Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

uh... if you haven't been with us before here's what you can expect today will begin with some simple administrative tasks including minutes and continuances and we move to cases on the consent docket that are straightforward can be approved as a group after that we hear cases individually so we'll call them discuss and determine if a recommendation or decision can be made or if more time in a continuance is necessary There are certain cases where this body makes the final decision, but on most items, there are applications where we provide a recommendation to city council and are not the final approval. For those, no matter what the decision are, you'll have the ability to be heard again at city council when those items are on the agenda in approximately six to eight weeks. There are certain items such as homeowner association covenants and agreements between private parties that are outside the purview of this commission and are not factors in our consideration. And for the sake of time, we ask that you refrain from using those as justification in your cases. 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 below. When that item is called, we'll call for you to come to the podium. Please give your name and address for the record, and you'll have up to five minutes to speak. If you're here to speak on an item with a large group of people, we encourage you to elect a representative to share your group concerns. In those instances, some additional time will be granted. uh... were several speakers are heard on the same item please do your best to limit comments to those concerns that we haven't heard yet uh... we just want to limit extensive repetitious comments uh... please direct all your comments or questions to uh... the commission and then if necessary will ask staff or the applicant to respond to those Lastly, we appreciate everyone's presence here today and the time that you took away from your other obligations We asked for your cooperate cooperation upholding the decorum of the meeting and that you don't speak from the audience So thank you for your attendance your attention and your assistance With that we'll take the next item which is receipt of the minutes from the August 20 August 27th meeting Mr.

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

A motion from Commissioner Noble to receive the minutes. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. Do we need a voice vote?

I'm a yay. If there are other...

Bear with us while our technology catches up. Commissioner Peaver is a yay. All right, and those are, the minutes are approved. Next, we have continuance requests, and we'll start with uncontested requests.

Item 17, case C7761, request to defer to September 24th. Item 18, case SPUD 1849, defer to September 24th. Item 20, case S, or case PUD 2150, defer to September 24th. Item 21, PUD 2158, deferred to September 24th.

I'll confirm there's no one here to be heard on any of those items. All right, seeing none, I'm ready for a motion.

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

I have a motion from Commissioner Noble to approve the uncontested request, seconded by Commissioner Peaver. Please cast your votes. Those items are approved.

Next, we have new requests. Item 19, case SPUD 1866, request to defer to October 8th. Yes.

Caitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street. We would also seek to continue item number 5, case number SPUD 1862, for two weeks.

To the 924 meeting? Yes. Okay.

We have let neighbors know, and we're going to be working on a community meeting.

Okay. Thank you. All right, so that is all the new requests. I'll just check there's no one here to be heard on those items. All right, we're ready for a motion.

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

Motion to approve the new requests from Commissioner Noble. Second by Commissioner Peaver, please cast your votes. and those new requests are approved. We have no consent docket, so we'll move to items to be heard individually and start with item one.

Item one is resolution of the Planning Commission approval of the South Oklahoma City Project Plan, which the Planning Commission finds is in conformance with the Comprehensive Master Plan.

Good afternoon, Joanna McSpadden with the City's Finance Department. And I have before you consideration for a brand new TIF project plan. As a reminder, this is the early stages of the formal approval process. The first steps are recommendation from the TIF review committee and now recommendation from the planning commission. Our resolution seeks findings from the Planning Commission that our plan conforms with the comp plan and a recommendation for approval from City Council So this first slide is a real summary of the kind of high points of the project plan the plan objectives are to increase the tax base and and support job creation and redevelopment activities kind of in general. Eligibility, the project area and increment districts are eligible because they're in an enterprise zone, which is a requirement in the Local Development Act. So we meet that eligibility requirement. And the total budget is $173 million. The next slide is a color map of the project plan area and increment districts. You'll see that we have five increment districts. I'll start with C, which is the largest one. This is the site of our OKC 577 industrial development that we've been working on for some time. We've kind of always known that we might need this tool in order to support development in that area, so we've included that one. We've obviously got Crossroads Mall included here and that northern strip above Crossroads Mall. We don't have any projects that we know of yet, but we thought if we were drawing a TIF in this area, that would be a you know, a logical site to include in order to have that tool available to us. And then sites A and B, we do have some projects that will be coming forward soon. They are multifamily and retail and other mixed-use developments. The next slide. The corresponding land use map of the same Area project area and TIF districts for your consideration. We believe that the activities that the TIF would support would support these land use Requirements and I'd be happy to answer questions As a reminder the TIF review committee approved a recommended approval at a meeting on September 2nd and

Okay. Commissioner Privet, I believe this is Ward 4, if you want to lead our discussion.

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

I guess one of the things that I would like to mention is that typically we see an introduction to these, and for whatever reason, that didn't occur this time. So this is up for vote today. If we think that there's enough information provided or if you guys have questions, we can certainly consider that. But if we feel like we need more time to review and go over some finer details,

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

Also, I for one would like more time to look at it. I also want to make it really clear that while we may be making a determination here that this is in conformance with the comp plan, there's not a lot of information about how and why that is true. And I want to make it really clear that this is not, you know, like an amendment to the comp plan or something that we're going to use as a basis to approve specific zoning cases moving forward. It may be a great thing for the TIF aspect of it, and I'm don't have any reason to think we won't get there on that necessarily, but it's a lot to absorb, and I think I would like to hear more about it, including, if anything, about whatever public outreach there was to take this step, so.

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

Yeah, so we do have some projects that are going to be coming forward for consideration. They're contingent upon approval of the project plan, so we can accommodate a new timeline with regard to that. I will say that there's been substantial work done, and I'm not aware of introductions that have been given, but I would be more than happy to, in the future, provide briefings or do a more thorough introduction for the Planning Commission prior to these coming forward for you. We've been working on this for about a year trying to pull the maps together trying to see what makes sense in the area This was something that has been requested of Todd stone specifically, you know, he's talked about for a while Why don't we have a stiff on the south side? And so we were excited to bring something forward for him to consider. He's our chair of our tip review committee for this this project plan I'd be happy to hear if you do have questions today. I'd love to answer those, or if we need to schedule some sort of briefing to cover some of your concerns, I'd be happy to do that. We'll say zoning-wise, our plan specifically says any Projects that come forward that need zoning requirements or changes. They will have to go through the normal process Our plan doesn't preempt any of that. It doesn't necessarily direct you to make those changes It truly says that those projects need to go through that process as any other project would Yes

not in a position to direct us, and that process will have to move forward no matter what. Even just the title of this thing, the fact that it is a project plan, I think needs to be emphasized. It's a project plan, not a part of Plan OKC.

No, it is not. You're correct. And my point about the zoning was simply to say that it's in writing in the plan. So I don't want any folks coming in to propose projects getting the idea that the project plan somehow preempts your work.

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

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

Can you go back to the project area or the project map, the one before?

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

Yes, those are the ones where the tax generated would be funding the TIFs. So the smaller areas, that's where, as projects are completed, we would activate those TIFs to capture that increment. The project area, the larger area, is the area where those funds can be spent. And it's typical that that project area would be larger.

So the overall area, those funds, the additional funds can be spent within.

Within. And we're not capturing that increment.

You're getting them, capturing just from the five.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah. So we've targeted those sites where we're capturing the increment. And you can see on the 577 development I'll point out, you can see the pieces that are cut out. Those are areas where development has already occurred. So we're intentionally leaving those out of the project plan.

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

We've had a few people come through the office over the last few years, but nothing really with legs yet.

I'd love something to be done there. Yes. That's a big ask.

Okay.

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

I do really appreciate the offer that going forward, you know, to have just a 30-minute briefing via Zoom or whatever. We can set up a couple of times so that you can meet with a couple of different groups. But we do that on a regular basis with some other projects. So I'd like to see that happen. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. So do we feel two weeks is sufficient to... I think so.

I can certainly make myself available within that time.

Yeah, I can as well. Okay. Are you okay with that? Okay.

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

all right we have a motion from commissioner privet to continue this item to the september 24th meeting There we go. It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes when available. Okay, that item is continued.

Item two. Item two is case DA18PH, application for consideration of a lot split deed approval on property located at 10229 North Hassett Road.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Pierre Coram. I'm the applicant of this application at 229 North Hassett Road. It's a deed approval lot split, splitting the 5.01 acre into three lots. One two-acre lot on the western side served by Joshua Drive, and then two one-and-a-half-acre lots on the eastern side served by North Hassett Road. In terms of zoning the proposed lot would remain our one single-family Residential with no zoning or land change use in terms of access as we said They will maintain access through North Passage Road and Joshua's Drive. Both of those are private streets and then the since there will be no city water distribution system extension into those Lots the The recommendation from the staff is to work with the fire marshals to include water tanks and distribution systems as well as individual fire suppression systems, sprinklers on those residential homes in the future in the planning and the permitting process. With them being large lots, speaking with the DEQ, the lots can be served through water wells and septic systems. There were no issues on those front having a septic system in that area there. And then, obviously, there's no issues as well from this technical staff regarding drainage or erosion on those lots. So the question before commission today is whether to move forward and approve this lot split for those three lots.

Okay, and you are in agreement with the technical evaluation? You're in agreement with the TE provided? Yes. Okay, all right. Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

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

A motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item for approval. It's been seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. That item is approved.

Item three. This is case PC11016, application to rezone 3850 South Prospect Avenue from C3 to I1.

Good afternoon. Caitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant who is here with me. So this is a unique situation. We have a very small strip that you see outlined on the map there. It is affiliated and a part of that northern parcel that's already zoned I-1. So this is really a cleanup to bring that strip into conformity with the rest of the site. It's developed for an on-queue. These will be used for truck parking spaces. To the south, we have a parking area that's butting up against us, as well as I-2 outdoor storage. We've got industrial in the area. Again, really just cleaning up the zoning that we already have for our development. So I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Staff does recommend approval. We don't have any TEs since it's straight rezoning, and we do not have any protests.

All right. Commissioner Privett, this is Ward 4. I don't have anyone signed up to speak.

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

All right. I have a motion from Commissioner Privett to recommend the item to City Council.

Yeah.

It's been seconded by Commissioner Peaver. Please cast your votes.

Thank you.

Item is recommended for approval.

Item four. Anu Forrest case, SPUD 1834, application to rezone 1425 Southwest 95th Court from AA.

Caitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. So this site may look familiar to you all. We originally had submitted an SPUD to allow for some commercial uses, construction sales and services, and a warehouse. We have since changed paths listening to Concerns from commissioners and we have now submitted what you'll see is an r2 based zoning district with our spud It would allow for single-family or two-family homes obviously more in line with the residential Neighborhood that already exists. We would seek to take access just from that 95th court that you're gonna see there we Do you have a recommendation of approval from staff? We have not received any protest on this one It historically has been a well site and it had a big chain-link fence across there So we believe this is much more compatible with the neighborhood than at least what's been operating there historically We would we don't have any te's we would like to add one however to modify Section 2.1 architecture regulations so that we would limit next to a minimum of 70% Brick veneer rock or stone masonry and then the 30% would be modified to include stucco Cementitious siding included but not including but not limited to the brand commonly known as James Hardy and wood So we would seek to add that to you to clean up those architectural regulations Yes, EFAS is struck, so it would be modified as I just read it in. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, Commissioner Newman, if you want to lead our discussion. I don't have anyone signed up to speak.

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

Subject to the technical evaluation is read in?

Yes, thank you.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Newman to recommend the item to City Council for approval subject to the technical evaluation read in by the applicant modifying 2.1 in the master design statement. Our system just doesn't wanna cooperate today, does it? Do we need to do a voice vote?

All right.

Was the software updated recently? There we go. All right, it's moved by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval.

Thank you.

Item five was continued.

We're on to item six. Item six is SPUD 1863, application to rezone 429 Northwest 46th Street from R1.

Again, Caitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. So this is a property that's located on 46th and Walker. Both structures are existing. So right now we have an existing single family home and then a detached garage to the rear. This application, because of the ADU ordinance when it was passed and the withdrawal of this neighborhood from that ADU ordinance, the ADU ordinance would require a property to be in the urban medium. land use designation under the comp plan. In this instance, it's urban low, which is why we need to do an SPUD in order to allow for the detached garage to be converted to an ADU. So what's there currently is what it will continue to look like. They'll be doing the renovations to the interior to make it habitable. But other than that, it's kind of what you see is what we're going to get. We do have two te's one is regarding sidewalks This area if you go to the aerial Jared if you mind, please You're gonna see that although I we didn't have to go to HP beforehand. This neighbor has been here forever. It's established neighborhood There's not going to be any sidewalks on any of these streets around here So we would seek to strike that and then the second te is regarding the drainage ordinance and essentially prohibiting a Administrative appeal to go to the Board of Adjustment if the decision is made by the city engineer in accordance with chapter 16 We're going to comply with chapter 16 again. Everything is already here There's not going to be any change this te is going to come up again and other applications happy to FLUSH THAT ONE OUT NOW, BUT WE WOULD SEEK TO STRIKE IT, ESPECIALLY FOR THE REASON THAT EVERYTHING IS ALREADY EXISTING AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING ABOUT THE LOT. SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PROTESTS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER POWERS, THIS IS YOUR WARD IF YOU WANT TO LEAD OUR DISCUSSION. I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

SO I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ANYBODY, WHICH IS AN UNUSUAL THING. and indicates to me that this is non-controversial. I think this is exactly the kind of maybe conversions, not the right word, but use for an ADU-type unit that we all had in mind when we were going through that process. So, you know, it's a family member that wants to, you know, live with a family member, and this is being done to accommodate that. And the placement of the structure on the lot is fortuitous, I think. It's kind of where it's furthest that it can be from anything around it, and And I'm supportive if nobody else has any comments or questions. The issue about the appeal of the Board of Adjustment, I just think that's a total non-starter. I would recommend, I mean, we're happy to keep the TE in there, but strike the language, and as such, they cannot be appealed to or varied by the Oklahoma City Board of Adjustment. This is a bigger issue. It needs to be resolved in a bigger way. We don't need to just be adding TEs to things to solve problems that are not individual to a piece of property. So that would be my recommendation on TE2. And striking TE1, there aren't any sidewalks in this neighborhood, and we're not going to start building them one at a time, I don't think. So anybody else?

I wanted to make sure I was clear. You're in agreement with striking TE2 or striking a portion of TE2?

Either way. Right now in our master design statement, we have the development of this parcel will comply with chapter 16 of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code 2020 as amended. So we're in full agreement that we have to comply with that ordinance. So we kind of already have that baked in.

I don't know that the T is required if we're going to strike the language about no appeal. Which I definitely think needs to be done. Either way.

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

I do have a question about this. If the appeal is not to the Board of Adjustment, is there some other entity to which it can be appealed?

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

And that's how it works and has always worked and should continue working.

Yeah, we do have Debbie Miller, city engineer here. She wants to enlighten us with the process.

Yes, there was Debbie Miller. I'm the public works director and city engineer. There was an abortive adjustment case that was based on technicalities of definitions, and so we're currently working on that. Our concern is if you go, like Caitlin right here, there's no issue there because there's not any additional impervious surfaces for detention and everything is there. But there are some developments that if you just look at them and not look at the surrounding area, not requiring certain requirements could cause an impact downstream to other community members. So we look at it at a broader view. And so until we get the ordinance done, we want to make sure that we have that covered. And there is an appeal process. They can always come to me and show me what they've been discussing with my staff. And I will be glad to sit down and talk with them. And we can come to a decision.

So what my understanding, and it took me a few times to read this, is yes, there is an appeal process through the city engineer. This is basically saying if somebody works with the city engineer and doesn't get the answer that they want after two or three times, then they're going to the Board of Adjustment to go around the city engineer. And that's what this is saying can't happen.

Yeah, the ability to appeal things to the Board of Adjustment is a statutory right, and I am not okay with us trying to add that as a TE to deny people that right. If there's a different way that this needs to be dealt with, I'm all for it, all for it.

I don't think this is it. I am too. I believe this needs to be part of the ordinance and they're working on that. This is a temporary measure. Now, what I don't agree with is this is just to the point, this is on a case-by-case basis and you have to look at the property and the application. This is showing up on everything, no matter. That's where I don't care for it. It's just this blanket.

statement on every application no matter what the what the specifics are if I may also it's very difficult when we as applicants across the board developers in the community see these kind of thrown at the in at the last minute without having enough time to really review and understand the ramifications you know the admin the right to appeal an administrative decision is for every chapter, and it always goes to Board of Adjustment. If we were to file an appeal to District Court, they're gonna say, did you exhaust your administrative remedies without this being in the ordinance? And we're saying, well, this PUD says we can't. I mean, that just opens up a huge can of worms when it comes to that appeal process. So not only that, we just think that this is thrown in too quickly. We think that an ordinance is an amendment to an ordinance is absolutely the path forward for numerous reasons And I think there's been plenty of time to do that.

I think that you know, we wouldn't have any issue But that that is the proper Avenue not a TE and a staff report for a zoning case Well, it's my understanding that the Board of Adjustment they oversee the zoning code and chapter 16 is a separate ordinance and all it states all decisions by the city engineer final so I will be honest, I haven't had anybody call me with an issue with a review. So I'll put that out there publicly. Call me if you have any concerns with my staff or their decisions. We'll be glad to talk about it. But there is this process for that. The reason we did that is because we were afraid that it would start going from detention into FEMA flood. I mean, there are a lot of things that this could really get out of hand, and that's what our concern is. I'm just worried about the residents and the impact to them.

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

I will clarify that they weren't appealing an engineering decision. It was an interpretation of Chapter 16 related to the zoning.

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

All right. Anybody else have anything to add on the matter?

So I was obviously on that board and working on that appeal. I agree with everything that everyone said. I believe that the wording stating that they cannot appeal to the Board of Adjustments is strongly worded. It was put together by the legal staff, that wording, so they were in improvement with it. This is a stopgap. To say that they already had time to create an amendment to the ordinance is probably not accurate. Doing an amendment to an ordinance takes a little bit of time. It's not something as simple as a few weeks in a council meeting. I'd rather give it additional teeth. Something behind it that, again, It's a review process. They should have to go through that review process. They should not be appealing to the Board of Adjustment to say, we shouldn't have to go through the engineering to do an appeal process, or a review process, sorry, on an engineering decision. As a member of the Board of Adjustment, I don't want to make engineering decisions, and we shouldn't. And so it kind of is a slippery slope. I want it to be... in agreement with both sides, Public Works and us, as a commission, to protect the citizens of the city against downstream runoff. And it shouldn't really be with us. We always say, chapter 16, take it up with Public Works. They're in control of stormwater. I just don't want it to, again, gain traction. Miss Miller said, and allow people to go to the Board of Adjustment to bypass the system that's been in place and that they've agreed to for the last, I don't know, 25, 30 years. So, how we get there? I'd love to hear it from other members.

And so, I mean, I am not persuaded that the Planning Commission, City Council, and Board of Adjustment between them can't find a solution, along with Public Works, to this issue. I'm not in favor of this language on this particular case. And so I'm going to move approval of the item, striking both TEs. And we'll see where we go.

All right, I have a motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item City Council striking both TEs. It's been seconded by Commissioner Peaver. Please cast your votes. Could have died. I said it could have died.

Thank you.

And that item is recommended for approval.

Item seven. Item seven is SPUD 1851, application to rezone 1644 Northwest 15th Street from R2. Sam Day, item 1620, Northwest 17th Street. I might be on the map.

not quiet.

Um, I'm representing the applicant here, uh, Brady Smith. So, we've revised this since we've last seen you guys to deal with the concern about the Dumpsters we've found a way to incorporate those into our building and so they're going to be set 15 feet away from the nearest property line We have also Revised our unit count down to seven which is now lower than many lower density than a couple of spuds that's been that have been approved in the area so staff has removed that te as well as the one with the dumpster the remaining te's we have or involve adding a three and four unit residential use which we can Totally concede to. Adding clear language, about 15th, the curb cut on 15th, which we support closing and capping. The only reason we wouldn't is if this body was going to demand some off-street parking. We could use that as a parking space, as a driveway. And then the other TE is they still want to retain the 15-foot front setback. We're opposed to that because we feel like it's going to hurt business and the front of the store there, the commercial use. We would perhaps be willing to go down to a 10-foot setback in front. And we have no opposition here. We have five letters of support. We have letters of support from... Jessica Thompson, the president of the Classen-Tenpen Neighborhood Association. We have a strong letter of support from our neighbor next door that talks about missing middle housing and local business and the additional property tax this is going to generate compared to a single family home. And we also have a letter of support from the owner of the parking lot to the north and a letter of support from a business owner in the plaza district.

Is that it? We'll see. All right. Commissioner Milner, this is your ward. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

We don't have anybody signed up to speak? Nope. So I get to speak. I can say a lot. I met with the applicant on this one. We had a good conversation. I have thought about this and thought about this. I'm very familiar with the Plaza District. I've been in and out of the Plaza District 10 to 15 years. I am completely comfortable with this development. I understand where we are with striking all parking. I think the applicant, it's reasonable to work with the lot up north and get parking out of there. I do understand some of the concerns we had last time when we heard this, and I get it. The Plaza District, I believe, is thriving right now because of infill that is popping up around it. And I do want to comment, Commissioner Powers, I know, I understand the concern you had last time of where does it begin, where does it end? But we do have a similar development to this kind of on the west side of the district.

Can we pull up the map that I sent over? I also printed this off too small maybe for you all. I don't know. Do you all have screens up there that you can see? Okay, good. Thank God. Everyone bring their glasses today. But as you see, a lot of the infill here, you know, we have our spuds that have been approved with similar density, and that goes all the way down to Block Welder, right, where we have another commercial district here. at Blackwelder and 12th. So this spud to the south of us has a density of 60, net density of 60 units an acre. We're asking for, or it has a gross density of 46 and we're asking for 34. So very in line with what's already been approved here to the south and what's already going on with the commercial area at 12th and Blackwelder.

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

I know that the dumpster was a big thing on our last discussion. Can you tell me how you envision that working?

Yeah. So we're going to tuck the dumpster into the building. We're basically going to have it overhang on a corner and build an enclosure basically into the building. And we're going to use four yard dumpsters, so kind of the smallest ones they make, that we've been working with Republic Trash Services I've done this before in a different project, but they're going to be able to open up the enclosure, pull the dumpsters down the driveway, and clear them from the street so the trash truck doesn't actually have to drive up and get the angle and the overhead. So can we pull up the... Does this work? Does this mouse do anything?

Yeah.

Wow. Never knew I had this power. okay so yeah so our proposed dumpster location is right here we're gonna have a four yard dumpster in that someone takes out onto the street and they'll get out of the trash truck and service it from here rather than having to pull get the turn radius and have to pull in okay so there won't be any backing up they shouldn't have to back up you know what time of day they're going to be doing this I don't, but being that we have residents on site, it will be in the owner's interest to do it at a reasonable time of day, having lived next to the arcade bar here that was not as concerned with having residents above them and controlling the time of day that the trash truck came. i think when you put residential above these uses it tends to police itself well compared to where we just have commercial stuff that's next to residential uses um you know tend to start moving out when you wake them up at 4 30 in the morning with a trash truck and i think the letters of support that we have and i've had a few people contacting me just in passing i

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

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

We believe that, too. We just don't know how to formalize. There was a development to the south here that has no on-site parking requirement, that they have some language in the PUD that it has to be one-to-one when they come for a building permit, that they have to identify somewhere where the parking is going to happen. I felt like it was kind of ambiguous language like what it could that be a lease is that a separate site but we agree we want to have the parking to we just want to be able to lease it from across the street and like we're considering adding a couple one space on site maybe two but we're we prefer to lease it just because it's it's given land costs and how much land parking takes up especially on small sites if you don't have an alley it's just not feasible for us to do here and we have this lot that we have excess parking so we really feel like it's the most responsible and the most fiscally responsible decision is to lease those spaces and figure out what the market is, what tenants are willing to pay for parking as well. Because we don't have a good sense of that in Oklahoma City. There's not a lot of projects yet where parking's been untethered for apartments, and it's kind of hard to judge the demand if we don't get good pricing signal.

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

We have a couple of two beds on the third floor, and then four one beds on the second floor, and then the ground floor would have one live work, which would be a small one bed.

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

I think we would accept one off-street. I think we know we can get that. We're considering doing that anyway. It'll have to be an accessible space, just because the first one you add has to be an accessible space. But we want to make sure we're meeting not only the letter of ADA, but the spirit of it. And since there wouldn't be an accessible space in this parking lot that's extremely close to the building, open i think to adding that one space in the back that one accessible space um and i think what do you what do you think are we willing to write that into the yeah i mean requirement for one off which if it's one it's going to be required to be an accessible space which it takes up the space of two um but i think we're open to doing that and i think it's in some ways the right thing to do okay

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

We already have an agreement letter of intent to leave nine spaces across the street.

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

I think we're going year by year. Yeah, it's a question. Yeah, the building's going to be here for a long time. We don't know what parking demand's going to be like in 10 years, but... 20 years so we I don't I also don't know if we could get the owner to agree to a Lease structure of that long. I'm certainly open to that be a negotiation between My client the owner of the and lot across the street and these lease spaces will be reserved for your residential Users only yeah We may assign some of them to commercial uses only at right so that if we have nine spaces it would be give the option to tenants, hey, if you want one of these spaces, you can pay 50 bucks a month, otherwise it reverts to being dedicated for the ground floor commercial use. Might do something like that, but we are renting them full time.

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

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

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

We're not having a chase in the building. If it's a restaurant, our idea is, hey, it's a lunch, little cafe, sandwich shop or something.

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

I mean, if you think about half of a restaurant dedicated to back of house when you're talking about small restaurant, maybe 500 square feet for a dining room here, that's at about 30 occupants. We could fit in this max tables and chairs in this small space. If it's restaurant type thing, it's a very, very small operation.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this application, too. And for me, it's about scale. It's too much. Next door to single family homes. I think that this development on this lot would almost, would certainly encourage, let's put it that way, the parking lot across the street to the north to be developed. And I just can't get there, I don't think, on this. I understand that three stories is too much for me. Too much. And Mr. Day, I'm sure, will repeat, as he has told me, that it just doesn't make sense. You can't pencil without that. And that is unfortunate, but does not affect my view of it. I mean, I... The three stories along 16th and adjacent to 16th next to the homes that are there, many of those homes are two-story homes, first of all, but the ones next to single-story homes, they're horrifying to me. To have something like that looming over you, it would just be, I just don't think it's... a fair thing to do to the surrounding neighbors. I very much respect your views and opinions about what's going on in the plaza. It feels to me like the tail's wagging the dog here. I just can't get there. Sorry. It's okay. Sam, any comments on that?

I would say, as you know, three stories is already allowed here by right with R1. And we're already building that. And we have a lot of three story stuff going on in the plaza already. I mean, I understand the concern. Our neighbor is supportive. Our next-door neighbor is most affected by this. And we've tried to make concessions of the design by sloping it down to two stories where it meets their property. But we also know that, you know, long-term, is that building going to be there forever? Or is that going to be, you know, at some point it's... If everything has to look like the thing next to it, it makes Enfield really hard and impossible to do.

I'm not going that far. It doesn't have to look like everything next to it. I will say also, I think maybe the city needs to take a harder look. I'm a difficult sell on the no parking thing. Anyway, you look at it anywhere in the city. And I get that we're trying to promote pedestrian and alternative means of motion. But I think the city needs to come to terms with issues surrounding areas just like this one where they're having to in order to accomplish their goal. really rely on leased parking off-site we don't really have a way to manage that and i realize you know maybe maybe it won't be necessary forever maybe we'll all be walking everywhere we go gas prices keep going up um but um i i just i think it's very difficult for us to make good decisions about things like this. Very difficult for me to make good decisions about these kind of things based on the idea that we just don't need parking and that's a problem for me.

I understand that and I mean we have for me the most successful places in Oklahoma City are those that have no parking requirement It's downtown. It's midtown. It's Plaza within the neighborhood boundary. It's Paseo it's Wheeler right like these places have zero parking requirement and it's very small amount of the city but it is sort of the places that have contain a lot of the city's identity and drive a lot of property and sales tax per acre right and I Don't think this is appropriate everywhere.

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

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

we could go to ten right now you know we have a five foot setback but our building is designed as having a seven foot right so we have a little bit of space to work with there we can move the building south three feet to get us to ten it starts to um get into right now we have a 15 foot setback for the dumpster so We could probably make it work with a 10-foot setback. Again, I understand the concern with setback. And you want a consistent-ish setback across the street. That said, urban commercial hates a setback. It creates ambiguity of whether this is a space. If I can't park in front of it, am I supposed to come here if I have to walk through a lawn or something to get up to the front door? And so we are hesitant to push it back very far. And I think we would agree to a 10-foot setback. And we could, well, we need 16 feet to get our ADA space, right? So we need, we have to do one or the other. We have to do one or the other. We could get our ADA space in the back or we can shift the building back, which would preclude the ADA space there and get us to a 10 foot setback or even a 12 foot setback maybe, but we couldn't fit the parking.

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

Yeah, I think it benefits the project more to have the ADA spot.

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

For a full width, yeah, ADA space, yes.

Any other comments from commissioners?

I'll just add, I mean, I know the height has been brought up and the character in the neighborhood. And so I was going through Street View again. So there's three-story down on 12th Street that's right next to two-story, two-story residential, two-story multifamily. Of course, there's all the things on 16th Street that are three-story. I think that's one of the things that makes you know this part of the appeal of the Plaza district is you have this character that's kind of this mix of you know. The older style homes and then newer modern structures that are you know address the street up on the on the sidewalk. I'm all about maintaining character in the neighborhood, but I don't hate the three-story, and I think that actually is part of the unique character of the Plaza District.

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

better and as far as parking goes I mean I you know they're taking the risk if people can't park at their business or other businesses in the plaza district then that's going to be a risk that they're going to have to take yeah I don't think they'd like my three car garage in the plaza

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

There's homes with three-car garages. We have tons of single-family homes. You know, it's, like you said, it's a mix, and it's demographically very diverse because of the mix of types of buildings that are in this area.

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

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

The only question is in Lindsey's vote, are we adding a parking space to get the vote? To the MDS.

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

Or a setback. We're open to both. Either. We're not open to both.

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

We can't do it on the podium. There's possible that we could go back and design and see if there's a way to make it work. The way we have it laid out now, we cannot do both. We cannot do both. Okay.

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

If we go to, oh, let's see. Okay, we take out three feet. I don't think we can fit three and an ADA space. We have one extra foot right now if we have a 16-foot wide ADA space.

So you can go to 14 feet.

14 feet is not. We need an 11-foot van and a 5-foot place to loading space. With some redesign, there's a good chance we could make it work. I just don't want to commit to it here and now. We could commit to one of those here and now.

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

So... Thoughts? Lindsay?

I love the issue.

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

You want to roll the dice and say we can design around this? I feel like we know a good designer. What? We're going from... We're giving up three feet. Building setback seven right now. We're going to set back ten. We could take off the brick. What? Oh, can we do eight? Can we do eight in a parking space? I want to do more. I'm just like in my line of like if there's a chance that somehow in the design it's like a huge problem.

I hate to... Do you need to take time and look at it in detail?

I think we want to move forward. Everyone's looking at me like we want to move forward. What do you think? I think we can figure it. Okay, so then we have a 10-foot rear setback, which we have the building set back 16 from the rear right now, so we have no issue there. The only thing that could become a problem is that our dumpster setback in the MDS right now is 15 feet. I think we can figure it out. I have it in my mind.

And are you, what?

We'll have to cut a little square footage, but not much, yeah.

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

And we can figure it out with a 10 foot setback and one off street parking requirement. Okay. With the ability to maneuver within the right-of-way as our MDS goes. Right. It can be a driveway. Is that right? Well, we have in our... That's part of the parking If off street spaces are provided they shall be provided to use black welder or 15th as a direct means of access but With the 15th Street You're right. We are Okay with with striking the 15th Street so it could just say if off street spaces are provided they shall be permitted to use black welder have as a direct means of access. Just meaning there's municipal code now if you have more than... Did you get that written down?

That's part of the TE.

Sure, can I just kind of recap and see if we're on the same page? I would love to. Okay. So I think that so far you have, if it's a recommendation of approval, it would be modifying TE1 to allow the setback on the north, which is Northwest 15th Street, to be 10 feet. Two is just something that was an oversight. It's leaving out a use unit that would allow for the construction of a quadplex, so I don't think there's an issue adding that. And then the third TE is a little bit vague, but that's because we found a conflict between the access section which currently says that access shall be permitted from Blackwelder and that the existing curb cut on 15th will be closed and curbed and Then there's no off street parking on the north side of the building. Okay, so that was what it said But then with the most recent changes for parking it was allowing access from 15th for parking And so we just wanted here today to modify it in a way that those two things don't conflict so if the 15th Street driveway is closed and curbed and and you would probably just modify parking to say one off-street parking space shall be required, and then any off-street parking space shall be permitted access from Blackwelder. Is that correct? Direct as a direct means of access if you're concerned about the maneuvering in the right-of-way, we probably should add that to say Maneuvering in the right-of-way is permitted from black welder No, yes, I don't that would that's streets and traffic It's a zoning regulation zoning and I took the language directly from the zoning. It's a zoning regulation

You can't do a driveway on one.

The backing of a vehicle in and off a black welder for one space is not a big deal.

It's the dumpster that I'm... It's no different than a driveway. I mean, the trash truck's going to pull up, stop, get the dumpster. I mean, that's no different than if they're servicing a blue bin. They're going to pull up, stop, service the blue bin.

Stop, pull it out. It takes a second longer. It does take a little longer. But, I mean, Blackwater here is maybe 3,000 cars a day. We don't do a count here, but it's not busy here because it tees into 16th. It doesn't go through. I mean, it does, it just jogs, so people don't use it as a thruway that often.

Okay.

So you can leave it as just as a direct means of access.

Well, I'm happy to add more clarifying language because you never know what you're going to get in a plan review that somebody sees and says, hold up.

We can add. I mean, if we need to add that, I mean, I'm going to lean on staff to provide that recommendation.

like it's hard to decide on the spot because the way that the parking normally works is once you get over four units you have a parking lot and that you would pull into and in this case they'll have only one parking space which would be more like a single-family residence and not a multi-family so we're getting into the gray here but To be extra certain if you're okay with service from that driveway to the dumpsters. There's no other way to get to it Then I would probably say right add Maneuvering in the right-of-way within black within the black well the right-of-way is allowed.

Okay. Let's add that sends maneuvering with yeah Okay

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

Oh, what am I doing here?

1851, goodness.

1851, TE1 amending to minimum setback of 15 feet on Northwest 15th Street. We're going to 10 feet 10 feet on Northwest 15th Street. Yeah No change to te2 We're yeah adopting te2.

Yeah. Yes.

Yeah te3 It'll remind me, you want a curb and cap. We have that language already.

We were just wanting to strike, we're going to strike the language that says that direct access shall be permitted on 15th Street. So we're just striking where it says 15th Street on 15th Street.

item six and parking we're just cutting or 15th Street, I think the easiest thing is just strike te3 and Change it to modify the parking section to state that one off street parking space will be required and that off street parking space shall be permitted to use black welder and Maneuvering in the right-of-way is allowed for all access from Blackwelder. Okay, can I use that as the E4? Yeah, it's striking three and replacing three. Three asks for the, to clarify everything, so. Okay, thank you. So that's three.

Do we need another?

Are there any other TEs?

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

Maneuvering in the right of ways permitted. One off-street space required. Okay. Access off Blackwater. Okay.

Permission to massage that a little bit before it goes to council to make sure it words correctly with that intent.

Thank you. All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Milner to recommend the item to City Council for approval subject to the technical evaluations as read in and amended. It's been seconded by Commissioner Peaver. Please cast your votes.

All right. Back.

Who do we need? Commissioner Powers? You need to hit the refresh. Yeah, voice vote. There we go. All right. That is recommended for approval. Thank you all. We need a motion to reconsider. Motion from Commissioner Powers to reconsider. Is it seconded? Second. Second from Commissioner Noble. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Okay. Now, so... What's that?

We want to go through the whole thing over again.

What am I saying?

My motion to approve as stated. Got it. So we have a motion from Commissioner Milner to recommend the item for approval as previously stated.

I'll second.

Seconded by Commissioner Peaver. Let's do over. All right. All right. Now. Okay. That item is recommended for approval.

Item eight. This is SPUD 1852, application to rezone 228 Northeast 14th Street from R1.

Good afternoon, Claes Rodman-Philip, 600 North Robinson, and I'm representing Brett Smith on this application. And based on feedback from the last planning commission hearing, we have made significant changes to our SPUD application. Essentially, we are just requesting to split this 70 foot wide lot in half and allow for the development of two single family houses per base R1 zoning. We've increased the front yard setback to 30 feet. Really the main things that we've had to alter from Base zoning is a lot size, which is only a fraction percentage smaller, which would be allowed and reducing the lot width from 50 feet minimum to 35 feet minimum so Kind of that's the application in a nutshell, but happy to answer any questions.

Okay, I

All right, Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward. I have four people signed up to speak. Let's go ahead and hear from them, please. Okay, we'll hear from them. We'll start with Ms. Hannah Gudianson. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

Hi, I'm Hannah Gudjinsson. I live at 303 Northeast 14th Street, right across the street from this lot. And as of yesterday, we also own 308 Northeast 15th Street, the vacant lot behind our house. So I would say I'm pretty committed to this neighborhood at this point. I'll be short. There are only a few of us speaking today and hopefully briefly on purpose. We took an hour of your afternoon last time and nobody wanted to take that much time again. There are also only three new letters in your packet instead of a stack like last time. That's because we got our first look at this application on September 3rd, one day before your packet deadline. Fortunately the neighborhood is all on an email thread So we've spent the past six days talking it through together and everyone landed in the same place I'm saying this for all of our neighborhood Please deny this spud Four weeks ago, you heard this exact idea. The lot was briefly spoken of, divided into two 35-foot frontage lots, two houses side by side, an ADU behind each one. And you said no to that, that it doesn't work in the middle of this block, and that one house does. You told them to go work with the neighborhood. Afterwards, there was only silence. A neighbor finally received an email on September 2nd, 20 days later, saying the new version had been filed the day before. That's it. There was no meeting, no call, no what do you think. And if you hear today that they reached out to us, that was the reaching out. In August, I stood up here and I asked for actual numbers in this thing, like a height, a size, something between us and the second story windows. None of it is in here. It still says per base zoning on every line that matters. And I'm not gonna lie, the pictures are lovely, but that's not the actual SPUD. And the only thing that this SPUD does that the zoning can't already do is cut the lot in half. a single house with an ADU behind it that would be allowed today. So this seems to be coming down to two ways of looking at this. They are seeing the location, and we are seeing the street. We picked this neighborhood for how we live in it every day, to live in our charming, very old houses, to have real yards, to hear the kids circling the block on scooters and bikes, and to feel the quiet of it at the end of the day. They picked this neighborhood for what it could turn into, and I get that. But at the last meeting, you told them what kind of block this is. You saw that this is one of the last few neighborhoods left like that in Oklahoma City. And we ask you to continue to protect that. We may not have the historical protection that other neighborhoods have, but we are constantly striving to maintain those same values in the only way that we can, which is by working together as a community. So please don't defer this. A deferral is 20 more days for a conversation that they're clearly not going to have with us. Please deny this and let someone build one house here. We are absolutely willing to wait for that person. And honestly, we would probably all bake them cookies. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Goodson. Emma Base.

Hi. My name is Emma Base. I live at 226 Northeast 14th Street. That is the house directly next to the proposal. I moved in in March, but I know I couldn't make it last time, so I want to show up here and say that I'm showing up. I know that was important for you guys, and it's important for me that I want to show up and politely request You deny this. And I don't want to waste any more of your time, kind of like we said, they said, Hannah said, that they've done a phenomenal job researching all of the details on it. So I don't want to waste any of your time. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

Kay Bennett.

Thank you all for volunteering your time for this public service and I just want to speak that Klassen North Highland Park felt that we were heard on August 13th and we appreciate that. We had written several letters. Neighbors still stand by what their letters say. They feel that although this proposal is significantly different, it's still the same thing. It's too much for one inner lot and As Claus said today, it's in essence splitting it into two 35-foot lots. This is a street that has historic, and the houses are basically two-story. They're actually on somewhat wider than the typical 50 lot. Some of those lots are 75 even. This one is 70. It is appropriate. At its current R1 status, there are other R3 lots. There are other SPUD approved lots available in the neighborhood. This one should definitely stay R1 to maintain the character integrity of the neighborhood.

Thank you. Can I have your name and address for the record? Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay.

Kay Bennett, 233 Northeast 15th Street. All right. Thank you, Ms. Bennett.

And last, I have Derek Ellis.

Derek Ellis 214 Northeast 14th Street. I spoke to you guys four weeks ago. I saw the same feelings I'm asking that you deny this they've literally just split this they still won't put forward dwellings on there Yeah, our own see says 50-foot Lots. He says small I saw a 30% decrease in lot size to get a to you plus the single family I call that a lot and I call that a great sale where I come from. Again, I think they're trying to use zoning to build their bottom profit, and profit should have nothing to do with this. It should be what the neighborhood wants. I feel like we have spoken out against this, so I'm asking that you deny this application. Thank you.

All right. That's all I had signed up to speak, so I'll turn it over to commissioners for comments.

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

I'm a little surprised by the response to the neighbors. I do see this as a very different application than the first one that was in front of us, which was for two four-flexes. To me, what they're proposing here is really, other than the fact that they're splitting the lot, is really consistent with the character of the neighborhood and of this particular street. There are two single family dwellings. If they choose to build ADUs, that's something that they can do by right under the ordinance. It's going to be governed by the R1 height setback, et cetera, restrictions. I'm not only okay with this. I think it is a very good solution and good land use.

I will just add, I mean, when I look at it, I think, you know, I agree with Commissioner Power's comments. I think, you know, it's... From a character standpoint, it does appear to align with the neighborhood other than lot widths. But I don't think, I think that's, there's too much of an emphasis on that in the urban core. I don't feel that it, you know, it feels like these are crammed in there. Yeah. What I am disappointed in is that the applicant was asked to go back to work with the neighbors and they didn't hear from you. You didn't give them the opportunity to provide input. So I don't like that portion of the narrative that I'm hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I appreciate the comments. And I want to touch on a couple items. One reason why we skipped the last Planning Commission meeting is because I was going out of town. That's partly why there has not been as much communication. I believe Brett may have reached out. I'm not sure if you reached out to neighbors or not, but we kind of tag-teamed it a little bit, and, you know, so we, you know, we apologize for lack of communication, and, you know, we own that. You know, we've tried to... You know, we had a meeting before we submitted the SPUD, and we felt we had a pretty clear idea of where the neighborhood was going to stand on this. But we do understand, you know, I guess I hear you is what I'm saying. And, you know, we could have done that better, I believe. Yep.

Hello, Brett Smith. I live on 842 Northwest 44th Street. Just wanted to clarify that comment right there. The intent was never to leave out the neighborhood at all. In fact, after the last planning meeting, I reached out directly to planning staff just to kind of gauge what they wanted to see in this area. Klaus was on a much-needed vacation. As soon as he got back, I got with him. I gave him the direction that I felt that we wanted to present to the neighborhood. We actually had a physical document, and as soon as I got that, I sent it directly to the neighborhood for feedback and comments, and that was on the 2nd. So obviously timing, I'm not going to say it was an excuse, but there was no malintent there. This is just the time that it kind of came forward. But I welcomed feedback all week. I did have a couple questions from the Bennetts, and I answered it to the best of my ability. But as far as anything further from there, I haven't heard anything back. So it wasn't my intent to leave anybody out. Just the nature of how things work sometimes. People have vacations. It's hard to schedule everybody. I wanted to make sure that everybody was on the same page. I kind of just want to address that key point. Thank you.

And we did, I mean, we did share everything. As soon as we had the MDS updated and, you know, we really took an approach with this submission to say what is the least amount that we could possibly do, what's the least that we can change from base zoning to, you know, to develop the site and, you know, which was a wider than typical law. So that's kind of, you know, we took this minimalist approach, I suppose. I mean, other than this, really, you know, there's not much else you could do from a, you know, from how little you would change from the base zoning language. You know, as soon as we had the MDS updated, we had the site plans updated, we sent it to the neighborhood for feedback. So we did, you know, we did, I guess, try to engage the neighborhood to some degree, but, you know, we probably could have done things better, so.

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

I'm not sure. It's been vacant for, I think, a significant period of time.

The last that I saw in there was 2007 from Google Images. Kind of hard from that point.

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

I'm assuming so, yeah. Okay.

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

Yeah, I think the lot next door is 70-foot as well. But, I mean, really that's one thing that I think is important to know about this neighborhood as well. I mean, I think the neighbors are kind of painting it as a... As a consistent neighborhood and the fact that it's like, you know, 50-foot lots side by side or, you know, really it's a mix of all kinds of different lot sizes, even uses, spuds, I mean, you name it. There's a, you know, there's a mix of uses, lot sizes. The other side of, what is it?

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

I'll take this opportunity to make my usual comment that one of the problems of having our staff reports and MDSs, according to the staff's wish, say things like per base zoning, per base zoning, per base zoning, is that the neighbors don't necessarily know, for instance, that where it says signs, You know, signs per base zoning means in this particular case, there won't be any signs. It should just say that. That would be better. It's problematic for us because we have to stop and look things up that we're not familiar with. And it's really problematic for people who are not familiar with this process to have to go do that. We need to make the information in here user-friendly.

To that point, that's why we emailed the neighborhood the information as soon as we had it updated.

And I have a problem with just throwing an email out to somebody and saying, good luck. Because that's not having a conversation with them and explaining what your project is. They aren't in zoning every week, and understanding the process, they don't get that. So I said, I think you probably could have sold them on the idea if you could figure it out. I mean, you have a 35-foot lot with a shared driveway. That's basically 240s, basically, because you're getting the shared driveway. So you could... You could bring them in. They could know where the windows were. They could know what they were looking at. They would know what they were getting in their backyards with the two ADUs also. So without that conversation, I can't be supportive of this, and we shouldn't be.

I'll respect that.

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

I think...

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

That was the drainage ordinance. Right. Yeah, no.

And specifically the no ability to appeal to BOA.

Oh yeah, this is the same issue we had on the earlier spud. I mean, honestly, the drainage is kind of a mess because it changes quite a bit. I'm assuming that's why the city is adding this, they're working on sorting that out. I don't know. Maybe, I don't know if you have a...

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

I'm not sure what effect it has on ours since it's, you know, with R1, I'm not sure on the drainage requirements. You know, I've never run into, you know, we have 60%, I think, or 65% lot coverage, so there's a lot of open space. But without speaking with a city engineer, you know, I'm not sure.

Although I get what you're saying and pretty much agree with it, we're in a position where we're not engineers, neither is he. So with that, this isn't a point, zoning is not a point at which engineering is usually done, or finished at least, I'll say. So the sort of wholesale giving away of your rights for appeal is a pretty significant ask at this point.

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

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

This one has more than your normal TEs normally because same with like the communication issue. I mean, I came back from vacation. We had like, you know, a day pretty much to turn it around and get it back. So we just, you know, we talked about it. We came up with the most minimum change that we could come up with for the site and, you know, submitted it to the city and then, you know, sent it on to the neighborhood for comment. You know, I apologize. You know, that's all part of... It was just bad timing, honestly. But as far as this TE, you know, since this is not the final approval, since we still have to go to city council, I'm wondering if there's a way that...

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

Okay, so we had a motion from Commissioner Harrison, but we didn't talk about TEs.

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

We agree with all the TEs. I'm wondering if on TE1 if there's a way that we could... If that's something that I can work out with staff, get more information, and then we can finalize it at City Council, or is that something that we need to decide for the recommendation to City Council? I'm sorry, this is the first I've really seen that, so I haven't had a chance to study the specific ordinances.

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

If he doesn't agree to it, then it can be put in at City Council.

There you go. Yeah.

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

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

Possibly.

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

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

So we can't break out the one TE and say that we...

I think your best bet is just not to ask for it to be struck.

I don't know if it's going to affect us anyway, so I'm going to say we accept.

Do you have the option to strike it?

I'm sorry?

You do have the option to have it stricken.

To strike it?

If you don't agree with it, you request to strike it.

Yeah, we'll strike it.

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

We have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend approval of city council of the item striking TE1 with TE's two through six as written. This is seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. All right, that's a 4-4 tie, so that means it would go forward without a recommendation.

You have to have five votes either way, so.

I thought it was automatic continuance.

That's a twist.

Automatic continuance. One coming. Yeah, who had that on the bingo card?

Automatic.

Get that big law book out. You with Sarah?

Well, I believe it's automatically continued unless you approve a variance to your bylaws to move it forward with no recommendation. I'll look to Susan to confirm that, but I think that's what we're, yeah.

And the plot thickens. Okay.

Oh, actually, I don't know if I'll be here in two weeks. I guess if we continue two weeks is...

You know what might be a great idea in using those two weeks? Meet with the neighbors.

Meet with the neighbors. Yes. Okay. That sounds good.

All right. Ms. Bennett, I'll give you 30 seconds. You only need one vote.

Could you please give us the same courtesy as you gave Klaus? We are going to be out of town and can't meet with neighbors. So could we have the 20 days or, you know, not September but go to October? The four weeks.

We can ask them if they want to accept that.

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

Sorry, what's going on?

Well, it's an automatic continuance two weeks, and she's asked for four because they're going to have folks out of town. The neighbors are going to have folks out of town. Is it in the ordinance that it goes to the next meeting? Okay. All right, well then, reconsider the motion and ask for a continuance. All right, motion to reconsider the motion. Motion to reconsider. All right, seconded by Commissioner Noble. All in favor, aye. Aye. And Boaz?

Aye.

Would you like to continue this item four weeks?

Yes, please. Okay. Thank you.

So that is to the October 15th meeting? Pardon? 8th. 8th. First Thursday of the month? Oh, that is. Okay. There we go. Sorry. All right. So 8-8. Okay. And we just need a motion.

And we have a second.

Oh, all right. Motion to defer to October 8th, seconded by Commissioner Noble. Please cast your votes. All right, that item is continued.

And for clarification for next time, I did find it. It's under quorum.

Okay.

It is an automatically continued. So next time we'll know that. Okay. Very good.

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

Okay, item nine. Item 9 is SPUD 1857, that application to rezone 5320 South Hiawassee Road from AA.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. This place is kind of like Shark Tank. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Chad Smith. My address is 213 East Coe Drive in Midwest City, Oklahoma, 73110. I'm here today representing my family regarding our application, SPUD 1857, Owings Family Residential Development at 5320 South Hiawassee Road. I want to clearly state from the beginning, we're not doing anything new here. We're simply... This is more of a restoration effort for this property. Historically, this family has been in my wife Kaylee's families since the land run. I have a copy here of the original land patent from the land run in 1886. This was signed by President Grover Cleveland with a feather ink pen. Before Oklahoma was even a state, my wife Kaylee, sitting behind me, grew up on this dirt, and we are now planning on raising our two young children here, a two-year-old girl and an eight-month-old boy. Because this property is situated, I'm sorry, because this property has sustained three family homes historically, the land as it sits today is technically non-conforming under modern city code. We want to do the right thing the right way. This SPUD is our proactive voluntary effort to bring our historical family layout into 100% legal compliance and fully align it with Oklahoma City's long-term vision for the area. Because these residential footprints already exist, there is zero impact on the neighborhood density. There's already three septic tanks there. There's three wells already. Furthermore, by passing this SBUD, we're voluntarily binding ourselves to modern city standards. We will share an existing driveway via 30-foot access easement, and we are legally committing to maintain a 40% open space across all tracks to maintain the rural environment. We have hand-delivered personal letters, shook their hands with our plat map to our neighbors to assure them we are simply restoring our family home, not developing. We respectfully request your approval to let us bring this historic land into full code compliance so we can raise our children safely next door to their grandparents. This is not a commercial development. This is a self-funded cleanup, modernization, and restoration project. Thank you.

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

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

Yes, sir This morning, actually, I made a new master design map. I took the word double wide and mobile home out of there and made it more in line with article 85 section. Hold on, I've got to write that down here.

Sounds like you've done some good research.

Article 59, 8200.6 states manufactured home and 8200.7 says manufactured mobile home. 8200.7 talking about the mobile home means that it Basically comes to the site ready to live in with all of its mobility features still there. What we're presenting, we want to do manufactured home. Exactly like you said, we want a permanent foundation. We want real residential siding, none of the vinyl. Yeah. So we agree with that 100%.

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

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

It's Sarah Welch, Planning Department. That's an RA base already, so which part of the master design statement would we need to change? Are you saying why can't it just be RA? Yeah.

Well, it wouldn't conform with it.

Well, first, just to go to a straight RA, you'd have to have five acres first in order to rezone, but then each lot has to have street frontage, and it would be 300 feet, and they don't have 300 foot of frontage for each lot.

For any lot, really.

For any lot.

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

So the master design statement's been modified since originally submitted to remove, we have those two use units, one of them is a mobile home, and they've gone ahead, they, I believe, on your own, correct, removed the mobile home use unit, so that would not be in allowed use anymore. And so they'd have to meet the manufactured, I mean, you could do things like limit the number of manufactured homes, perhaps, I think the two is probably the maximum they were seeking, is that correct?

Yes, ma'am. One per lot.

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

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

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

It could be moved with a lot of work.

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

Yeah. Yep. Yeah, I think the TE would say structure is limited to manufactured homes with permanent foundations.

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

Honestly, it can't hurt for you to put that in there for us because the code really does intermingle mobile and manufactured home in ways that I wasn't trained before this job to understand. So I think it's fine if you want to add that.

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

John also just for clarification the there is a TE on there that's regarding sidewalks. That's from our public And we don't we do not believe that sidewalks would be required The TE is asking it to just have them do whatever code would require. I would imagine that Usually our residents in the rural areas asked to strike that I don't see people walking down That'd be a very dangerous look

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

1857 okay so we have a motion from Commissioner privet to recommend the item City Council for approval subject to the two technical evaluations read in striking te one second by Commissioner Milner please cast your votes and I was recommended for approval good luck appreciate you guys

Item 10. Item 10 is SPUD 1859, application to rezone 315 Northwest 24th Street from R4UC overlay HL overlay to SPUD 1859.

Hello, I'm Weston Dennis with Dennis Studio Architects, 38 Northeast 7th Street, here on behalf of Omega Investments, my client. The client is seeking to put an eight-unit, very small, multifamily building on this lot, studio apartments. Currently, the lot is R4, so multifamily is allowed, but dimensionally, per the base zoning, it's constrained because we have a 50-foot wide lot, whereas it's a 100-foot wide constraint per the code. But we've taken this through HP, since it's in an HP overlay, and gotten their recommendation for approval to you guys. We've met with the neighborhood association and gotten their support. And it's my understanding staff also is recommending approval. So happy to answer any questions you guys have about the scheme from an architectural standpoint.

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

Do you have any have you had any contact with your neighbor directly to the east?

Yes, ma'am. I've spoken with Jacob, and he actually emailed in, and we were able to take care of just the commentary that he had. It was no problem. He wanted to make sure that the parking was at a ratio that would keep vehicles off the street, and by working with HP and moving the building forward in line with some of the existing multifamily on the street, we were able to do that pretty easily. So his email in there, I think I had forwarded that to FAD just so that it could be included.

Okay. We don't have anyone signed up to speak? No. This is a good example of a multi-family infill. It sits on a piece of property that looks across the street to a parking lot. It's hard to believe anybody's going to come along and build a single-family home on it. I love the look of it. I know that's just a pretty picture, but it doesn't look like that. I'm going to haunt you.

Noted.

And if nobody else has anything they want to say about it.

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

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

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

I think it was seven foot that was Jacob's request, and we're more than happy to do that.

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

And so with that, I'm going to move approval of item number 10.

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

Before a motion for approval, I think there's the same TE that everyone's had on their applications, and if it's okay, I would also like to strike the TE1 about the drainage.

So I'll amend my motion to strike TE1.

All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item to City Council for approval, striking TE1. It's been seconded by Commissioner Peaver. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended for approval.

Item 11. This is case number SPUD 1865, application to rezone 4701 North Martin Luther King from 02 and H&O to SPUD 1865.

Rob Elliott, 900 Northwest 6th Street here with the owners of King Discount. was this is an application to actually add use groups to the existing O2 office use zoning. And our clients were given a conditional approval a few months ago by the development department with building permit to operate a convenience store. And this application simply allows the use to expand within the existing facility of the convenience store. We're limited in the conditional use on the actual area that we can use in the existing building.

Okay, Commissioner Harrison, this is your ward if you want to lead the discussion. Sure. I don't have anyone signed up to speak.

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

In the, King Discount has opened a convenience store there now, and in the 02 zoning district, the convenience store operation was only as a conditional use. What this SPUD would do would be allow the use group to be included in the SPUD. So we haven't omitted any of the changes for the office, but it includes the use group for operating a convenience store.

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

I thought there was a use unit just for marijuana sales. Was I wrong? No, there's not.

We can't do that.

State law won't allow it. That's why there's not one. Okay. For some reason, I thought that was.

I think it goes back to the constitutional amendment that it's not permitted to, yeah.

I figured it was state sentencing to do it.

No, municipalities can regulate dispensaries locations.

Okay. It's just the current code doesn't. So we just don't have, okay, we just don't have one because of that?

We treat them as retail.

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

Okay.

So my question is, is that possible?

Can staff tell me, I think on the map provided, it shows there's a YMCA facility directly across the street, but it doesn't look to me like that is a current. It's urban league. It's urban league.

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

I don't think I like that.

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

Not sure if the applicant would want that.

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

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

Give me a second.

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

We would like the opportunity to open a dispensary.

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

Is that your motion? Yes. Okay. I have a motion from Commissioner Harrison.

I'm so, so sorry. We just need to make one other TE. This is in the healthy neighborhoods overlay, and we just need to add that to the master design statement that that remains, that it's subject to that overlay. I've discussed that with the applicant and Rob. I just forgot to mention it to the chair.

Even if we deny it?

No, okay, sorry. I was talking to them. Wait, you recommend denial?

Okay, sorry.

We were discussing, they need a license, and I was trying to figure out if the removal of the dispensary would allow them to get the license, so apologies. I would just say that we would add to the minutes if the recommendation would be denial. If approved, then we would add the H&O overlay to the...

if the council should make an alternate decision we would want that each of now added okay and then mr harrison did it if you if your motion would be to deny the application i think that would not all allow us to continue with the uh... convenience store you either so you'd still be able to take it we would have been correct yeah so that's why i was that's why we're trying to get you if you if you accept the t e that prohibits the dispensary use

You can still operate the convenience store. You just can't use it as a dispensary.

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

With the recommendation.

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

Okay.

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

Well, it's TE. Well, now there's two TEs. So you're in agreement with TE1? Yes. Okay. We want to add TE2 that states that the application lies within a healthy neighborhoods overlay district? Yes. And then TE3 would be to strike use unit or just prohibit marijuana sales or dispensary sales? Correct. So that is my motion as read in. Okay. So we have that motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend the item City Council for approval subject to the TEs. That's seconded by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your votes. And that's recommended for approval. Okay.

Good luck. Item 12. This is PUD 2156, application to rezone 16424 Southwestern Avenue from PUD 216.

Hello, Jessica Bloy with Johnson & Associates representing the applicant, Oney Sheridan. So the application before you today is for a C3 PUD. This one will look familiar. About a month ago there was a final plat that came in for a multifamily development that was approved abutting this PUD. So we are seeking to rezone for commercial development and specifically to allow for flex space units. This is a development type that has been increasingly popular in the last few years. We did receive one opposition letter from a neighboring property owner, so we have been in contact with that person. As of Tuesday, he had two more requests for us and did state that he would withdraw his opposition if we could agree to that. It was to add further restrictions to two use units, which we are in agreement with. So staff has recommended approval. We have two TEs. We are in agreement with TE1, and I do ask that TE2 be struck as this pertains to the drainage that has been a topic of discussion today. And I also have Eight te's to read into the record. I'd like to thank Commissioner Newman for working with us on these Several of you have seen these so you have all of those in front of you. It has also been provided to staff Would you like to ask any questions before I read those into the record since there are so many of them?

I Think you're good to proceed I'm good, okay

Okay, TE3, which was at the request of the neighbor. For the automotive and equipment cleaning and repairs light equipment 8300.14 use unit and custom manufacturing 8350.3, all operations shall be conducted indoors. TE4 is to add language to section 9.0, specifically to the industrial light 8350.8 use unit. We would like to add that buildings within this use unit only shall be limited to a maximum building size of 12,500 square feet. TE5, WHICH IS UNDER THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS, WE'D LIKE TO ADD ONLY WHERE THE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT 8350.8 USE UNIT IS DEVELOPED FRONTING SOUTHWEST 164th STREET. THE STREET TREES PROVIDED SHALL BE DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF STREET TREES REQUIRED PER THE ORDINANCE. TE 6, which is in section 9.4, the screening regulations. We would like to amend that first paragraph to read, no less than a six foot and no greater than an eight foot high site proof screen shall be required along boundaries adjacent to single family residential uses. Said screening shall be a capped cedar fence with masonry columns. 18 inches by 18 inches on 25 foot centers or shall match the existing residential site proof screening along Western Avenue. And in that second paragraph there, we would like to add that any other required site proof screen may be constructed of stucco, brick, stone, wood, steel slash iron and or any combination thereof and shall be solid and opaque unless otherwise stated. TE7, section 9.9 for the parking regulations, garage doors within this PUD shall not front or face Southwest 164th Street or Southwestern Avenue. TE8, section 9.12 of the pedestrian access and sidewalk regulations, we'd like to add internal pedestrian connections shall be provided between this PUD and the abutting multifamily development. TE9 section 9.13 height regulations we would like to modify that language to read the industrial light 8350.8 use unit shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet measured to the top of the parapet or if sloped roofs are used the measurement shall be to the mean roof height per code. And TE10 for the section 9.14 setback regulations for the industrial light 8350.8 use unit only. The setbacks from Southwest 164th Street shall be as follows. Front yard, 60 feet. Side yard, 30 feet. So I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. Commissioner Newman.

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

Yes We have a motion from Commissioner Newman to recommend the item City Council for approval subject to the te's and deleted te2 It's been second by Commissioner privet, please catch your vote Thank you that item is recommended for approval

Item 13. This is PUD 2157, application to rezone 4701 Northeast 122nd Street from PUD 1712.

Good afternoon. Kendall Dillon with Crafting Toll, 300 Point Parkway Boulevard, Yukon, here on behalf of the applicant. This is a 42-acre PUD application that the site generally lies on the north side of 122nd, about a quarter of a mile back to the east of Coltrane. The site currently is zoned in a PUD, and of the 42 acres, about 10 acres of it currently allows for See three commercial uses and the balance of the 32 acres allows for all things residential from single-family all the way up to multifamily allows for up to four-story hot buildings And a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. So that's kind of the current PUD this obviously the request today is a down zoning So in this PUD we're asking for nothing but single-family A minimum of 4,500 square foot for the lots, minimum width of 45 foot. We've included, as you can see on the master development plan, the gray hatched area is a 40 foot tree preservation buffer along the north and the westerly sides of the PUD. You can see our amenity open space in the middle. We've increased above the code and required 143 square foot for dwelling unit. for recreational common area. In addition to the total common area, I think this one's got about 11 acres of total common area, which is about 27% of the site. The development plan that you're looking at there, that's 180 lots, which yields a density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. So it's currently in the urban low on the comprehensive plan, so with the recommendation of four to eight dwelling units per acre, so obviously, 4.3 fits right into that so it certainly conforms to the comprehensive plan i think staff did receive a couple emails um protests or concerns um one of them i think is from a lady that i very well may be here today i'm not sure lives a couple of miles back to the east of this i was was able to connect with her on the phone it seemed at least in my perception that predominantly school system was probably the biggest concern uh... and you know we had a discussion i don't know that she was satisfied with my answers but you know in this case uh... historically when it comes to school districts not sure it's a problem all of us acknowledge just not sure this is the place and this commission can do a lot about the school districts uh... but in this case in particular this is certainly a down zoning So from a density standpoint, it's considerably less than what could go there today. And not only that, but as opposed to apartment complex, this, it will be phased and we'll have a considerably longer build out so that the school district certainly would have more ample time to prepare. I think the other email actually come from the Love's store or the Love's Corporation. It's on the south side of 122nd. I was not able to connect with them, but they really were not in protest of it. It's just they wanted an updated traffic impact analysis. I think your staff report, if you noticed, mentioned that the latest traffic count on 122nd was 8,000 vehicles per day. having a capacity of 22,000 and they just since the data was taken back in I think four years ago they thought that it should be updated but obviously given you know the discussion around traffic the fact that we pay impact fees not to mention that I don't see any possible way that in the last four years the traffic's increased three times of what it was four years ago If you look at 122nd Street, it's already widened to a four-lane arterial or urban section. There's four lanes east-west at Coltrane with left-turn lanes. It isn't always stopped right now, but again, it's got four lanes each in east-west as well as the left turns. The intersection of 122nd and 935 Service Road, obviously four lanes, left-turn lanes, and it's fully signaled. So from the traffic Again, we're paying impact fees, but if you were to update it, it's still gonna show that this thing operates everywhere out there at an acceptable level of service. So with that, staff actually did not have any TEs on this one. Been working with you all. We would like to add a couple of TEs We would request that section 9.1 be amended to require that at least 50% of the total lots be larger than 4,500 square feet. And then add a second additional TE amending section 9.16 to require that a playground, park benches and a pickleball court or half basketball court be added to the recreational amenity area there. So with those again, this is a down zoning Conforms comprehensive plan staff recommended approval and we'd ask the same from you all Okay, very good.

Thank you. Commissioner Harrison. This is your ward. I do have one signed up to speak. Thank you. Okay Miss Jody's heightless

Hi, my name is Jody Hippas, and I am 10301 Ashfoot Drive. And he is correct. We did speak the other day. I just want to say thank you for allowing me to speak regarding PUD 2157. I want to begin by making it clear that I'm not opposed to the development of this property. My concern is whether the density and the character being proposed are appropriate for the particular location and compatible with the established Oakdale community surrounding it. The concept plan being reviewed shows approximately 178 homes on 42 acres. And what I find concerning is that the PUD allows the minimum lots of only 4,500 square feet and 45 feet in width. By comparison, Oakdale Ridge is a similar neighborhood adjacent to the project in question, and it has an R1 minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet with a minimum of 50 feet. And many of the actual lots within Oakdale Ridge are considerably larger than that. A 4,500 square foot minimum is 25% smaller than even the 6,000 square foot standard. That's a meaningful difference in the character and intensity of the development. I'm also concerned about the potential impact on the Oakdale Public Schools. Oakdale's a small dependent school district that is off the state funding formula and it relies heavily on local adverum revenue. Because of the district's small size, a development of this scale and the density has the potential to create a significant long-term impact on student enrollment, facilities, staffing, and resources. And I believe those implications deserve a thoughtful consideration as part of the planning process. Again, I'm not asking that this property remain undeveloped. I'm just simply asking for a thoughtful transition in density that's respectful to the surrounding neighborhoods and to the school that sits at the center of this community. I'd encourage the commission to allow additional time for the developer and the neighboring residents and the Oakdale community members to meet and to see if we can reach a plan that works for everyone. And I am glad to hear that they are increasing some of the lot sizes. So that was a nice addition for me. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Have you had an opportunity or did you extend an opportunity to meet with neighbors?

um i did not but i mean we we can if there's more than i mean if there's one um i mean we can i'm still willing i guess if we need to to defer it um but i mean i think we could potentially hash out or at least i can address those concerns um you know again the school district is something that you know we can meet or whatever i just don't know how we're going to solve the issue with schools except to reiterate the fact that this is currently as zone today allows for multi-family with 15 dwelling units per acre. If you just do the math, that's 480 units. By the math, this is 180 that we're proposing today. Now, can you realistically fit 480? Probably not, but I guarantee you can fit 360. So it's still double the density that we're proposing today. So not only that, but from a residential standpoint, as opposed to an apartment complex coming in and you build the whole thing in a year and you fill it up in a few months. This is going to, it's 180 lots, depending on the market, but very likely two phases. Even the first phase on a residential one, a single family development, it's gonna be two years, year and a half for sure, before even the first homes built, not to mention the full build out. And then you're probably looking at five plus years to build the thing out completely. So at least from a perspective of can school districts plan, then you got ample time with this development to plan, especially compared to what can be developed there today. In terms of the character, you know, obviously as you get on the west side of Coltrane, you get into a little bit bigger lots. But then when the developers come in on the east side of Coltrane, those two developments, one of which my client contender currently still controls 100% of the houses in there. But those are just over 6,000 square feet lots. And then typically what we would see is a transition to more dense the further you get away or the closer you get to, you know, we're bound on by Turnpike on the north and then commercial or highway commercial on the east as well as another interstate. So you would expect more density, not to mention the fact, again, that it's currently zoned for multifamily. So from a Does it fit the character? It's certainly at 4,500 square foot lots with what we see today adjoining the 6,000 square foot that's back to the west. It certainly is within that character. Again, my client actually, if you'll notice the two Oakdale ridges, you've got the cul-de-sac on the north and then the development on the south. He still controls 100% of the one on the south. So the only thing we wouldn't would be the couple of lots that, you know, three or four or whatever that's at the end of that cul-de-sac or, you know, on the north. I guess the northwest corner is RA, but certainly you've got full utilities and everything else with that. And then not to mention, in addition to all of those things, we're still providing a 40-foot buffer. Between that a tree preservation and then we you'll notice on the master development plan We still have additional common area beyond that so we're still separated from those homes on the west and then again to the north turnpike to the south flying J Sonic Cracker Barrel to the east highway commercial and I-35. So from a character standpoint, I don't see any way there's an argument that this is not in character and conformance with your comp plan. So again, if we really need to, we'll go meet, do whatever we need. But, you know, we're tied if we're going to do single family, which is certainly what we want to do. I don't know that there's much we can do with the density, nor should we, given what's there today.

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

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

So two weeks is what you're asking for? Yes. I'm having a meeting with them. And so there's additional, I mean, beyond the one, there's additional then? Yes. Because I have no contact for anybody except the two.

Right. I mean, Ms. Hippas, she mentioned, do you have contact with the other neighborhoods? Okay. I would ask you to get with her after the meeting and see if she can either share their contact information or act as a point person to bring all the neighbors together. I appreciate that. So this one I'm gonna move 14 months to the 24th 24 September 24th me all right emotion to continue the item to the September 24th meeting from Commissioner Harrison It's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. And that item is continued. Okay, for the sake of efficiency, I'm going to take something out of order, and we're going to go to item 15 right now.

Item 15 is case PUD 2159, application to rezone 2205 South Mustang Road from AA. Okay.

Good afternoon. Caitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant, who is also here with me. So this site is unique. It's about 13 acres. It's one of the last remaining AA zoning designations with frontage on Mustang. As you can see, we have apartments to our east. Immediately north, we have these two PUDs, 1117 and 1214. At 1214 has a C3 O2 and R4 base and then 1117 or excuse me 1214 has a C3 base and allows for outdoor storage. So this chunk of AA is really not in line with what is With the zoning designations in this area or how this area is being developed What we're proposing is to allow for the existing tree farm and residents to remain as they are and then in the future in the event of Redevelopment we allow for some very limited office uses so you'll see that we have an option for an o2 based zoning district further limited to the 10 to 12 uses that you're going to see listed in the master design statement We got this list if you recall an SPUD we did not too long ago further south on Mustang It was a part of a thoroughbred acres development. We took this list from what was ultimately approved there We understand that there were concerns we understand we're next to a neighborhood So in addition to limiting our office uses that could be utilized here we also have a 20-foot landscape buffer where it's adjacent to those residential lots and along the south and along the west. We also have that drainage channel that's really heavily landscaped and that's obviously not being touched outside of our property. So we have kind of a natural buffer to our west. We do have a recommendation of approval from staff. We have two TEs. The first one is regarding the drainage that we would seek to strike. The second one is regarding sidewalks. We would seek to modify that TE to just stipulate in the event of redevelopment the sidewalks would be required that verbiage if the homeowner who's good, you know going to be living here for a little longer foreseeable future or to pull a permit for like a Accessory structure or something that's allowed by a we don't want to make her have to go pave Mustang Road in the event She sells it. It's developed for office. Yes, we will do sidewalks on my staying not a problem we did receive two letters of protest and I did reach out to both. Um, I was not able to get in touch with anybody before planning commission today, but contact was made. One of the protesters does live in California, so I believe they're probably renting their house. I'm not sure where exactly their home was. And again, I attempted contact On the second protester that we received a letter from in my emails to them though I did specify that it's a very limited very low impact office uses only which again is Not that similar to all of the heavier commercial uses that would be allowed just directly north We even have kind of a carve-out of an office. That's right, you know kind of Connected to our property. We also have a max height of one story. So we're also reducing the height of the structures and Again, we have that landscape buffer Going back to the te's I also I spoke with Commissioner Meek and we'll be adding a te to require that the maximum number of buildings shown on exhibit B shall not be exceeded and We're happy to do that So that was a lot, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you all have.

Okay. Commissioner Meek is absent today. This is his ward. If someone else would like to lead our discussion, I do have one signed up to speak.

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

Absolutely. Mr. Raymond Maldonade.

Good afternoon.

My name is Raymond Maldonado. I live at 11413 Southwest 24th Street. So, excuse me, as a neighboring homeowner, I chose to live in this area with the reasonable expectation that the existing agricultural zoning and surrounding land use pattern would provide a relatively low density environment. The proposed rezoning would represent a significant change in the character and intensity of development immediately adjacent to the existing homes, mine being one of those. And another would say that the impact would be low density. I mean, how could it be with 20-plus buildings and 214 parking spaces, even if the entrance is off of South Mustang Road? Understand the property owners have a right to seek reasonable use of their property. However Rezoning should also consider the legitimate interest and expectations Surrounding property owners with whether the proposed development is compatible with existing neighborhood of the city's long-term land-use planning objectives, so I think I Ultimately they as she had stated the tree farm and structures are going to stay there as they are But I believe that this this is this rezoning is an attempt to also rezone to sell the property and develop a So it's concept. So this is not simply a change in the type of buildings that may be constructed. It is a fundamental change in the density, traffic, activity, noise, lighting, parking, and intensity of the use that would directly affect neighboring homeowners. So traffic and safety concerns are definitely there. The existing agricultural zoning provides an important transition between developed areas and surrounding residences and open land. Replacing that zoning with a PUD design would accommodate multiple dwellings and office buildings and would eliminate that transition and potentially create an incompatible development immediately next to established homes. So some of the traffic and safety concerns I have are additional vehicles entering and leaving the property Which if you've ever been down South Mustang Road right in front of that Property right where the links are at there's been multiple accidents Also, including fatalities and as of April this past year my wife was involved in an incident there she was waiting to turn into our neighborhood and Somebody rear-ended her her vehicle. It was told out. She just got done picking up the kids from school You know, so there's very it was very concerning that day for me That there's there's a speed limit. That's very high right there in that stretch of road on Mustang South Mustang Road and also There's really been nothing done about that I don't know who I can get in contact with on that in a separate occasion to maybe put in a traffic light around that neighborhood and But there's greater potential for accidents commercial and residential traffic occurring throughout the day increased deliveries service vehicles and visitors additional parking vehicle circulation The impacts of safety and quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties Let's see here So the impact of the office and residential development is particularly different from the existing agricultural setting. Security, lighting, parking, parking lot lighting, mechanical equipment, deliveries, outdoor activity, and increased vehicle traffic could adversely affect the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of neighboring homes that are near mine. to your existing homeowners made significant investments, myself included. In the description, the house was back to a beautiful Christmas tree farm lot, and that's what I love the most about it, just having that setting there and a rezoning that permits substantially greater density and a combination of residential and office use immediately adjacent could firstly affect the character of privacy and enjoyment of all the properties. So while I also recognize that property values can be affected by many factors and that no particular property value can be guaranteed, it is reasonable for existing homeowners to be concerned when an agricultural low density setting is replaced by a significantly more intensive development. Precedent for future development. I'm also concerned about the president this rezoning could establish If a agricultural property can be rezoned to permit multiple dwellings and office uses other private other property owners in the surrounding area May reasonably seek similar changes over time this could transform the area That is currently characterized by agricultural or low density residential uses into a substantially more intensive development quarter city should not only consider the immediate proposal but also the cumulative effect that approval could have on surrounding properties and future development requests for these reasons i respectfully request that the planning commission and city council okay you can't speak for them deny the proposed rezoning from a agricultural district to pud At a minimum, I believe that any proposal that substantially increases residential density or introduces office or commercial uses should be carefully evaluated for compatibility with surrounding properties, traffic capacity, roadway safety, stormwater and drainage infrastructure, parking noise, lighting, privacy, and long-term character of the area.

30 seconds, Mr. Malamata. All right.

So I respectfully ask the city to protect the interest of the existing nearby homeowners, mine included, and uphold sound, consistent, and responsible land use planning by denying this zoning request.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So going through some of the concerns, traffic being one that I heard frequently. So Mustang Road's four lane, you know, although this is AA currently, it's kind of the last piece of AA. This whole area, this whole stretch here is trending commercially. If this were to not be AA, I'm sure we would come in with an R1. mirror what we have to the south and to the west and I'm fairly certain that there would be significantly more traffic if you put 6,000 square foot Lots on 13 and 0.3 acres so Office uses typically are pretty low traffic not to mention their hours of operation. They're usually not open on the weekends so that's a break that neighbors wouldn't otherwise get and So I actually think that this development kind of alleviates some of the traffic concern that that the neighbor has Regarding lighting we're gonna be meeting code. We're not gonna be able to have any lighting that Bothers any neighbors to our south. We also have that 20-foot landscape buffer along our south and And then setting precedent, I mean, again, this is kind of the last piece that's not already been zoned to a much more intense use. Again, immediately north, we've got outdoor storage and C3 uses that are permitted. And then north, kind of east of us, we've got R4, we've got O2, and we've got C3 uses. Also want to point out that typically and probably the reason why we have a recommendation of approval from staff is because o2 is Deemed compatible with residential. It's low intensity We had a straight o2 case yet that came not too long ago that was right next to our one and was Recommended for approval by staff and by Planning Commission because again, it's just it's not c3 It's not a big heavy commercial use So those those are kind of my responses to the concerns that were outlined Really think this is as compatible as we can get to make this you know a project that is feasible in the future and works for everybody

Okay. When I spoke with Councilman, or Councilman promoting him, Commissioner Meek, he, as long as we got the cap on the number of buildings, he said that he was happy with this proposal as it was. Does anyone else have any additional comments? I certainly understand the concerns from the neighbors on the O2 next to the houses, but my office is in exactly the same configuration. We back up to residential, and I find that it actually works extremely well. We never have any problems with the neighbors. They don't have any problems with us. No one's around typically on the weekends, and so I feel like of the plethora of things that can be put here, I think this is probably one of the more compatible uses, particularly in regards to intensity of something like an R4. So I think with that in mind, I'd like to make a motion to recommend PD2159 with the TEs as read into the record. to City Council. Minus the drainage thing? Minus the drainage.

Make TE1 and then modify TE2 to include in the event of redevelopment at the beginning.

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

I was going to say, I would like to say to Mr. Maldonado, it's not that we don't hear you. We do hear you. But I really believe, and I think probably most of the other commissioners would agree, that this is a better alternative. I mean, it's not going to stay a Christmas farm forever. That's just not going to happen. And, you know, the alternative to this would probably be multifamily. I think this is a much better use in terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. I wouldn't be voting for it if I thought it was gonna be bad for your neighborhood. You might not agree, but I think we're doing what we think is the best thing for you.

And I'll just add, you'd ask about you don't know who to contact to regarding a traffic light, so reach out to Oklahoma City Traffic Department and they can give you the process to request a traffic light. Okay, so we have a motion from Commissioner Newman to recommend the item for approval of the City Council, deleting TE1, amending TE2 to add the language at the front of the paragraph that says, in the event of redevelopment, amend section 9.12, and then adding TE3, the maximum number of buildings shall be shown as in exhibit B, attachment B. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your vote. And that item is recommended for approval.

Okay, now we'll go back to item 14. This is KCE 1167, application to close the right-of-way for Northwest 12th Street between Northwestern Avenue and North Chartel Avenue and a portion of intersecting right-of-way for North Ollie Avenue between, this is within the College Park addition.

Caitlin Turner, 525 Northwest 11th Street, here on behalf of the applicant. So closing application to close what's shown as Ollie going north-south, 112 going east-west. If you go to the aerial, if you don't mind, Jared. Yeah, so you can see here more clearly that Ollie does not connect anywhere going north-south. So that one, we just are seeking to clean this up. East-west, you can't see it on here, but if you go east, you get 112th Street for one block, and then it dies off. And then if you go west, obviously 112 dies off. It kind of shifts to the south and proceeds on to the west. So really cleaning this site up. It's a really old plot. And we would like to close these and allow for development in accordance with the PUD we'll see next. But again, this one's just closing. Ollie and 112, happy to answer any questions.

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

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

Anybody have any thoughts? He was asking for input from other commissioners or what they were thinking on this application. I mean, I'll go. 112th Street, not there. City's never going to build it, I don't believe. I don't think they're going to build Ollie either. I mean, I don't know how long it's been blank, but I just don't see... Or Chartel. I don't see that in any kind of public improvement happening anytime soon.

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

All right. Anybody else feel that way? I do. Okay. We can table this item and hear 16.

Okay.

Motion to table? Yeah. Motion to table. All right. Second? Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Okay. We'll hear item 16.

and speedy twenty one forty eight application to rezone one one three oh six northwestern avenue from our one okay keelan turner five to five request eleven straight on behalf of the applicant as so this is a few deal with an r two based on the district to offer a duplex development uh... we're about eight acres if you look to the south you're going to see a a little chunk of what is a multi-family style development to north we have some are too You can't if we went like a hundred feet to the west you're gonna see we have commercial along Western But then you're gonna see a ton of multifamily development We've got Chisholm Point which is actually a PUD that just came back through because we did a partial vacation of flat Consists of duplexes quad flexes, etc. There's another duplex development over there and then you also have some apartments you've got cottages of Hefner and Arden Park, so There is multifamily in this area. These are duplexes that are being proposed. It's a very unique infill project in an area that, you know, this isn't developed and there's kind of some patchy lots to our east. So I think this would be a great development for this site. We do have quite a few TEs and we do agree to some. The closing application is kind of determines whether Are going to all of them but te one we agree to t2 is to specify minimum amount of central centrally located open space So the little square that you see in the middle of our exhibit B. That's about a quarter acre It's about 3% when you take into account the front yard rear yard, etc We've got about 34% of open space. But if we're just looking at that central box for a park playground. We've got about 3% there.

But what are we going to find more somewhere? Oh, with our with our.

We did. We I didn't have the figures at that time, but 34% for because every single one of these is going to have a front yard and a backyard. So I think that that's.

The backyard's like what? 10 feet.

So you're saying, no, you didn't find any more.

You know, I don't know how much for the centrally located piece. We could discuss adding more. We're at about 140 units shown right now. I think there's some wiggle room if that is a sticking point. I do want to point out that we are agreeing to TE3 and TE4, but TE5 I think is really big. We are agreeing to pave Chartel on the east between 111th and 113th. also going to be plotting this and these are going to be public streets throughout this so those are going to be public streets yes there's there's enough right away there for public streets we've got 50 foot of right away on the street to the north and the south 26 feet for the street itself and it doesn't look like it so how close to the houses is it uh to the south

What's the offset front yard setback?

20 feet.

You can put two streets where one street was.

Say that again?

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

Didn't draw this I'm not the architect, but we did meet with Jared Martin and planning staff yesterday our client also sat down with planning staff before we submitted this pod and based on the Drawings that were prepared. We are able to fit that middle row of columns here. I

And does this have 12-foot driveways?

Yeah, we agreed to the 12-foot.

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

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

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

No. And I understand that. We are agreeing to, we have a TE that if the closing were to be approved, we would have to do sidewalk and trees along the south middle row, middle column of homes so that we do have some streetscape there. Okay. Understand that it's a small site. I understand that it's unique again. This is a site that has sat vacant for some time It is a infill development and to make this pencil. We do need the density that we're seeking again, you have the little apartments that are just south of us and you have a ton of multifamily similar style developments west of Western Avenue, so That's ultimately why we are coming forward with this proposal to make this make sense This is just the density that we were seeking

get developed out i mean this is one where i mean you're packing these in here and like i would almost rather see this as multi-family like three-story to get your density with more green space more parking or just duplexes on both sides of the road you still get a 50 increase yeah i mean that's exactly what i was thinking is the i'd rather see multi-family than this i mean this is

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

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

You want to take some time?

I was going to say, I think that given your comments, given your concerns, absolutely understand. And we hear that. We would like to go ahead and seek a continuance for this and our closing application to the 24th. We'll go sit down with our client and see how we can redraw this to still make it make sense and get that open space.

24th, does that give enough time? You've got to get stuff back in in one week.

Yeah, I think that we should be able to make that work.

Okay.

If not, we'll let staff know before the agenda. Okay.

Okay.

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

Item 16. Okay. A motion for a continuation, please. All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to continue this item to the September 24th meeting.

Oops, I didn't mean to do that.

That's fine. We're all in this together. All right, please cast your votes. Thank you all. And that is continued. Now item 14. Item 14, the motion for it continues until September the 24th. A motion from Commissioner Harrison to continue the item to the 24th. Oh, he got that? You let him have that one, huh?

Yeah. I've waited my turn.

Seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. That item is continued. Okay. Those were the last items on the agenda. Next up, we have additional items, communications report, planning commission committees. Any active committees? No? Planning commission members? Anything on my right?

I said no, but I do have something to say. I do hope we can come to an agreeable and quick solution to the issue with the drainage thing. I mean, clearly it needs to be addressed, but again, prohibiting people from taking their appeal rights is not going to do it.

Outside of an ordinance, which is going to take time, I'm not sure how...

how we get there, but... We're going to let the people who do that for a living figure it out.

Yeah, there's people who get paid to do that.

So I have thoughts on that, and I think you can ask someone to give up their rights. That's legal. But you can't force them to. And so I actually think how we handled it today is a good way to handle it. And I think there's arguments on both sides about administrative remedies being exhausted, since if it's a... spud or pud that's customized zoning, then that's technically and it reads what it reads, then that's the endpoint then you've exhausted your administrative remedies right so then you go to district court so and just because it's a case-by-case basis i think how we handled it today except people will start to know that commissioner noble is probably a no one every time we strike that but that that's my thoughts for now just as we work through it

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

It's now, Commissioner, I'm a no-bull. All right, anything else?

I have something.

Can you come to the microphone?

That was when I knew Garth Public Works was

I was saying some of those SPUD we've seen was vacant land. Now they're filling with entire concrete, multifamily. So I think we look at them case by case basis, but it cannot be waived. I think trade is requirement.

I agree. Some common sense. All right. Anything else from commissioners?

today I know everyone I was hearing before the meeting people wanted to see a presentation and so I thought when I spoke with Joanna and she said she had a presentation that would probably get you all there but I think in the future when there's this commentary portion after a TIF meeting has occurred I will probably just come prepared with like a brief description of what the TIF committee did so that might be helpful for you all before you read the or before she presents in the future.

Yeah, that'd be good.

Because I know not everyone has time for more workshops.

For sure.

Yeah, planning department. Speaking of more workshops.

We do have some study sessions coming up, so you should all have those on your calendar for the next Planning Commission meeting. We'll be ramping up those and ramping up meetings with the Policy Committee as well and just getting the code update further developed and on its way to approval someday soon. That's all I have.

Anything from the Municipal Counselor's Office? All right, I do not see any citizens, so we are adjourned. Thank you.