryant. then we get this new one in and it's causing a bigger density in the area and it's actually putting a lot of like the townhomes there's no townhomes in this area it is a rural community and normally five acre plots at the least five acre plots and so I know things have to grow And I didn't fight this last time, you know, because it was mainly R1 and everything. So but with this density in the traffic and nothing else like it in the area, I see that it's going to cause a lot of problems with their area along with. The track, this is changed from the original, not the one that was four years ago, the one they submitted, I'm sorry, prior to. and has got even more denser than it was before. And one of my biggest concerns is this drainage. They are redirecting all of the stormwater runoff to come down, and it will end up exiting out on my property, which I'm not OK with. And they don't have any rights to do so. And this is a large amount, because when you put those townhomes in the Track 3, There's no way for the stormwater to do the sheet as a natural runoff with the sheet flow. And that's one of my biggest concerns. I'm sorry. The traffic in the area and stuff, I think this is just too much of a density for our

Well, I will just for what it's worth. So if this were to move forward, as they go through permitting, they will have to submit for review to the city stormwater department and adhere to the ordinance. And that ordinance says that they cannot release any additional stormwater from their site than what already exists. Yeah.

But they're concentrating it into one area.

And detention is now required too, right? Yeah. I don't know. Barry would have to answer if detention was required in this area.

We want to hear from Barry. Detention would have to be required. They couldn't do all this without retaining site water.

They're showing two fairly large detention ponds as well. I mean, I know that's just a picture, but...

very large public works yes detention will be required as just uh... based on the the ordinance it was passed in twenty twenty five so it will be required She brings up a good point about the nature of the runoff, and that's something that we would look at during the review. Changing from a sheet flow condition into a point discharge does have an impact on adjacent properties. So that would be something that we would look at during the review. And there's some things that they can do to mitigate that. It may not be exactly like it was historically, but it We will review that to be sure that it's in compliance with the ordinance.

I just wanted you to be aware there is a process that they're required to go through for that review.

I'm sorry?

I just wanted you to be aware that that is something that gets looked at and scrutinized if this were to move forward. Okay. I want you to know that I feel the same way as you do. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, is that everything? Yeah. All right, thank you. Thank you. Brad Bray?

Brad Bray, 3605 Southeast 104th Street. I also live nearby to the East Air in a separate five acre track. I contribute to our family farm. But yeah, just not to belabor the density point, which I fully agree on. That doesn't fit this character of the area. Because in general, to the southwest of there, this is just single family R1 homes in the city of Moore. and further ones up north of that. But I kind of wanted to focus more on the traffic aspect. So I drive to work every day just right outside of Tinker Air Force Base, which is not too far from here. But even so, that the traffic, especially around 4 or 5, everyone gets off work and goes home. you know that bryant only being single lane each way and sunny lane to the west of there or east of there going one single lane for this section of it it backs up frequently and commonly bryant will back up to the actual bryant elementary school to the north of there MP traffic in that and that's current with nothing here. So that's that's one of the aspects I wanted to point out is the the number of lanes there and comparative to the the density being Okay, yeah, thank you Okay, that was everyone.

I haven't signed up to speak. All right.

Would you go the zoning map? So I think it is worth pointing out that, one, yes, this is not developed, but it is afforded some element of zoning now that includes up to four family residential, single family commercial. North of us is zoned straight RMH2, which would allow for a mobile home park to be developed. and across the street to the north and west and to the southwest, yes it's City of Moore, but that has developed as traditional kind of single family. So what we're proposing, although different, I don't think altogether is a significant departure from what was originally proposed. What we have found is along Bryant at this location, there is not a significant amount of interest in commercial development. Originally planned was a, what is it, 12 acres? Almost 12 and a half acres of commercial development. there's been almost no interest whatsoever in that. And so what there is interest for is various forms of residential. So it's R4 in name only, given that we're going to limit it to townhome development. And then it's single family and duplex. So happy to answer any questions or address any concerns anyone has. Staff has asked that we add a TE number four as drafted. The section 8.1 where it says track 2, it says R2 single family residential district, and it needs to say R2 medium low density residential district.

All right. bad Johnson planning department so the TE staff is requesting is that we revise summary of putt application reference to track to to read our to medium low density residential that could you tell us the difference between that and just our to It's only to correct for the discrepancy. Right now it says R2 single family instead of R1 single family. You can't have a single family. So we're just trying to correct for a typographical error.

It was probably a copy and paste error. Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. It's just what the R2 district has called under the municipal code.

Yeah, single family R2 can exist. What's that? Single family R2 cannot exist.

Well, you can have single family residential in R2, but it's just the name of R2 is not R2 single family. It's R2 medium low density. It was just an error on the copy and paste is what I'm guessing.

Did you happen to have a neighborhood meeting on this one?

So the woman that spoke, Kendall, who is the civil engineer on the project, met with her, I'm told, at least once. Her primary concern in those meetings was drainage. He shared kind of the elevations, where the water goes, explained that, yes, we'll have to meet the drainage ordinance. We will have to detain. As shown, we show two separate detention ponds. But of course, Barry and his staff will ultimately have to tell us where and what and how and if they agree with us. So, yes, Kendall was able to meet.

Not a neighborhood meeting. I mean, we have a petition here signed by a number of people.

Clearly, there's some interest in what's going on. I think it's different from what was originally.

It just looked like everyone had a large tract along Southwest 104th signed up petition. Do you know who all Kendall met with?

The drainage, I mean.

Kendall attempted to meet with the group.

Looking at the topographic map, it goes straight south, so, you know.

Kindle offered, attempted, and met with the one individual.

I'll start on some of the things that I looked at. While we have done a lot of reduction in the R1 lot sizes, he's gone just a little bit too far for me. I like, at a minimum, to be 4,400 square feet on the R1 and 6,000 on the R2. Because I see that there's, I mean, as far as how it meets with the community and the surrounding communities, there's a lot of R1 development around here. New R1, relatively new.

We're going to have to take a deferral. I can't answer the question on anything north of 4,000 square feet.

And what I'm saying is that's just a little bit past, I mean, even where we've been on most of this stuff. You would want 4,400 square feet? At a minimum. I'd like to see 6,000 square feet.

Well, so would I. I mean, the idea is... clearly is here to sort of capitalize on the Moore School District. And, you know, that's a valid basis for trying to decide where you're going to build housing. I get that. But this is so dense for where it is.

We could do 4,400 square feet.

And, again, that's, I mean, at this... That's the bare minimum. Yeah. And I like the idea of the variety of housing. Yeah. And that's really where the market is. No, and I agree. I mean, you're asking for 65% lot coverage. I mean, just a little bit more on all of the items. And I'm okay with the 65% if it's going to be $4,400. Do you want $4,400 in track one?

The lot coverage, though, is very specific if you read it. It talks about the residents and the main accessories. It doesn't contemplate the driveway, which we normally would. Right. I just want bigger houses on a smaller lot.

What about open space, too? Do we have any? I'm sorry, what was your question? Green space, open space? I think it was. Is it in there? I'm sure it is. Yeah.

I have a lot of questions about this development, frankly. Let's get into it. It looks sort of upside down. Why is the denser property on the interior? Why wouldn't it be what was long Bryant? To me, you're creating a situation. We don't have a plat yet, so of course we don't know.

I don't mind the design because of the townhome aspect back there. If it was an apartment complex separated out, I think it would look a little different.

I mean, townhomes that are 35 feet tall, 2 and 1 half stories, is that right? I mean, I think the lots are too small. I think it's too dense. And I mean the lots on every single tract, too small. It just seems backwards to me.

Well, I mean, there's no true multifamily, right? It's attached single family. There's duplex. So having it all together in one street network, I don't know that it really matters materially where the various tracks are located. If it were traditional multifamily in the back, sure. But frankly, having the single family along the arterials, which is kind of consistent with what you have here, I don't think altogether is a bad plan. And the reason you have the more dense stuff up here to the north is

the court to the north his own to allow mobile home park which are entitled so you're gonna have perhaps any and it scales from the city's are from the street so you have single story and two-story single-family homes and then in the back as its further away you have the taller two-story just for the idea the design we can do 4400 for fee for any single family

And wherever it's single family, carry that throughout the PUD.

Also on the architectures, I want to talk about the materials. OK. You're at 6040, which is, again, light on the brick. But all of these homes in this area, all of the single family homes are all At least 70% brick. So I would like to move the fiber cement board out of the 60, move it to the 40, and strike EFIS altogether. You're just not using EFIS on single family homes anymore. That's fine. Strike EFIS. Go to 70%. No. Well, if you will. What'd you say? I was going to stay at 60-40, but I want the fiber board in the lower.

Is there an issue with that? Because forever that was in favor and people wanted that.

It's just that every single family home in this area is brick, at least 70% brick. So delete the fiber cement board? No, just move it to the smaller section. Got it. 30%. 40%. Or 70-30, if you're willing. 70-30? Okay.

Okay, that's fine.

Which part of it's okay?

You're going to go 70-30? Delete fiber, delete EFIS, or excuse me, move fiber to the smaller percentage. I'd prefer to keep it 60-40. with the moves that you suggest.

I mean, I'm trying to help on the affordability of it, but still keep it. Well, that is, I mean, that is, it's worth discussing that.

Like, we push this idea of affordability every other Tuesday, but increasing lawn sizes, increasing build materials, what that does, it makes it not affordable. So it's like, as a city, at some point we have to decide, are we serious about it, or do we like it name only, and we're going to put all these obligations on builders that just makes it not affordable.

That's the reality of this discussion. And consistency with the following neighborhoods or surrounding neighborhoods. So it's a give and a take.

So 60-40, move the fiber cement to the 40 and delete EFIS altogether.

Or we can leave it like it is and set a maximum square footage price for affordability.

Well, when cities do that, they tend to find themselves in federal court. Uh-huh. I mean, it's a wonderful idea, but my guess is Susan perhaps would disagree with dictating price points and PUDs.

While I will concede somewhat the partial logic of your comments about affordability, reality of increasing density on the fringe in terms of the cost of services being provided by the city of oakland city and in terms of its impact on surrounding you know school districts which clearly this is intended to capitalize on the more districts i mean we when they come and complain to us even though it is within our purview to consider we basically tell them sorry we can't help you but you know we don't have to make it harder for them by increasing density either i just It's problematic for me. I mean, it's difficult.

More schools has never been a school district that has been here. Obviously, so more schools outside of Oakdale is probably the best positioned school district from a financial standpoint given what exists along I-35. Their bonding base is massive, just like Oakdale schools. And so the school districts that have problems are kind of the suburban school districts. Mustang, Deer Creek, UConn, but UConn's got 40. They struggle so much because they just don't have the ad valorem base to be able to go do it. And so they're maxed out on long periods of time. The Moore School District, frankly, is an abundance of riches given the massive corridor of I-35 and all that has happened there over the last 15, 20 years. I understand your point. They're just not in the same position. They're throwing up schools.

Right. And it's not as far in the fringe. I mean, it's, you know, three miles to I-35. It's not... It's not 15 like West Piedmont.

Yeah.

But in the same, that's why I wanted to at least get the size of the lots to a minimum. Because as soon as we said 4,000, pretty soon they'd be back at 3,750 square feet. So anyway. No, no, no.

Did we get the 6,000? You want to go to 6,000? No, not on really. But yeah, on the R2. On R2, yeah.

Yeah, on duplex.

That's fine. So you think you can get this done in this PU today and not defer it? Is that what you're saying? Correct.

So what I have is the three TEs that are drafted. Well, I guess TE2 gets modified. Well, we agree to TE 1 and 3. TE 4 would be the TE as read by staff, which we agree to. TE 5 would be modifying single family minimum square footage to be 4,400 square feet. TE 6 would be the modification of the facade rags to be deletion of EFIS, moving the fiber cement board to the 40%. And then your question on the duplex, are we good there?

That's a standard. I mean, that's a standard everywhere on the R2.

OK. Yeah, we'll agree to it and figure it out. So that would be the TE7. Which I don't know then what that leaves, I guess, on TE2.

Right, so TE2 kind of is irrelevant now. I mean, you're going to go to a 6,000 square foot duplex lot.

So it makes it 3,000.

So it makes it three. But that would be standard. So maybe we just delete. TE2 was fixing your typo of 2,050. That was a mistake in the body of the application. Yeah.

So we just delete TE2. And add the minimum 6,000. Correct. Which would be 3,000 aside. Okay. I blame Caitlin for the typos, but she didn't draft it.

Okay, anything else?

Not ideal, but better. I want to make sure that Commissioner Powers is okay with even sight in the design.

I don't understand. He tried to meet. It's like you set up a meeting, you send out notice, people show up or they don't, but be that as it may, when you've got this many Protestants, I think you need to have a neighborhood meeting, but be that as it may. I think you've got me there.

There may be one before council.

We can make ourselves available before council. But I know Kendall, he did everything he could and perhaps leaned on her to gather her neighbors and no one came. He did physically meet with her.

It's been deferred twice and now the layout's changed considerably. I don't know if we're the better or worse, but there's no 30-foot lot.

Ms. Bray, I'll let you respond if you want to go to this other podium over here.

I'm Shawna Bray. Mr. Kendall and I talked on numerous occasions, and we were going to get together with a group at Hobie Horn's house, because he owns a lot of property in that area. And he had offered up his home, but Mr. Kendall told me that his client had no intentions of changing anything. So the meeting was pretty much going to be like, this is what we're going to do, and you have to accept it. So there was no need to have a meeting at that time. Also, the land north of both of our properties is owned by Moore Schools. There's not going to be any mobile homes put in there at that time. So I mean, there's a lot of things. We did try to work, and I did try to work with Mr. Dillon. And I was showing him on the properties where it meets. There is a big runoff. And I was hoping we could work together. But we're not gonna work together if I just have to accept what they're giving. I still believe the density and everything in the area, there's nothing like it. We don't have town homes anywhere near here. There's no duplexes around there. It's mainly acreages except for the housing additions that are close by and they're just our ones. And I would like it to at least stay that way, if at all possible. But we did try to work with Mr. Dillon on numerous occasions.

We're happy to go. We'll meet between now and council. We're happy to do that. I've worked with Kendall since I went into private practice in 2009. And I've never heard anyone refer to what Kendall said as we're not chatting. That's just not Kendall's way. He spends, unfortunately, four nights a week meeting with neighbors or in various cities. So he's very... And you all have seen it over the years. Kendall's not one to just tell people to go fly a kite because we're not changing anything. So I wasn't involved with the specific interaction, but I can commit to you here, I will go meet with these people whenever they like, subject to schedules, being able to be worked out before council.

I'd like to say something else. There are emails between me and Mr. Dillon. Some of them I have submitted to y'all that noted what was said in our conversations and everything. I did that so y'all would know that we were trying. And I can resend that if y'all would like.

And thanks. And I do want you to know, I mean, obviously today there was a lot of concessions made. And And while it's still not maybe matching exactly the existing R1 that's surrounding this, where there's a substantial amount of R1 surrounding this, it's in line with what we have been approving all over the city in all of the suburbs. for that reason. I mean, that's why I asked for what I asked for and I feel pretty good about that. And as far as drainage, I promise you will be satisfied with the drainage and you can continue to work and we will get you the contact with the staff if you want so you can work back and forth. But the drainage ordinance is very clear and very, very direct. They will have to follow that. 100%.

I spoke with Stormwater Quality already. I worked with them for years.

Yeah, and stormwater quality and actually Public Works, two different things. Public Works is going to detail how much water can leave that site. And at what rate? Yep.

And I would like for Barry to make sure that Ms. Bray has your contact information so that as that is being reviewed, she can at least get some questions answered.

And you live on South 104th, correct?

I live on the east side of this property. I have the, me and my family on the 40 acres north of there.

I mean east of there, I'm sorry. East, yeah, okay. Which, yeah, that's where most of the drainage is going according to the topographic map for sure. So there's definitely going to be a retention pond there.

So my staff will reach out to you, if not today, first part of next week, and we'll get a time to meet.

So, and just, you know, clarification, this is a recommendation. This is a recommendation. Whatever the decision is, it's a recommendation to city council. It's not a final decision. So you hopefully will have a neighborhood meeting between now and when council hears it. And if you're not happy with what you hear at the neighborhood meeting, I encourage you to voice your concerns when it goes to city council.

Okay.

Do we need to go through T's again?

Are you going to be in the loop on the neighborhood meeting? Yes, I will.

Okay. Very good. For sure. Make sure I am, David. Yeah. I did read them. Right. I'm just asking staff, do we need to revisit? I know we're going to strike two and add a 6,000-foot minimum for the multifamily. Well, two. Or two.

Okay, so we agree to one, strike two, agree to three. Four is as stated by staff, which we agree to. Five, single family minimum square footage shall be 4,400 square feet for the lot size. Six would be the facade modifications, deleting EFIS, moving cement board to the 40. And seven would be 6,000 square foot per lot for the R2. Okay.

Deletion of even I know yeah, okay All right.

So with those TVs recommend approval to City Council of PUD 2131 a Motion from Commissioner privet to recommend the items of City Council subject to the technical evaluations read in And second by Commissioner Newman, please cast your votes Thank you that's recommended for approval

Item 13. Item 13 is PUD 2141, application to rezone 13701 North Mustang Road from AA.

Good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, this is a PUD that would allow for single-family and two-family development on Mustang north of Memorial Road. We did have a community meeting. However, there was only one member of the community that appeared. So it was me. Miss Turner, Mr. Dillon, and my daughter showed up, and only one individual appeared. And he is the individual that lives in the neighborhood to the south and has that house that's kind of angled looking out over the field. So modified single family with the duplex, a unique feature here. If you go to the area, old Jared, if you don't mind. This is along Memorial Road. Memorial Road exists in name and spirit only. There is no road, it is just unimproved, not even gravel, it's just dirt. The right of way kind of dies for its ability to traverse that kind of significant creek there. So we don't show a street sub. There is one TE that asks us to provide a stub. Would prefer not to we're happy to maybe leave some sort of you know space for right-of-way in the future But we don't want to plot it as a street stuff. We can just maybe delete a lot right there the city ever come through with a bond project in which they Do that then we're happy to connect worth noting that neighbor to the south is obviously plotted developed out None of them connect to that because it obviously doesn't exist But we're happy to provide the necessary right-of-way from our development to any future Memorial Road expansion Happy to answer any questions.

This is Ward 1, so I can lead this. I don't have anyone signed up to speak, but again, here we are on the outskirts with 4,400 square foot lots. How many do we have of those in Tract 1?

We don't know exactly. I mean, until the plat, you know, comes through, we won't know, I think, exactly because things change, obviously, as we get closer to platting and streets and all that. But, yeah, so 4,400 square feet is, of course, what we just agreed to on the previous application. And it's already at 6,000 for duplex. Mm-hmm.

And while I did increase those lot sizes on the last one, what I would like to suggest, and I think what we did, caddy corner to this, was I got a mixture of 50s and 40s. What that mixture is is maybe what we can talk about today. Caddy corner? Yeah, to the northeast. Right there in the corner, there was the R2. And then we got 50s, maybe all 50s. I can't remember it exactly, but I know we got increased slot sizes. So what I'd like to hear from you guys is what you think is a good mixture in there. And in stating that too, I would really like to see that done not segregated, but within the development.

Yeah, I mean we did something similar to that in ward one out on the turnpike. I don't know.

It was a percentage basis though. Yeah. It's harder to, I mean it's harder to mix them. Oh, I know it's harder to mix them. But I think it makes for a better community.

I've texted my client. I know Kendall and I have talked about this before, and he has told me that it is harder to mix them. What kind of percentage do you want of 50s? What I want and what you want are going to be way apart. I know.

That's why I want to hear what you want, and then I can tell you why that doesn't work, and then we'll come to some agreement.

Well, I'll tell you, the subdivision to the south, the smallest lot is 7,200 and some odd square feet. What if we did? And I'm just saying that just for reference. I just want to see a variety of housing type, lot size within the same community.

What if we did 25% 50s?

And they could even be all on the outer or whatever, but I still want it not just completely segregated.

So 25% of the lots that are single family shall be 50s?

My number was going to be 50%.

So like 37.5%? We should have gone with 75% and let him work backwards.

We can't do that.

I mean, and I know that the site plan is really a pretty picture at the current time, but there is a large creek that goes through there. There's ability to maybe, you know.

What if we do 40% of the single family lots will be 50 fighters?

I'll take that. And did you mention that you wanted them mixed, like you want to say every block needs to have some or something like that or?

I mean, I just, yeah, I mean, I just, we can't start dictating. Well, look at the plat. I mean, when we plat it, we'll plat it, but. at the zoning phase trying to give them some leeway i've talked to them about this to the extent possible yeah yeah okay so you want the mixed wording in there and then when the plaque comes around we have 40 of the single family lots will be 50 foot lots and they will be mixed mixed yeah and so at 50 foot are we going to just say 5 000. let's just let's keep the 4 400 per feet let's just we can mix lot sizes front edges and let's at the plotting stage we'll figure it out

A minimum 4,400 squares on the 40s.

So back to my discussion about school districts. This is the Yvonne School District. So, you know, that density is really going to impact them.

Right. Brand new elementary street down the street.

It's super lousy infrastructure out there.

Yeah. Motivation for 2035 to get that road built.

And not a ton of money to go build new schools. So I, you know, I just.

And this is just one of the developments that are coming in this area. There's going to be some really big ones. And I will say the Ward 1 council person is actively communicating with the superintendent. Yeah. And I talked to him, too, about this. So we're in line with that.

Can we talk screening regulations? Screening? Yes, screening. I do like that it says that there will be a six-foot tall cedar-capped fence with columns on, masonry columns on 80-foot centers. I like that that's upgraded on Mustang Road. So I have two questions. I thought on a PUD of this size that we were trying to always put language in there that it was to be maintained by the HOA. So that, especially on lots that small.

And I want to change the spacing to the lot line. Because you're going to have pillars in the middle of people's yards. Because there's 6,000 square footers on the R2, and then they'll be in that little other section. That's where I was going next. And really, that cedar cap fence on the Mustang side.

That's, yeah. And I understand why you're not doing the same on Memorial Road. And I would assume that the city would already have the easements requested for future improvement on Memorial Road. They're there. And if that did ever get improved, it would look really terrible to not match that on that side also. Thoughts?

Well, I think it is. When that one gets built, that fence won't exist.

You want to build Memorial Road? No. No? We don't want to do the city's job.

Okay.

But we welcome the city to...

I don't know whether it's feasible to condition the screening on the development of Memorial Road, though, within the PUD. Feasible, I'm not as concerned about feasible, but whether it's legally possible to do that, I would like a line call on that, I guess.

Well, it's 138 plus acres of below R1 base size lots uh... to a considerable sized pud and we have two main thoroughfares even though one of them is not approved yet And I understand by the time it gets improved, those fences may not, original fences may not exist anymore. But as long as it's under the HOA keeping them upgraded, something will be there because the houses will be.

He's fine with it. He'll give it to us.

I'm fine with the HOA maintaining arterial fencing. Yep.

And then as far as the location of the cedar fence along Mustang Road and down along Memorial Road?

I mean, the right-of-way is going to determine where it's at.

So HOA maintained arterial fencing. We've got the heightened language on Mustang Road. I would be very against putting that on Memorial Trail. Memorial Trail.

He'll give it to us. We won't ask for the north and the west, but we want the east and the south. On what? The cedar fence.

I don't want brick columns on the south. That's become the standard for arterial roads. Morial is not an arterial road. Yeah, it is. It's just not built yet.

It's not built?

It would make no sense to do brick columns along Memorial. I understand the rationale along the thoroughfare where the public is traveling. We want it to look nice.

We were trying to do the same thing on Portland in Ward 5 when we denied that because of the flood issues, but Portland is a gravel road. But if we released a big PUD there, we would have wanted it upgraded screening requirements.

Can we make it conditional if Memorial is ever improved that it needs to be?

That's my question. But by then, you can't come back.

You can't then as a city come back. My engineer is, I mean, it seems impossible that Memorial ever gets extended here.

It'd have to have a bridge for sure, right?

It'd have to have a massive bridge. It's a blue line. It's a 404.

Oh, it's going to get built. I think it's possible. It's going to be surrounded by R1 houses on both sides of the road all the way through, so it's going to get built. It's just going to get built in about 2040.

Or by a developer to get a putt approval.

If it's going to be developed by 2040, then I think you need to put brick columns along your fence. He will.

Like you said, I don't know, there's probably 250 singles and 50 duplexes. I mean, there's a lot in this.

While we're waiting on that, I didn't catch, was there a minimum lot size on those 50-foot wide lots? Well, that's, I mean, we left that alone on the plot. We're not going to say anything in the zoning about those? Minimum width. The minimum width is 50, but was there a lot size?

So the lot size, I mean, it's kind of important to me to be 5,000. So, I mean, that's 100 by 50. 50 by 100, yeah.

Where are the others?

Why don't we just keep it at 4,400 square feet, and when they lay it out in the plat, perhaps they become bigger. But the percentage of the 50s and the minimum lot size is 4,400. I don't understand what Ken was saying on the columns. What is the spacing? What is the distance? So at 80 feet, it's a brick column every other lot line.

If they were 40s, but they're going to be mostly along Mustang Road, they're going to be 6,000 square feet loft because they're duplexes. That's why I just, I mean, I don't care.

Hey, you do.

Yeah, I think it makes sense for them to be in the lot lines. What if we do every other lot line that way? then they're way too far apart on the duplexes. See how that works. So we said 80 in the... Right.

I mean, it's a good mix to me to just put it on the lot line. But if the lot line, you lose consistency if you have the mix. You do.

Yeah, I mean, if you've got a 50-foot lot and then a 40-foot lot and then... Wouldn't we rather have it 80 so that it's symmetrical across?

The 6,000-foot lots are going to be how wide?

Well, if they're 100 feet deep, they'll be 60.

Right, but what's the depth? They're all back into Mustang Road.

Well, I mean, you're only changing the spacing really one place. Right. That's why it's not that much. It's less than a third of it.

I mean, what we could do is they could be placed on... Could we set a minimum and a maximum and then... At Platte.

When you're driving by at 65 miles an hour on that little two-lane road, you're not going to tell the difference between a 10-foot spacing.

What do you want to see from a spacing standpoint? Lot line. Even if they're

Mixed.

Mixed, and therefore you have... Those are all going to be 60s, right, mostly?

Yeah, I mean... Mix the other one. Two-thirds of it's all R2, all going to be the same. Down the other, down the other. Okay, we can do brick columns on long lines. Yeah. And if Kendall has a problem, I mean, we've got time, he's going to make changes, go to council, and if it doesn't make sense to him, he can fix it.

Okay. So we have the TE1 that we would prefer to have state that the right-of-way necessary for a street stub to memorial shall be provided. Oh, you think I'm done? Huh? I'm not done.

Okay. Well, I was going to read what we had. Keep going, I guess. Just one more. I mean, I want to do the same thing on the architectural as we did on the other one, if that would be okay. And it's the same 60-40.

Well, how can we move to 60-40?

Well, I'm just going to say it again. For me, I mean, I'd rather it be 70-30, but I think for the current construction market and affordability that we can do a little bit better and have kind of the same look. So that's why I allow the 60-40.

I mean, you know, if we do that, it's going to become like the new normal. It's going to be every time they're here, it's going to be 60-40 instead of 70-30. I don't like that.

They were asking for 30.

We either care about affordability or we don't. What I hear on Tuesdays is we do.

There are no alternative, you know, materials that would fit within the 70-30 that are affordable?

No. I watch Tuesdays.

Okay, I know nothing about construction. I'll just say that right out loud. I don't know what things cost nowadays. If you say 60-40 is where we are, then maybe we need to change. I don't want to have this conversation every time somebody comes up and wants to do 60-40 instead of 70-30.

I don't think the 10% difference in brick is going to make the house affordable, personally. Not much. I mean, our house is like 90-10.

I mean, I totally agree. I mean, it's not.

It's just a... When you do it across an entire quarter section, it's a significant difference in cost. If you look at a house by house, sure, but across a whole development, that's a significant deal.

People are buying houses one at a time. They're not buying the whole. What's that? They're buying individual houses, not the entire community.

Right, but the developer. It's price.

The developer sets the price off the whole.

Yeah, the developer can save money across an entire development, and that's going to reduce down The cost of the house.

Well, and for me too, I mean, when you look at how they do them, so brick's going to face the front and almost, you know, most of it, so the whole back's going to be hardy board.

My whole house is brick. No, I don't mind that so much, but what I'm saying is a lot of your cost in brick is labor and mobilization. If you put an extra 10% of brick up, the brick is cost very little.

Except for my soffits.

We need to have a study session about this.

Okay.

As we're talking about things that we can do that would actually encourage affordability, whether these individual things do or don't make sense is something that I feel like I need some input on from those of you who know a lot more about it than I do.

Well, I don't want to debate it about a study session on that, but I will tell you that the affordability where it comes into play is that brick sustains Oklahoma weather way better than other lesser finishes, saving the homeowners that may or may not have enough money to repair something themselves.

Yeah, towards maintenance, but not in the initial buy. Right. But again, just like Bobby said, 10% is really very, very little.

I like the 70-30. I think we ought to start sticking with it. 80-20.

We're not, I mean. No, I know, and you could always come back and go, but it's a cottage community, and we have this look.

If we do 70-30, then I'd ask to keep the cement fiberboard in the 70, then.

That's like a mobile home.

I feel like we've taken, we had a good compromise.

What is the compromise?

I mean, I got lot sizes. That's where the compromise to me was.

So keep the 60-40, move the cement fiber to the 40, strike EFIS?

Yeah, dump EFIS, yeah.

I'm fine with that.

Okay, are we there?

I think we're ready for a vote.

Let me tell you where I think we are. The TE1 is modified to say the necessary right-of-way for a stub shall be provided. two would be minimum of 40% of the single family lots shall be 50 foot in width. The brick columns on lot lines, each lot line, for the facade, it's moving the cement fiber board to the 40% and striking EFIS from the allowable materials.

Is that it? I think so. I know we beat this thing up, but I've got a quick question. If you allow the easement for future stub to memorial, how likely is it that

ten years from now memorials and prove that the developer on his own accord they will not the city will decision is going to go bill on memorial it'll be a little you know it'll be there and there is no and they'll touch to get and that would be and the developers never come back i don't think so well but what does it because this is city streets in they'll connected there being a firm built in yet again proportionate to the cost of building that road It would be nothing to build that little stretch of street to connect to whatever the main road is. That's a $10 million road. So which TE is the columns? Yeah, the bridge will probably be more than the road. What's that?

Which TE is the columns, number three?

Yes. And did we confirm where the column?

I mean, what lines?

Well, I know, but on only Mustang or on Mustang and Memorial?

My preference is Mustang.

Well, I mean, we're requiring the right-of-way on Memorial. Well, I think Memorial will be constructed, so I would like to see them on Memorial. We're requiring the right-of-way there.

Yeah, we're planning for them to build the road by putting the street stub in or allowing for the street stub.

We will will them to build Memorial out then.

I don't think anyone in this room right now will be alive when Memorial gets built.

If it does, I want to be there.

At the rate we're approving PUDs, it could be very soon.

Okay, I'll see all the groundbreaking. I can't wait. We'll agree to Memorial, too.

Okay. That sounds like almost a motion to me. Who's doing it? Yeah, you have to do it, that's right.

All right, are you ready for a motion?

I will then make a motion to recommend approval to the City Council PUD 2141 with T1 as written and T234 as read into the record.

All right, a motion from Commissioner Noble to recommend an item for approval of the City Council subject to the technical evaluations. Number one was adjusted, it was modified.

Oh, yeah, as modified to add

memorial road streets of to be an easement and not so we're not going to provide a stub we're going to leave the necessary right of way for a stub so what does that mean that'll be common area until the time okay would that i'm just thinking out loud here could somebody come in and purchase that area if there's no easement we can make a common area

They'd have to release the easement.

I think you have to have an easement.

Yeah, and we can provide the easement. Okay. We don't want to put a street there.

We're not saying construct the field, but yeah, you need to provide an easement.

We can get whatever the city would need to go build that street. Okay.

They'd have to release the easement first.

I would say number one, TE1 would be basically street stub easement to West Memorial Road shall be provided within the southwest corner of the PUD. Yep. All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Noble subject to the amended TE1 and the other TEs as read in. Seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. We waiting? Thank you. All right, and that's recommended for approval. Item 14.

Item 14 is case PUD 2144, application to rezone 549 Southwest 149th Street from AA to PUD 2144.

Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, this is an expansion of the Orr family farm. Dr. Orr has acquired more of the property, so he's going to continue on what is a wonderful development in South Oklahoma City. This will be, for some offices, a tulip farm and an expansion of some of that really unique residential that he has on site. So there are four TEs, which we agreed to. There's been a request that we add another TE, so TE5, that healthy mature trees within the east 20 feet of the eastern boundary shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible.

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

Okay. I reviewed this and talked with them about it. I didn't really have any issues. It's just an expansion of what's already been developed. So unless someone has a question or an issue with it, I want to make a motion to recommend approval of PUD 2144 to City Council.

Subject to the technical evaluations and the new technical evaluation regarding trees. Correct. It was read in. All right. Any comments, questions from commissioners? We have a motion from Commissioner Newman. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

I was going to say, anybody in Oklahoma City that hasn't been out to the Orr family farm needs to go.

It was both of my children's first jobs, so it's a great place for a kid to learn how to work.

I did some of the Halloween festivities out there several years ago, and it was a blast.

Thank you.

All right, brings us to our last item on the agenda, item 15.

This is PUD 2145, application to rezone 10524 Southwest 29th Street from PUD 1735.

One last time, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. This is a PUD on a tract of land. Jared, would you go to the aerial, please? Years ago, Kendall and I, well, it's not brought up, but Kendall and I came and zoned basically this 320 acres for our clients. And we had a kind of master plan community that was going to be all connected. The Turnpike Authority had other ideas and put their turnpike squarely down the center of my client's 320 acre. So it's forced us to kind of reimagine what this could be. And so this PUD is really Keeping all the things that are allowed now and kind of reorienting where they go. So tract one would be Commercial tract and track to the way we haven't proposed is it's either our four or commercial Both of which we believe to be appropriate for the area But if it develops as our four up against that that turnpike, so there is one te that we do not agree to The te says amend sign regulations to state sign regulations shall be per the base zoning district. We do agree with that What we don't agree with is that it says, except that maximum height of any freestanding signs on Sarah Road shall be eight feet tall if residential zoning exists across the street. Off-premise signs slash billboards are not permitted within the PUD. My understanding of the significant undertaking for the sign code was so that you didn't have to hear me every other Thursday negotiating on a case-by-case basis what sign height should be. Presumably, with three years of work by staff, high-priced consultants in the community, we figured out a sign code that works based upon street typology. And so now we simply say, whatever the sign code says, because of course we spent three years doing it, so we have to assume it was done correctly. So we will adhere to the code that we spent countless dollars, countless hours, and all agree that we've now fixed the sign code. So we agree to the sign code. If we're going to get back into a position where we're arguing on a case-by-case basis, sign heights and those things, perhaps we should go back to the old way where we do that. But I don't think it's a reasonable request to regulate the signs based upon street typology and then, once again, come back on a case-by-case basis and say, well, you've got to go smaller. So we agree to the sign code.

You're not going with straight zoning. What's that? You're not going with straight zoning. You have a PUD. Therefore, things like signage are negotiable. So regardless, just like everything else in any application is governed by some kind of code, but you're asking for something different from what would be allowed. So that's why it's being negotiated. We can agree, I'm pretty sure, that the sign code we have is not working very well. And it's... virtually unreadable and it's impossible to find things that you need to know by looking at it yourself, but be that as it may, and perhaps maybe for that reason, you know, we're going to be talking about signage, so just get used to it.

Well, yeah, we are asking for a PUD, but if you've read the PUD, it actually is curtailed from what would be allowed under straight zoning. We're not adding to what straight zoning would allow. If you want to give us straight C3, we're here to accept it.

Okay.

So what we have is a PUD that would be more restrictive than C3. And so I just don't think it's a reasonable ask when we can't modify the sign heights or square footages the other way. What did we do in the sign code? What was the purpose of the sign code if not to regulate signage based upon street typology? In my mind, if we regulate signage based on street typology, they looked at what the street typology was and arrived at a height and square footage that was appropriate given what development is around that street typology. If we're really now in a position of saying the sign code is just a complete disaster, well then let's go redo it. But this is absurd that we're going to go argue sign code every other Thursday. Why did we do the sign code?

I have a simple sign code question. And the question is, I know it addresses street typology, but does it address where it fronts residential or not?

Right. It's the surrounding development that is at the issue.

Because I believe that's why staff put this note in there. I would defer to staff.

I can't read the sign code. I don't know if it addresses.

I don't want to residential And then we discuss it in the pre-meeting by the way and just to so you can't What modify sign code within a PUD But you can Down zone it.

I don't know the exact language other than yeah, you can't make it less restrictive right, right do a PD I

Therefore, you can make it more restrictive.

Yeah. And really, on this is where it is adjacent to that R1 across the street on Sarah Road is so that those people do not have to see a sign above the top of their fence when they look across the four-lane road. And I don't have a problem with it, actually, because it would be consistent all the way down except for at the corner.

I mean, put C3 zoning on the corner.

I guess my question for staff is what would be allowed under the sign code on Sarah?

Good question.

Monument sign? For a freestanding sign?

Yeah. Yes. Given the street typology, given C3-based zoning, what would be allowed? C3?

So there's a table here that describes the... A lot of nods. the street types versus what type of street it's on. So this is on Sarah Road, so a major arterial.

Give them a minute. You have to be a mathematician to figure it out. So it looks like fronting an arterial would be like for a C3.

We show Sarah as a minor arterial. The city's website shows Sarah as a minor arterial. As a minor arterial.

So it looks like 20 feet.

It might be considered that. But be in agreement with what I just said. If you were in the R1 on the west side of Sarah Road and looking out your back patio and you had a lit 20-foot sign as opposed to a monument sign that you didn't see. I mean, I think just because of the location, I think it would look fine. And it would be signed in a way that everyone would know. I think Brahms has... And so the corner could still have. How do you define that? Because it's not adjacent to R1.

Yes. So only where adjacent to R1?

I think it says across the street from R1. Yeah.

Yeah, so they could have a ice cream sized sign up on the corner. Ice cream cone size.

See what the school has. The school has a monument sign.

We haven't talked about anything else, only the sign so far, right? That's what I thought.

This is why we had the sign code, because the sign is just consuming all of our days.

For straight zoning. The sign code was carved out of the code update, which is still in progress. So we have a sign code that talks about things in a way that the rest of the code has not really been, you know, brought up to speed on. So maybe it'll work someday when we sign, when the... whole code update it's finished and maybe it won't but that's how we got where we are and it's a mess and everybody knows it so we should fix it could we do 10 feet monument signs only which i think is still less than what exists at the bottom i mean i wouldn't mind that the sign was 10 feet as long as the lettering and was at a no emds and no emds No EMDs, no billboards, no, yeah, all that. Or off-premises signs is what we call them now, I guess. Yeah. It's all about the impact on that residential area. Ten feet, I don't care about that.

Well, off-premise not being permitted within the PUD across from residential, I understand. I don't know that it would be wholly inappropriate to be on the turnpike. If C3 allows it, within the size limitations that exist in C3 adjacent to the turnpike, I don't know that that's an incompatible.

Is it permitted?

We'd have to consult the sign code.

Okay, I'm not worried about what's going on in the turnpike right now. I'm worried about these people who live out there, and I don't want them having to look at EMD signage.

So that's all on track one. The question then would be on track two, if it went C3. Say that again. I said you're just, that question you're asking is just on track two if it went C3. Yeah. Or track one, right? Where track one and two meet up, you know.

Yeah, as long as it's across from R1. Well, and then how you define across from. Yeah, it has to be small.

For me, I just have to define it as southwest, south of. South, whatever.

The first 100 feet of Sarah Road or something. Well, let's come back to science. Perhaps, Mr. Meek, you had other topics that you wanted to discuss within this.

Well, I'm fine with finishing out our discussion on that. So could we ask for 10 feet?

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

So now we'll say signs shall be per base zoning district except that a maximum height of any freestanding sign on Sarah Road shall be 10 feet tall if residential zone exists across the street.

I think it needs to read a 10 foot monument sign.

I agree.

Yeah, only pole signs.

Not some short pole sign. That's fine, that's fine. I think that was the intent anyway. And then I would ask to strike that last sentence. I don't think an off-premise sign is an inappropriate use given the size limitations that undoubtedly exist in C3 if adjacent to the turnpike.

Yeah, I'm fine with that too. I really am. I mean, just because the rest of the sign code would pretty much dictate what you could do.

I just want to make sure that that is allowed in C3.

Well, if it isn't, you can't do it. It is. It's just 200 square feet. We're not seeking to allow anything that the sign code does not allow. I know we can't do that.

If we're not careful, we'll have a moratorium of signage alone. I have 344.

We had three years of signed moratorium.

I don't understand. Okay, let's stop talking about the sign code.

If I might, so there's a sign calculator right here, and it's very easy to use. You select your sign type. I want a ground sign. You select your district, C3. You select your frontage. I don't know what your frontage is. Let's say it's 300 feet. calculate, and it gives you a report with everything you need. So in this case, it's 20 feet. So that's really easy to use. So I just wanted to throw that out there.

That's amazing. It's the first I've heard of it, actually. That's great.

We've talked about it for years. So it's been there for a long time.

It's just that when you do then do the calculation, you come to the Board of Adjustment for a variance.

So can you answer the question, While we're sitting here, whether they're permitted to have what I continue to call billboards on the highway side.

What's the largest sign they could have along the highway on the backside of the property if it was C3?

For C3 on a highway. Put it in the calculator. Put it in the calculator. So if you're on a highway. I know that on an arterial you just have the usual, you can have a small one if it's vacant.

I was just wondering against the highway if that was to go C3.

On a highway, I don't think we changed that. Billboard size? If you're on a billboard. Now let's see if it doesn't, so. And you're saying it would be under the C3?

C3.

We'll see if it has a billboard on here. So it's got pole signs.

Fronting highway. Fronting highway.

We'll have to add billboard, it looks like, in my handy calculator. Okay. But I wanted to look it up. You still have to have the same, I think, zoning districts that you had before. So you have to have industrials. The spacing is roughly the same. It's like 1,200 square feet. The size is the same, just the standard size for a billboard. I can't remember what the size was.