Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the December 11th meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission. I'd like to call us to order and start with a couple of housekeep housekeeping items. So, if you have a phone with you, please silence or turn it off. Uh, if you're here to speak on an item and are not the applicant, please fill out one of the forms available outside. Um, and provide it to Elena or Jared down here in front. When your item is heard, you'll be called to the podium. Please come up, 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 item with a large group of people, we encourage you to elect a representative to share your group's concerns, and in those instances, some additional time will be considered for the speaker. Uh where several speakers on the same item are heard, we just ask that you do your best to limit uh comments to items that we haven't heard yet. Um just to avoid extensive repetitious comments. Uh please direct all your comments and questions to the commission and if needed we'll ask uh for the applicant or staff to respond. Um finally we just want to say thank you uh for your presence today and the time that you took away from your obligations and then we just ask for your cooperation upholding the decorum of the meeting and that you don't speak from uh the audience. So thank you and with that we'll begin. Uh item two is receipt of the minutes.

Uh Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes of November 13, 2025. We have a motion to receive the minutes. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

Yay. And the minutes are received. Uh, next we have continuence requests and we'll start with uncontested requests.

Item 29, KC7761, request to defer to January 15th. Item 30, PUD 2110, defer to January 15th. Item 31, case PUD 2123, deferred to January 15th. Item 32, SPUD1 1799, deferred to January 15th. Item 33, case PUD 2121, deferred to January 29th. Item 34, case SPUD 1755, deferred to February 12th. Item 35, case PUD 21108, defer to February 26th. Item 36, case PC 10967, request to continue indefinitely. and item 37, PUD 2089 also continue indefinitely.

Okay. And I'll just check to make sure there's no one here that wishes to be heard on any of those items. All right. Seeing none, we're ready for a motion. Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve the uncontested requests as read. Have a motion to approve the new the uncontested continuous requests. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes and those are approved. Uh item B, new requests. Um I have no new requests listed.

All right. No new requests. So we'll move on to item four, public hearings and the consent docket. Uh item number one is KC7772 final plat of the canyons phase 4. This is located east of South Sarah Road and north of Southwest 59th Street. Item two is KC7773 final plat of Montage section 4. And this is located north of Southwest 44th Street and west of South Mustang Road. And item three KC774 final plat of Wilshire and Council Business Park. This is located south of West Wilshshire Boulevard and west of North Council Road. Okay. Anyone here to be heard on any of the items on the consent docket? Seeing none, we're ready for a motion.

Um, like to make a motion to approve the consent docket. A motion to approve the consent docket from Commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And the consent docket is approved. All right. Uh, items to be heard. individually. Uh we'll start with item four. Item four is case we go. Item four is KC775 preliminary plat of the corridor at Wildwood Hills located south of Northwest 63rd Street and east of North Santa Fe Avenue. Good afternoon.

Afternoon commissioners. I am Shawn McGraw, civil engineering consultant for the applicant um with Civil and Environmental Consultants 4700 Galardia Parkway. Um, thank you for your time this afternoon on this. Um, this should be a property that this body should be fairly familiar with. Um, we've gone through the PUB resoning process, a couple iterations of it with it ultimately, uh, being approved, um, in its current state this last year. Um, this is the first preliminary plat coming out of that PUD resoning um, and the single family portion of that plat. Um nothing that you see uh in front of you with this preliminary plat differs from what was anticipated in the PUD master plan. Um we've reviewed the staff comments and take no exception to the technical evaluations. Uh therefore the developers uh intent at this point in time is to develop this as a singlephase final plat upon approval here. I can stand for any questions.

Okay. Um Commissioner Harrison, this is Ward 4. I have a couple folks signed up to speak. Are you? Yeah, I'm ready. Okay, we'll hear from Victoria Hooks first.

Oh, that's W four.

Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Victoria Hooks and I am the president of the Wildwood Hills Heights uh neighborhood association and we do have some concerns about what is going on. We had questions and we tried to get in contact with our ward seven Chris Harris, but we never got a response from him. And we have questions and we have concerns and um basically that's what I'm here to say, but I have another um my vice president, she has questions and stuff, so I'm going to let her step up and get that done. Okay.

Okay. Is this Anetta? Bone Burden Ben. Ben.

Yes. Thank you for allowing us this time to bring our concerns forward. Okay. Um, we have received a lot of information at last minute. Um, and we do require some clarification. We go get my binder. My little binder deal. Okay. One of the things that we did, we looked at the PUD against, we have two different illustrations here that will tell you where the houses are to be located. In the PUD, it requires on track one that you have a 25% uh of natural space that will be left in this development. This is the final one that we received. And as you can clearly see, there's not 25% of this space allocated as indicated in PUD 20116. Also, in the information we received, there was an indication that the PUD was 2116. We're not familiar with that putt, so we don't know what's that putt is and what's included in it. Um the plans to access the development. We are very concerned with the amount of traffic that this development will bring into our neighborhood. One of the incorrect things noted in the PUD, and we don't know who we will deal with on that, is that the neighborhood agreed to have speed humps installed in our neighborhood. We absolutely did not agree with that. For a matter of fact, I spoke before the city council on January

the 28th and clearly stated as a representative of our neighborhood that we did not want speed humps and that there was no supporting information that would justify the city to approve installing speed humps on Wildwood Drive or Bran. There is no record of wrecks. there is no record of traffic um digestion that's in that area. So there is no way that we approve that and to date we do not. What we would like to see and again because we were unable to get a return call from our commissioner um our ward 7 councilman had recommended that we sit down with the civil engineers and speak to them. So if anything that I'm asking you may seem redundant or whatever is because we did not have that time prior to as we understand this development is proposed on 12 acres 25% would be three and if you have a diagram in front of you you can see that three acres has not been set aside to remain natural as far as a retention pond that would lo be located on the south east of that.

That is the north. It's over on it's a CA

CA is that is to remain natural. We have concerns as to how water would be would come in as well as how they would direct that water out. In that particular area, we have had neighbors that have already had problems when we have a vast influx of rain. And if in the planning stage we expect one thing and something else's to happen, we do not want our neighbors to be stuck with trying to get their properties repaired. and that cost go back on to them. We would like to see a reconsideration as to how they enter and exit this development. Since track two of the purchase here on 2016 will be apartments, one of the things that was indicated was that the developer was concerned and very sensitive to the intensity of traffic. Well, the way they have this set up, we have eight 42 houses, estimating two cars per house. That's 84 additional vehicles. Other than the fact that the two main streets, Wildwood Drive as well as Braniff, supports the entire south side of our neighborhood. already they have plans to develop this further. Our recommendation is they reconsider this and looking at entrance and exits off of the I44 service road.

Okay, Miss Bimber, that's that brings us to five minutes. Ma'am, can I ask you a question? Have you had an opportunity to meet with I have. We have not. As I said in in in the beginning, when I reached out to my councilman, what he recommended and he and I spoke three on three different occasions that he would reach out to our planning commissioner so that we could set up that time to meet with the civil engineers. So, you can't you can't meet with the planning commissioner on a preliminary plat. There's no communication with the public. Okay. Well, if that's the case, that's my planning commissioner's responsibility to get back with me on, sir. With all due respect, I'm sorry.

I I was just going to make that point that it the reason you probably didn't hear back from your planning commissioner is that we have been informed by our legal department that we do not have that uh authority to to meet with the public on plat preliminary or final. However, you certainly can meet with the developer and I for one would certainly recommend that that opportunity be afforded to these folks. I mean, we and they were afforded that during the PUD process. I mean, if you remember this pud, this this took months to get through. I understand that. I understand that. But

this is now a separate part of that process. Yes, the plat itself, the pud I mean itself, that's what the planning that is what we met backwards with forwards on this specific detailed information. No, sir, we did not. And so I think we should let the the applicant come up and answer the questions.

I'm I'm getting ready to request two things. Number one, I appreciate you all explaining that we can't speak when it comes to this particular matter directly to the public. I would I would like I would like for Mark if possible to address maybe a question or two that we have or be able to set up a time where this conversation could be had. But as of right now, everything stands as it's in place as it should be. and and and to your point uh and yours um as a resident in Ward 7, my responsibility is to reach out. My responsibility is to make sure that I utilize the people who have been put in place. If I'm given incorrect information, again, my councilman directed me here. If that was wrong, we still should have been contacted in some way.

Yeah, I don't think it was wrong. I don't I didn't mean to indicate that. Okay. Thank you. Mark, this is out Johnson and Associates Sheran Avenue. Our firm was not engaged on this portion of the project, but if there are questions in terms of the PUD, what was agreed to with the neighbors, I'm happy to attend a meeting or be any assistance I can be to them.

I think that would be a great idea. So, I'd like to give the applicant uh which is what CEC uh an opportunity to respond to some of the things that you heard the questions. Miss, if you could come to this other podium, Sean, thank you. Um you heard a number of of items that they're seeking clarification on. If you can uh provide any additional information on that, that'd be helpful.

Sure. Well, that was just part. So, that's because we only have a time limit. I I do believe that a meeting would be beneficial because we have way more concerns than this time. We'll get there. I just want him to respond to anything that he can right now and then we'll go from there.

Yes. Uh ma'am, so I am the civil engineer for the job. Um I hadn't heard that specific request. Um but certainly I'll give you my contact information at the conclusion of this meeting and we can certainly set up anything else. Um so I yes I was present at a lot of the a few of the community connections meeting that Mark um Zitzowl had uh referenced uh during the PUD process. Um so there was and kind of going back and and consulting with my client four to five inperson meetings another virtual meeting um and other meetings to to give feedback and certainly there was an original PUD that came forth and it was revised. The original PUD um was a multif family only type of PUD um and then this piece was kind of added to kind of transition the buffer uh in between the existing neighborhood to what will eventually be the multif family. So I think what um and we don't have any I don't have any information on the PUD 2116. I think that may be potentially a clerical error. Um okay. Um, so no speed humps uh has is going to be as a part of our our public plans that we're going to do for the public roadway on this final plat. Um, and then entrance and exits. I think that was um something that was negotiated a lot with the city staff on uh in terms of having the two entrances, two exits. Um, what is a part of the PUD is an agreement um to have the multif family be completely accessed from the I44 corridor. So it's just specifically these 42 lots. Um, what was uh eventually approved at the PUB um was almost exactly what this looks like with the exception of we have reduced from 44 lots to 44 for to 42 lots to increase the size of the detention area after we did some preliminary.

This is what was approved and if you can see there in the front you have the 20 it looks it appears to be 25% that would be left natural area. This is what you're now proposing that information and that area is no longer applicable. That's that's that's say the next thing is the the putt that was there before this one that's that's here now sir it did include individual properties as well as multif family so that was in both putts all right just okay okay thank you

so so my our question I think to you is would you be willing to to defer this and sit down with with the neighbors and and I appreciate Mr. Zitile's offer to be included in that and and meet with them and make sure that they have all the the most current information and our um you know I I will go back to our developer. I would assume that uh he's he's met with him before and we'd be happy to meet again.

Okay. Any other questions, comments from commissioners? Okay. Um and and then just to reiterate, you know, um yeah, planning commission members are not allowed to be a part of those meetings. So, uh that'll have to happen outside of any coordination with Commissioner Harrison. So, Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. Okay. Thank you. So, the January meeting, I believe, is January 15th. We want to defer this. I'd like to make a motion that we defer to the January 15th meeting. Okay. Uh to allow the community time to access a conversation with the developer.

Okay. We have a motion from Commissioner Harrison to defer the item to the January 15th meeting. Give it to me. There we go. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. And that item is deferred. Item five. Item five is a resolution of the planning commission approving the proposed 5-year capital improvement plan for FY26 through uh 2030.

Good afternoon. I'm Steve Akens from the budget office and we met back on November 14th with a study session and work session. You received your your books on the five-year proposed five-year capital plan and we're here today to seek your recommendation and approval to move it forward to council for next Tuesday and entertain any questions you may have. Anyone have any questions?

All right. We appreciated the presentation that we received uh last month and I think we're ready for a motion. I will make a motion to approve the resolution of Oklahoma and city planning commission or sorry the capital improvements plan fiscal year 2026 2030. A motion to approve the resolution from commissioner Noble. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. The resolution is approved. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Item six. Item six is uh case SP 604, application for a special permit to operate uh the automotive and equipment automobile dealerships and malls use unit in the C3 district located at 908 Southeast 44th Street. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mike Ratis, 5717 Northwest 132nd Street. We've amended our site plan and sent that back to the city. And with that, I'd open up to any further questions you may have.

Great. Uh, Commissioner Privet, this is Ward 4. Yep. Um, could you just uh go over what was changed mainly from the previous one? Yeah. The last time we were here um is when you had to step out. Um, last time we were here, we were asked to include all the additional parking spaces. And so now the parking spaces, the landscaping have all been delineated. Additionally, we've included um up front that we're going to have the five visitor parking spots, 10 additional spots there, and then the additional parking spots in the back. Okay. We have anybody signed up to speak?

I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Are we I mean I see the survey but I don't see anything that's designated as like display space or or do we have a number of how many spaces will be used for display space versus visitor parking it's it's roughly um 15 to 20 and so there's only 25 total spaces there I believe 30 actually and so we have the five delineated for visitor and then the rest will be display vehicles It's pretty small. I see it on the five. Okay.

Oh, yeah. I see it. Yeah. When I went back to Mr. D, he told me it'd be small. I I see now how small it is up there. Okay. Well, however small it is, try to squeeze in some landscaping. All right. You could use some landscaping. All right. Are we ready for a motion or any other comments?

Yeah, I got you. Little green. Oh, and then up at front up at the front, too. Okay. Um, yeah, I move to approve SP 604. Motion from Commissioner Privet to approve the special permit. recommend approval of special permit. It's been seconded by Commissioner Goine. Please cast your votes. Item recommended for approval. Thank you very much. Item seven.

This is case PUD 1418 SPO2, application for a specific plan pursuit of the approval of PUD 1418 located at 11501 Northwest Expressway. Good afternoon. Mark Grubs, 1800 South S Road. On behalf of the application, this is the application for a specific plan at 11501 Northwest Expressway. Um, it is in conformance with the PUD and we would ask for your approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Um, this is my ward. I don't I don't have any questions or comments. Uh, anything else from commissioners? All right. I think we're just ready for a motion. I will make a motion to recommend approval of PUB. It's an approval of a specific plan. Approve PUD 1418 SPO2. And I'll just note for the record that staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with PUD 1418 master design statement and the master development plan. That's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes

and that specific plan is approved. Thank you. Item eight. Item eight is SPUD 1793 application to reszone 3407 South Shields Boulevard from R1 to SPD 1793.

Mark Zitzawi Sheran Avenue. Uh before you is a case where we requesting an existing home be converted into a forplex. If you could go to the site plan. Thank you. Uh, our client has agreed to improve the alley down to the southern uh, property line of the SPD and so all the parking is behind the rear of the structure. The intent is to preserve the structure and we've maintained the existing narrow driveway out to Shields. We received no phone calls or protests. It's my understanding that maybe some folks have signed up to speak. Um, happy to hear from them, but we would ask for your approval on this application. There is a TE there are two TE's. We agree to both of them. Okay, Commissioner Goine, this is W six. And as Mr. Zitzo mentioned, I do have two folks signed up to speak.

Okay. Well, let's hear from uh the people signed up. Okay. Um is it Mandy Emerson? Marty. Okay. Is this Daryl Stevenson? Okay.

Okay. My name is Daryl Stevenson. I live at 3415 South Shields Boulevard. Um, I've lived on this block 30 years. I've owned two homes on the block. I've lived there longer than anyone. The house in question, but by the way, sorry, the house the there are three resident homeowners on this block. There are five structures. One's a long-term renter. One is the structure we're discussing. Okay. It's always been a problem. It's always been section 8, drugs, prostitution. Homeless people have burned it down once. It's always been a problem. We're talking about putting four low-income families onto 116th of an acre. Probably six to eight cars, children, pets on a 16th of an acre in the middle of a residential block. Unacceptable. That's all I have to say.

Okay. Thank you. That's a 32nd of a of of an acre for each family. All right, Mr. Zel.

Yeah. So, I mean, I think if there were concerns about the condition of the property, it being redeveloped will probably help a lot of the issues that he addressed. Um, we're happy to continue conversations through to city council, but at the end of the day, I think it's a fairly straightforward request that the staff has reviewed, found in conformance with the comprehensive plan, and ultimately recommended approval. But I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Well, um I appreciate the the concerns on the property. I mean, I I tend to agree that um someone's intends to put uh investment in the property. Um they wouldn't agree to improve the alley to Southeast 33rd if they were just going to keep it as a flop house. So, I think the best thing that can happen is that this property is developed and and managed properly. um you know there are ways of dealing with nuisance properties and illegal activities that's that's beyond the purview of of of what we're here to decide which is a a zoning request. Um so I per I believe that on Shields it's it's a very busy commercial uh street going from a single family to a quadplex is not a drastic change. Um, and retaining the existing structure is also um, preferable in my opinion than than wiping it out and um, building something that could be even larger and and more difficult to control a limited number of of tenants. So, I I'm I'm in support of the the application. Um, and that's that's my thoughts. Uh, so I'll open it up for other concerns or comments from other commissioners. Yeah, I'll comment rather than simply voting no, I'll say why first. I think it's this is as small as a residential lot gets, I think. So, while you say it's not that drastic of a change, I think it is to go to four a quadriplex.

I don't know that there is any you said it'll be developed and managed properly. I don't know that we have any assurance of that. It's an existing structure. They may just be putting more people into the same structure. Um, it's not a corner lot. If this was in a lot of other areas of the city, I would typically be against a forplex on the smallest lot that we have. So, also in this location and with the comments I heard, I think that's I don't I don't like it on this small of a lot.

The whole time that they've been building this place, we've been taking care of it for years. We mow the grass, we pick up the trash. uh when they started building on it. I now have the remains of the cement where they blocked off a wall. My uh house when I come out, all I see is a wall that's got four or five different colors. U all the windows and and are all boarded up. Um it's nothing but a drug place. uh like you said uh for prostitution and they use my bus bench for their drug action. We had one uh incident where a lady took all her clothes off and was playing with the bus bench as it was a man. Uh the police showed up and they made her put her clothes on and sent her on her way. This is what we're putting up already. You can imagine what it's going to be like if they put four families in there.

I have a question. Hold on before that, sir. Miss Emerson, I need to ask you to give your name and address for the record, please. Marty Emerson, uh 3401 South Shields Boulevard. I have a big twostory 14 room house. Okay. Thank you, Miss Emerson. Thank you very much. All right, Mr. Stevenson. My question is they've they've forged ahead on the construction of this house. It's nearly complete and now we're here asking if they can move people in. What's up with that? Why did they why did they move ahead with the building before they had permission to move people in it? Yeah, we can't answer that. We don't know. Well, we

It's like he almost knew that he was going to get permission to move people in it. Well, they shouldn't have moved forward with construction without a building permit, and they shouldn't have a building permit to uh construct something that's that's not it's not zoned for. So, I can't explain how how we got there um and don't have that background. Uh, with all due respect to the concerns, I still believe that developing the property and with the improvements that are proposed, including a full surface parking lot, off- streetet parking, and alley improvements, I do not believe that that's going to be left as a flop house and just move more people in. So, I think the best thing that can happen to reduce the nuisance and antisocial behavior that's going on is to have people living there, paying rent, and keeping their eyes on the street and patrolling their own uh homes and and living space, which is no one wants to be broken into or have crime happening outside their house, no matter what their income is. And there's no we're not basing our decisions on what people's income might be. I know Commissioner Forge expressed the concern about four units. Does anyone else share that?

And before that, maybe I'll just say I'm I'm actually with Commissioner Goen a lot. It's a duplex. I could see new new refresh and eyes and safety and whatever. It it is the the quadriplex I feel like is my problem. So, back to any other commissioners, but I'm I agree with the other comments. I I have kind of a little bit of concerns about when I first looked at this too about the density on the size of the lot. Um this is I know is a tough one for me because I also agree with redeveloping it and putting an investment in it is probably going to improve the situation from what it is now.

I would just note from a lot size standpoint this is a standard size inner city lot. This is 33 blocks south of downtown right down Shields. We're on a significant street. I mean, Shields is a major arterial. We're taking access off the back of it. If you go into Messa Park, Heritage Hills, Gatewood, Lincoln Terrace, you will find forplexes on in all of those neighborhoods on similar sized lots. We are we do not believe we are trying to do anything more dense than what historic context would typically have allowed in neighborhoods like this. And is this a two-story structure with And you're anticipating two units on the ground floor, two units on the second floor?

Yes. I I have quadplexes on similar size lots blocks from me in mixed density neighborhoods and you know the the the added bonus of this is they've solved the parking so it's not putting it on someone else's adjacent street or blocking other people's property. So when I reviewed the case I felt that that was um an important part of what helped sway me that this this is appropriate uh in my opinion. Okay,

you've swayed me. The alley makes a difference for me that uh I'm I'm barely in favor of this one. I don't love it for the small, but the comments about all the things happening there. It's uh got to be cleaned up in other ways with law enforcement and phone calls and I hope that cleans up, but barely in favor of this because the alley and the parking was resolved, but boy, this is tough. Maybe there's more quad plexes on.16 acres than I'm familiar with, but okay. Okay. Any I Ma'am No, sorry. I'm sorry. No speaking from the audience and you've had your time.

I'm prepared to make a motion. Uh I'm going to move to recommend approval of SPUD 1793. We have a motion from Commissioner Goine to recommend this item to city council for approval. That's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison or excuse me, Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. And that was subject to the TEES. Subject to the technical evaluations. Thank you. And that is recommended for approval. So it does go to city council in approximately eight weeks. So you have an opportunity to share your concerns with them at that time.

Item nine. Item nine is SPD 1613 SPO1 application for a specific plan

regarding the proposed sign package uh for the boardwalk at Bricktown located at 4 East Reno Avenue. Good afternoon, Mark Zitz, Winning Sheridan Avenue. Before you is the sign package that was submitted through a specific plan application. So, this is slightly different than a normal specific plan that you're used to seeing on the agenda. If we go back to 2024, this commission and ultimately the city council uh voted to approve the boardwalk at Bricktown SPUD within that at this body. Uh we negotiated specific signage language. We weren't quite at the point where we could pin down exactly what it what it would look like. And there was I think significant concern over signage on uh the main tower, the tallest tower. And so what the architects have done and Rob is here today and we'll walk you through the sign package uh has tailored it based on the comments and the feedback that we've heard. And so he's going to walk you through the sign package. At the end of the day, we do believe that we can form to the language that was in there. But we did give specific approval to this body to review it and ultimately approve it before we can move forward. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Rob and let him walk you through this package.

Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. Rob Bedetti with AO Architects. Um, I'm happy to walk you through page by page. I don't know how you'd like for me to present it because it is 70 pages. I believe the task at hand from the previous hearing I think you was um you there was an approval of um I think it was I have it on the last page about 450,000 square feet of total signage on the in the development. And the way that the approval read is um no more than that. Um we've come back, we've removed the signs off the off the I'll just call it the super tall tower. Um there will be a lighting um element to it similar to Devon Tower, a couple others, but we removed everything um from there and we're at about 70% uh our proposal is is about 70% of what was approved in terms of total total area and um the way that and the other op the other um request was you know to work with staff um to kind of develop this and so we've presented this to staff, walked them through it, and picked up additional corrections and and that's where we are today. So, I'm happy to walk you through the the whole thing or or if you have questions. I don't know how best to present just because of the the length of the document.

Can I recommend that you you skim through very quickly on all the similar all the pages that are basically the same? It's a building identification sign. I you you you may have answered my question, but I mean this the signage on the towers in the package I have. So I was a little that was my one main issue I was confused about. That's not still in the new I think that that was attached as what was approved. That was those were the two pages that were from last uh or the June before last, I believe. Okay. And so those are completely out of this sign package that's in front of you today. Okay.

So the only signs on the super tall tower are tower identity signs. So, uh, you know, the current name is Legends Tower. So, that sign would be on there. If a hotel goes on there, you know, we and basically the way this is written is to allow flexibility with guard guide rails so that as it comes back to staff, they have a way to approve it. So, it actually is probably more signage than will ever exist on there, but we don't know where it's going to be. Yeah. So, we've set height limits, width limits, and that and with that, it creates a large area, but but every sign will not be filling the maximum height width that that's allowed just from a aesthetic um approach. You guys want to hear should we do a quick

And for me, I just wanted a number too. Is it is the 90,000 square foot kind of the number? the uh if you go to the last page in in the um in in this we can just kind of walk through high level. Um yeah it's like 70 page 77 or it just summarizes uh the the various sign types total areas and then what was in the original um SPED. That's too far. Yeah. All right, one one more up, I believe. So, here's an overall summary of the the various signs. We we've broken it down into, like I said, monument sign and the external way finding, which is, you know, ground sign that calls it, you know, Boardwalk at Bricktown, that kind of stuff, you know, parking entrances and and those types. So, the first section addresses those type of signs. Uh, the next section is the is the tower identity sides. Like I said, with the height, I mean, some of these signs are 50 feet tall or 30 feet tall, so they seem huge, but they're 300 feet in the air, so it's it's a scale issue relative to the building, so that they're readable from the ground. Um, and then we break down uh the next sections are the actual tenant signage uh whether it's a hotel, a retailer, a restaurant uh which limits the the the um size and scale of those and those are much smaller. I think the maximum height uh in those areas are 5 feet. And then there's a section um where we go through and and just def define all the signage types that are allowed, not allowed um similar to the the um sign program you guys have at the city today. And then I I think the last piece which is you know the largest area you know almost a third of the area is the um LED

signage that's um um designed from the podium down which is about 80 ft tall. Um the first three levels of this project are uh retail uh mixed use part of the hotel uses. The next um the next five to seven are um parking levels. So really the LED signage is is helping you know create a sense of place but also to help screen the parking levels of the building and then from there the real um buildings start all the towers start. So the first 80 to 90 ft is retail base and um you know anywhere from five to eight levels of parking I believe. Well, I'm not sure what who else has concerns, but I I think it would be helpful to see some of the the key images that that to put the

sure to so we can you can talk to an actual something that we're looking at that shows what you're saying. The one thing I'm assuming it's the LED piece of it or the rest are regular signs. So, let me just let me Sorry. I'm interested in you explaining how the 90,000 square feet of the tower identity signage can be used. I know it's flexible, but like that's that's the concern. How it's too flexible. That's I think that's the second section, but but and then others might have questions about the the LED and the base and the podium, but I'm I'm personally you said it was removed, but you still have 90,000 ft to play with. So,

I want to know more about If you go to the you'll see on the elevations there they're basically four signs word signs like legends tower uh you know one time they were thinking of a you know called a Hyatt condos at Hyatt or residences at Hyatt those type of signs. So no LED signs. Walk us through page by page. Let's look at what you're talking about. Go to the next page if you don't mind. Let's start with Am I missing it? The very first page which is the most unusual one. We're supposed to disregard page the first page. Those are the those are what you approve or what was approved 18 months ago when we weren't talking about signs when we were talking about a building or something.

No, you were talking about signs, but there there was not enough information. So, it was that basically it was the the the vote was to have us work with staff with the guidelines that were not to exceed what was in the original S spud application, which was 400 and 430,000 square feet of total signage. So those images were included in the SPUD to provide a an absolute cap on what would be permitted, which is why they're in your packet because they're part of the original SPUD.

So the approval, the package that's being approved starts with our very first page uh of the sign. So those two pages were for reference um because they are the original submitt from a year and a half or two almost two years ago. So yeah, if you want to this this is fine. You can start with here. So this identifies uh the the the various faces that a sign could be. So you could see on the super tall tower, they could have a sign on all four sides. Uh the two residential towers in the upper left um we only have on three sides because the the other sides are blocked by other buildings. So it just doesn't make sense to put a sign there. And then the upper right is the hotel tower. And same uh it could have signs on all four sides. We're not sure what they want. So like I said, this really is requesting um flexibility where they want to sign with with with guard rails on the maximum it can be. If you go to the next page, uh this is this is the areas of them. But if if you go to the elevation, I think it will help these. Okay.

So, you can see that that we've identified where the signs actually physically would be and the size of them. And and they're all, like I said, they're they're letter signs, um not LED signs. And so, they're um you know, internally lit um building signs like you see. Uh to be clear that is specified that these are not LEDs.

Yes. If you go up uh it t it talks about the so it says you know the um well we could well I guess it doesn't say that specifically but that we could add that to it that they're not LED signs. They're they're signs. It used to say Legends Tower. Um like I said at one point we were looking at uh residence by Hayyatt. And so, you know, we had some names on the original package, but what they say is not as much of a concern to me as how they say it. Well, and I want to make sure that we're using correct terminologies because LED is a type of light which the the bulbs the lamps can be LED. That light are you referring to video? EMD is I think you're talking about EMD.

So, yeah. You're saying they're like a static channel letter. Yes. So, they're a static sign as Yes. Okay. And yes, I think that needs to be specified. Yes, we can clarify that.

And it may further down when we get to the section. Um I I'll I'll look while while we're going through questions. But it basically, like I said, it's it's really to identify that's why you see the the the signage. You know, it's the lettering is really the intent is is to identify, you know, Dream Hotel or Legends Tower, Ruby Tower, that type of stuff. not not the EMDs. And so we could we could specify that in this package if it's not already. Like I said, I I I I think it may be covered in another area. Can everybody nod? So he he realizes that we all think that that's a good idea.

Yeah, I I agree that's I'm fine with that. It may be in here. I'm just I have to go check it. I I appreciate that. What we're hearing is that this is proposing the locations of the signs, but the note on the page also says final location to be determined later. So, general placement, I guess we can say within the purple is the general, but not outside of the purple. I think what what it is is um you know, well, the size, but maybe like especially on the super tall tower, maybe it comes down a few floors, up a few floors, but it's generally at the top of the tower and then one midspan. So, we haven't identified, you know, like floor 40. Yeah.

Is the sign. Um, part of it is the, you know, we're trying to give some flexibility with the tenants, you know, or the the user that comes in and says, I I need a sign here. I don't want to sign here. And so this really is, like I said, it's it may look a little overreaching, but we're we're trying to put something in place that gives you guys the ability to judge um what's going on, but the tenants ability to get a sign where they think it's important, you know, for the success of of their brand or their, you know, their service.

So, can let's take a pause right there just for a moment. do um and and I'll I'll say this and then I'll get it out of the way. I I'm not sure that we made the best decision about how to go about this process of approval. This this specific plan process puts us in this situation where we're here, the lights are on, people are sitting on those hard benches waiting for their cases to be called. And you know, we're having to go through a lot of technical detail. This is a lot of information even though all of us I'm sure were up late last night going through it. I know I was um to have to digest and and talk about and negotiate around this horseshoe. So moving forward maybe we find a different way to do that but the question most relevant now or maybe not. You don't think so?

The only reason why I was kind of saying no is because this would then come to the board of adjustment. No, for five people to try to deal with that's not what I mean. I think it's better here. But but the question is whether uh even now with this particular application whether it's too soon. I mean, we're we're having to approve a pretty big envelope in order to provide them with enough flexibility to go lure tenants.

And and it's hard for them, and I'm not faulting you for it, to say with any specificity at this point in the process what they're really going to want or need, but but nonetheless, one of the things I want and need is our approval for a pretty big envelope. And that makes me very uncomfortable.

I agree that that and I haven't missed that many planning commission meetings in the last few years, but the when this was approved was one that I wasn't here for and and I I deeply regret that. But um but not that I don't support the the development, but yeah, you this it's a specific plan, but it lacks spec specity specivity. It does. Um, and that is a concern is is so why even come back now that because you still don't know that much. So what is it that is why is this approval needed today when the tenants are still trying to figure out who's operating? Why doesn't it say Omni Hotel or Crown Plaza?

Sure. Because those that's part of the negotiations and that's why we're trying to get it approved now so that we can go when they negotiate and say you're going to be allowed to get the signage you would like. You know, signage is very important, especially on the retail level and the hotels, you know, less on I mean on the residential towers. It just has the name of the tower. Um, but it's very important part of uh the leasing process and the deals that knowing how they're going to get to, you know, brand their their hotel in this development and and it's it's a very important component to the deals quite frankly.

And that I mean that makes sense. I understand that logic with regard to the podium, the lowrise, the commercial, the parking, you know, the tower identities. Some of the the my concern is that we're we're basically appro if people are only leasing because they can get a giant billboard on the tall this the super tall tower. We're approving billboards. We're not really that's not a building signage thing. And the the flexibility is making me a little uneasy that

well the flexibility like I said I'm happy to write in there that these are signs that no electronic boards these cannot be electronic signs. These are physicalbuilt metal channel lit signs like you see on the the other highrises in the area. And so I'm happy to to do that. There is no intent that these are LED signs. the LED signage or the EMD signs really the last section which was as I mentioned the podium down similar to um you know the signs that they're they're going to be putting on the arena or the multi-purpose arena uh that kind of LED graphics uh it's it's really just you know kind of creating a sense of place in the community that's maybe a little different.

I would just also note that the SPUD does not allow billboards. It's it's noted specifically in there. So none of the signage on here can be an off- premise sign. Yeah, that that Yeah, but it's it's brand advertising, but yes, they are also tenants. But yeah, I mean I appreciate all that and I appreciate what the development is trying to do and it's it's a whole it's a new district um that's emerging with with the stadium and riverport and you know so it's not that I'm not in support of it but I I just I think we need to be be cautious on um you know what what's happening.

Just as an aside this is written very much the way your sign code is today. It's very prescriptive so that you can only go so wide, so high, certain areas. And so it's written the same way. It's just I mean obviously different language, but it's similar to your code today because it has to be um it's it's not vague. It's just like you said there's there there are guardrails. You know, a retailer cannot be more than 5t tall and 80% of his facade. So if he has 20 feet facade, he gets a 16 foot wide sign. No more than 5t tall. So, it's it it's very prescriptive when you boil it down. We're we're responsible to um try to guess where they want signs and and put that into a package um that we can get approved so that you guys have the guard rails in place to judge submittals against really. And so, it's written very much like your sign code is today. Like I said, different obviously different areas. Your sign code is is different. Um but but it it's it's as it's as vague as your sign code in terms of vaguess.

Uh Mr. Chair, um question of the I don't think I'm comfortable with this yet either. It's uh similar what our what these commissioners have mentioned.

That's half of it. It well the first half is sort of some of the uncertainty that you keep talking about and saying final location to be determined later and and it it doesn't feel good yet. Second, first time I've said this, I've been on the commission a while, but feel like we give recommendations to city council a lot. This is not going to city council. I don't think this is final with us. It's the first time I felt I would like a recommendation from the city council or feedback from the city council, from the mayor, from the city, from citizens. I don't feel comfortable that this feels like a big enough one. This is really a big deal for the city of Oklahoma City. And right now, I'm not ready to say yes to this now and live with it. We never do that. The city council does not give us recommendations, but some sort of feedback.

They hear from citizens a lot, and I I I need more information before I'm comfortable with what I'm seeing here. Well, it is a downtown design committee jurisdiction, right? No. So, what I would say though is city council when they approved the spud, that was them giving you the authority and approval to review this application. It won't go back to them. You are final say in this regard with it being in an SPUD. We are not within the downtown design review or Brooktown review districts. This is in its own SPUD.

You know what I'd hope to get out of this today? I echo a lot of your thoughts. um was to really get a better understanding of this and then potentially um move it down the road a little way so that we have a time to discuss it and think about it a little bit more because uh this is going to be a huge uh impact on Oklahoma City and something that we've never seen before and I think it is a major decision um just from the way it's going to change the skyline. What what I don't

what I'm not necessarily comfortable with is proving it all at once. Much like we saw on other developments, we would get a specific plan for each kind of retailer. Um, so I almost think approaching this as more of a phase and I don't know if you break it up into the specific sign types or if you break it up into the buildings or what, but I almost want to see this incrementally phased. You mean maybe for example the two big differences are the base, what's going on at the base versus what's going on here at the top that can be seen from 20 miles away. Mhm. Yeah,

it's Yeah, I mean that's a complicated way, but it's a way.

It's going to it's going to require a lot of time and but that's probably warranted. I mean, let me give an example. Say we don't know who's coming into this. say uh you know uh I don't I won't pick a company but you know Jim Bob's you know sports gambling uh website wants to rent an office floor so they can get a giant bet online online gambling you know so do is the city want to have a big online gambling sign on the side of our building that can be seen from Shaune you know and so that like that makes me nervous so it's if it's a a hotel you know we understand certain brands we understand buildings have to have signage. Um, but like who's in the building? It could be any tenant. Any tenant could take

Just to be clear, any sign that could have something like that is limited to I'm going to say about 80 ft. I don't remember the exact number, but basically it's the podium down. So, all signage um that could have a sign for, you know, is is um it would be below the are like on an LED screen or EMD screen. So, and every sign that comes in has to get approved through you guys. So, you're not approving signs. That's where I was going with this. This a principle. This is a framework. And then when the spec, you will have many more specific plan submissions that show, okay, now it's going to be uh Walmart.

So, let's call it Dream Hotel is one of the thought hotels, right? So, however, I don't know we're gonna have the right to deny a gambling site. And I I you say we'll have another look at it. I have a feeling we could be challenged if we're saying no, we don't like g we're good with a pot store advertising up there, but not a gambling store. I don't know that we really will have that authority. Yeah, I guess I'm authority advertising. I guess

you wouldn't have authority over the tenant. You'd have authority over the area. And so I I think maybe where we were headed was this is our sign code that we are attempting to go by. And if it's the will of the commission to bring the final signage back when we submit it, that's fine. But I think at the end of the day, what the design team is needing is to know what the parameters are. And that's the intent of this package is to act as the sign code that is reviewed when an individual tenant comes before you.

And my comments, I'll just be clear about this. We're not intended to stop this discussion. We definitely need to keep going here in my view, but I'm not sure we're going to reach a final decision today. So, knowing that, I think we should keep going. Keep going. In which direction? Yeah. Well, we weren't we going page by page? In an overview? Sure. We can hear more. Um, absolutely. That might make sense. Maybe not. You You've been a little wordy. maybe get through it a little quicker. Uh,

no specific signs and to Commissioner Powers and and others, I I just I I was

I agree with uh Mr. Zitzau's statement of they the design team needs a framework to work within and they have to keep moving. There's a lot of moving pieces. There's a lot of people that work on these projects and they have to have confidence that they can propose ideas to a lot of different potential tenants. So, I do appreciate the need to give them some of a steer that helps keep things moving as long as I think we have that the guardrails are there in some uh meaningful way that you can still push back on things that that we don't agree with later if if that were to occur. So, is it possible maybe what makes sense as we move this to the end of the docket, let everyone get through, we can get together, note the slides that we're specifically going to talk about so we can keep it short, succinct, to the point, take your feedback, and see where we're at at the end of the meeting. That way, we're not in the middle of

not just for the rest of the audience, but so that you'll be able to flip through it quicker. Images are good. Um, and numbers, and a lot of them are blowups of it, so I think we can get through the sections reasonably quick. The rest is just it's such a big project you have to break it up. Let's do that. Do we need a motion to do it? If so, I'll make we we can we don't I don't think we need a motion. We can just move it. So, we'll just we'll just move this to the end of the docket and we'll move on to item 10. Thank you.

Item 10 is SPOD 1797, application to reszone 801 Northwest 69th Street from R1 and I2. We have an applicant present. Yeah, he's in the back.

He thought he had more time.

Sorry. 1800 South S Mark Grubs, 1800 South Sarah Road. On behalf of the application, uh this is a spud um that it's an I1 spud. property is currently zoned I2 and R1. Um, two separate pieces of property. We've joined it into one zoning and um, it's between 69th and and 70th on the west side of Chartell. Uh, we are asking for I1 base zoning in the spud for um, for a small office development consistent with what is happening in the area. Um, we agree with the TE's be happy to answer any questions, ask for your approval.

All right, Commissioner Powers, this is W 2. You want to lead the discussion?

Um, sure. Those of you who've been through this process with me a few times will remember that this is just a crazy area over here. It's got everything from, as you can see, I2 to current and uh ongoing uh residential development, both single family, multifamily. I mean, there's just everything in the world going on over here. This this corner of it, this norththeast corner of it is is, you know, firmly industrial. There's no question about that in my mind. So, um, and it's already zoned. I, too. So, just the fact that it's backing off of that, you know, already recommends it favorably to me. Um, I when I went and looked at it, you know, there there are some things I, you know, commentary I could make about what I'd like to see out there, but why wouldn't we? Is there anybody signed up to speak?

I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Do my fellow commissioners have any comments, concerns, questions? If not, I'm going to move approval for item number 10, SPD 1797. A motion to recommend to city council from Commissioner Powers. Oh, sorry. Here it's been seconded by Commissioner LeForge. Please cast your votes. That items unanimously. You recommended to council. Item 11. Item 11 is SPUD 1801 application to reszone 7225 North Class Boulevard from IT.

Mark Grubs. Uh on behalf of the application, this is a currently um an I2 spud on the west side of class and um between 71st and 72nd. Um it was brought to my attention yesterday by Miss Powers. Um that there was a little bit of confusion. We originally came in at I2. Uh staff requested that we back it off to I1. We thought there was some signage issues because we thought the existing billboard was still on the property. Um, found out Miss Powers was confused because there was no billboard on the property. So, I called my client. Evidently, they took that down and no longer need that. I agreed uh yesterday that we would back this down to an I1 spud. Um, so I guess that would just need to be a TE. We agree with all the other TE's and would ask for your approval.

Um, any any other questions or com? I know one of the things I had is I'd like to see the building's front class and then have the parking behind, but they're going to move that way. I didn't revise the I didn't revise the spud exhibit because it's just an exhibit, but Okay. I can tell you that um the uh property on the south is already for contract. They've already drawn the building in. It's already moved forward to the to the east and the and the parking is moving uh behind the building as we speak. So, great.

And I mean and we agreed to the the comment that uh to reduce the setback if the buildings were pushed out. So, Okay. Great. Anything else? I agree with that comment. Awesome. Is is there any I2 uses we need to look out for? Remove or is that just automatic? It's automatic. It's for adding a TE to make it based off of I think they had already done that. The only they had already gone through with staff and and backed it down. Am I right about that, Sarah? So, you know, I Yeah, I don't think there are any any more that we need to look at here. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, okay. Anybody signed up to speak?

No. Um, if any comments or questions for my fellow commissioners other than those I've heard. No. Okay. Then I'm going to move approval. Item number 11, SPD1801, uh, reducing the base zoning district from I2 down to I1. And, um, we're going to add a TE that the parking will all go on the west. Um, I prefer not to, but I think it's going to develop that way. It's currently drawn that way. I just I I wouldn't want to hamstring them, but

and I haven't discussed that and I haven't discussed that with them, but we've already received drawings from the architect, building footprints, and revised it for that southern portion. And that would be the only way to really develop the rest of it once that does that. So, well, so we're going to add a TE and you can fight your way out of it between now and city council if your client doesn't like it. How about that? Okay, that'll be that'll be fine. Okay, that's my motion. All right. So, we have a motion to recommend approval the item to city council subject to the technical evaluation that the parking will be developed on the west side of the property

and backing it down from I2 to I1. And backing it down from I2 to I1. Okay. That's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. And that is unanimously recommended to city council. Item 12. Item 12 is case SPUD 1795, application to reszone 5513 South Independence Avenue from SPUD 1346, PUD 562 and AE2.

Uh, yes, I'm Chuck Tyel with SRB Engineering, uh, 100 Northeast Fifth Street, Oklahoma City. And um yeah, we just want to reszone this to a spud so we can have just a parking lot there because the original PUD didn't allow standalone parking and this is overflow parking for the St. Andrew Church across the street. So um we'll be available for any questions. Okay, Commissioner Goine, this is W six. I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Uh I don't have any issues with with this. Um it's a a parking lot and a community garden. No other uses are proposed or requested. Um they'll provide new sidewalks on South Independence A. Um setbacks, lighting, parking, drainage are all per code and in line with city standards. So um I'm in support of the case. Any questions? I I just had one. I mean, looking at this that the drive is kind of offset from the from the drive across the street, and I wonder if anyone agrees that it they should be aligned.

There's a large electrical box right there to prevent us from aligning it there. Right on the south side of of our proposed drive, there's a large electrical box right there. Kind of an obstruction. Okay. It is more of a neighborhood street with, you know, it ends at Southwest 59th. So, I I'm not a traffic engineer, but I'm I'm speculating that maybe it's not as bad of an issue with the alignment in this particular arrangement.

It's it's not a deal breakaker. Um, just be it'd be nice if it could happen, but if there's if there's existing utilities in place to prevent it, that's fine, too. Right. Anything else? I'm going to move to recommend approval of SPUD 1795 TE with sorry including the uh the TE number one. Yeah, we agree with that TE. Yes.

All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Go to recommend the item city council that's been seconded subject to the technical evaluation that's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes. That item is recommended unanimously. All right. Item 13. Item 13 is case PC 10992 application to reszone 13201 Northwest Expressway from RA to C3.

Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of the applicant. Uh the application before you is for a C3 application along Northwest Expressway. When this neighborhood was platted many, many years ago, they actually called out this frontage piece as being retained for commercial. Obviously, it was never zoned that way, but we're coming in now for that. Along Northwest Highway, we believe C3 to be appropriate. Uh staff does suggest that we modify to C1. We cannot agree to that, but what we could agree to is that the back uh 50 ft would be modified to C1 to allow for what we think the mo more intense and more appropriate uses along Northwest Highway to remain C3. So, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. This is my ward. I've got three folks signed up to speak. You want to hear from them first? Okay. All right. Um, first we'll start with Donna Burn. All right. Good afternoon, Miss Burn. nurse.

My name is Donna Burn and I am the trustee of my mother's trust, Katherine Oella Napa, and we've owned the property right adjacent to uh the property that we're talking about today. And we've owned it since the 1970s. And my concern today, sir, is I would like to ask for denial. I'm concerned about C3 being such a high intensity type of arrangement that there could possibly be some water erosion coming into my property. Also, C3 would be like a marijuana shop, liquor stores, and you can see how many homes and things back up to this property. And so, my uh I'm asking today either for a denial or a contingent, a contingency. No, excuse me. Uh, I lost my word. A continuence so that we can do a water study to make sure that this property would not be uh posing a risk to my property in fact of erosion and water water runoff. So, I appreciate your thoughts today. Thank you.

All right. Um, so we'll I'm going to we'll continue with comments, but I am going to ask uh someone from our public works department to come up at the end of the comments and address drainage and what the requirements are. That's correct. Yes. Okay. Because nothing as far as I know or been notified of, there's not been any kind of study to that effect.

All right. Thank you, Miss Burn. Thank you, uh, Eric Bell. Good afternoon. My name is Eric Bell. I uh own the property due south of this proposed development. And uh my thoughts are that a blanket C3 zoning is inappropriate. This should be looked at as a PUD. Uh so we would have some idea what we would be faced with as neighbors uh in this area. Uh we have no idea there could be many uses, you know, with the commercial zoning and uh the uh kind of concerned about traffic uh maybe any signage that would be there and also uh diminishing of value of the property and that was my comments.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Dwight Miller. Good afternoon. I'm Dwight Miller. I reside at 13244 Northwest Expressway. Uh the uh house uh just uh a little bit south and west of Eric, the gentleman who just spoke. And I am across the street to the south from you. I would think uh I too have all the same concerns that they do. Uh I think a PUB uh to take a a more serious look at this. Uh the the location they're proposing there. I get it that, you know, we all want the best we can for our property. Uh if we're selling it, we want the most we can get out of it, yada yada. But I I have some very serious concerns. uh particularly the traffic that particular intersection at Chapel Road. Uh currently uh to get to my home, you've got to make a U-turn at Chapel Road if you're coming from the east to the west. Uh the people coming off of Chapel Road to the north have to cross there. That intersection is quite frankly, in my opinion, a very dangerous intersection because it lies just a few feet below the crest of a hill. That hill being to the west maybe 15 or 20 feet, just enough that when you pull into a turn lane or when you pull onto the expressway to go any direction from the north or otherwise, you can't see what's coming over the road from the west. Uh there's a lot of traffic there. A lot of traffic coming the west into town, coming from the east going out. uh

the the roads are marked properly as far as the I'm sure the the distances you know because there are distances you're supposed to have between uh the 65 mph sign and when it transitions to a 55 etc and the other and they are well marked but the fact of the matter is because of where they are and that ill it makes for an extremely dangerous intersection. So, that's probably one of my biggest concerns. Uh, property value. I've lived in that neighborhood for 30 years. I do live on the south side there. You know, we we have some nice homes. We all live on acreages over there. Uh, there's a reason we do that. We want it out of the big city where it's a little quieter. Uh, I'm concerned about the possibility of light pollution. Uh, we've got a lot more now than what we used to have just a couple three, four, five years ago. Uh if we have commercial entities, regardless of what they are, that's going to change, too. Uh so, yeah, I've got concerns. Um with it being what it reads to me very open-ended, all the possibilities going from a rural and a residential to a C3. And we have no idea. Nothing's ever been said that I saw or read as to what the real proposal is. Do we actually have a proposal of what's going to be going in there?

What type of businesses, etc.? I think I think in this application, they're just designating the land use right now. So, there's no specific. So, yeah, we don't have agreed. It's just very general. And so, I guess I personally would like to see something a little more focused. Okay. to give us an idea what may be coming to our neighborhood. Okay. So, that being said, thank you very much for your time and have a great day. Thank you, Mr. Miller. All right. And then last, I have Matt Collins.

Good afternoon, Matt Collins, 14425 Chapel Drive. Uh my family and uh and I reside. They're just to the west of the subject parcel. I have four daughters who are virtually constantly running these roads in this neighborhood and and uh my neighbors expressed the concerns quite eloquently. So I will not try to repeat most of those. Um but first and foremost, we'd like an opportunity to meet with the um the the applicant and the applicant's council to figure out what's actually being proposed here. Absent that opportunity, it's virtually impossible to figure out what what concerns we're actually trying to mitigate. Um, we simply don't know how the property is going to be utilized. Um, the C1 offering, even if that was in on the entirety of the property, would be concerning to us. Um, C1 in and of itself still could allow from a conditional use standpoint marijuana shops, towers, gas sales. Permitted uses in C1 include alcohol retail sales, animal sales and services, convenience stores, restaurants, food and beverage retail, repair services. Many, if not all of these would simply be inappropriate in this location. um that is the consequence of straight line zoning and that's why we saw back in 2023 not very long ago um the property I mean not immediately to the east of this but I believe two over from it there adjacent to Northwood Drive um got reszoned in a PUD well that was restricted to 10 uses this is in your staff report um restricted to 10 uses and I understand that there were other mitigation measur measures that were agreed to in that PUD. There's already a path forward here. It may not have been perfect, but I don't

understand why we're trying to recreate that path. It worked there, and I would hope that we could have a constructive conversation about that working here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Collins. Uh, I'm going to ask Barry Lodge with public works to come up and specifically to address Miss Burns question about drainage. Barry, if you could tell us basically the role of development services and what the applicant and the applicant's uh design consultant, what they have to do uh in terms of um drainage and studies uh when it comes to developing a site, what city requires?

Yep. Very large public works. So at at this point in the in the development process, we normally do not see any type of drainage studies, detention calculations, storm sewer design that will that comes at the stage when they're submitting for their building permits or if they do come in with a plat that design information would be submitted with the plat. So with it with this going coming in as potentially a commercial property, whether it's developed from my standpoint as straight zoning or as under a PUB or SPUD isn't going to change the the drainage requirements for the site. They regardless of how the zoning is set up, they will still have to comply with chapter 16 of our municipal code and the drainage criteria manual. One of those requirements is that all of the new developments will be required to do on-site storm water detention. So that they will have to uh comply with that portion. Um they also have to meet the storm water quality requirements when they when they go through the development as well. So they'll they'll be addressing the erosion sediment control potential of the site as well as the the drainage and the runoff. Um as far as going through the development services part of it, their their responsibility of course building permits go through them. They submit those to public works for us to review those sites and make our comments and requirements as far as the the drainage and those aspects are concerned. One of the other things that we'll look at uh will be driveway locations and and that kind of thing that that would be submitted again as part of their building permit package uh that that would be submitted.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Box.

Yeah. So, real quick, I do think it's worth noting that and staff points this out on your on page seven of your staff report. staff says the site lies within a recorded plat that identifies both the application site and the land to the east as areas commercial development. So of course we we didn't have a community meeting because we didn't know until today that there was anybody. I find it a bit disingenuous that assistant municipal counselor Collins said we would have liked the opportunity to speak when of course I talked to his office almost on a daily basis. He knows who the applicant was. He could have reached out and didn't do so. This is Northwest Highway. Of course, there's traffic. That's why it's a divided highway with a median. It's expected and designed to carry significant traffic. That's why, of course, when it was originally platted, it was designated as commercial. Why the original developer didn't come in with zoning to match that, I don't know. But I find it hard to believe that commercial zoning along Northwest Expressway, even at the level of C3, is not appropriate. We've agreed to back off the the north 50 ft to allow for C1, which is considered, I think, neighborhood commercial, which is very low intensity compared to C3. We think that gets us what we need to do to be able to move forward.

Would you be willing to reconsider a PUD on this? No, we don't think it's necessary. If if C3 zoning along what once was and perhaps at this portion still is a state highway, well, where in the world would C3 be appropriate? I I don't disagree with you. This is a commercial corridor, but at the same time, there are neighborhoods that abut this and they have a right to be protected from development um in some way and the and a PUD is is the mechanism that we have to do that. So I feel I would feel much more comfortable um with this um going through the PUD process.

We think the C1 on the north 50 ft accomplishes the same goal. I I think the PUB gives us a few more arrows in the quiver to address the neighbors concerns. At this time my client's not willing to do a PUD. Okay. Again, it's a state highway.

So, I you will not be surprised to hear me suggest that you take some time and go meet with the neighbors. Perhaps you can alleviate their concerns. Perhaps your client will um see that in the face of their concerns, a PUB is not as objectionable as he otherwise might think. I was I was going to ask as as I agree with Commissioner Powers. I was going to ask on it's hard to get a sense of the scale. How deep is this whole lot? Is it about 500 ft? 400 ft. 400

400. Okay. So 50 feet. There's a strip at the bat. So yeah. Okay. I'm I'm just not sure what the 50 foot of C1 I mean it's it's something. I appreciate that you're you're offering that, but you you're not willing to do all C1 for the TE.

No, I I don't think it would be appropriate. Like this is an area of Oklahoma City where we should try to put intense uses that would generate significant and meaningful sales tax. So putting C1, if you look at where C1 exists in the city, it's in neighborhood pockets that aren't arterial streets. It is neighborhood commercial. The plaza. The plaza is a place where you'd expect to see C1, small, light commercial that intends to serve the area around it. This is a state highway with a divided median. This is not where C1 would be expected to be appropriate. I agree. I mean, C1, you walk to C1. Yeah, that's fair. I mean, there's limited parking. You walk, you're not walking here.

Is, you know, under the illusion that this is not going to develop commercially. It's going to be commercial. But I think you're, you know, we're a long way from straight C3 is perfectly appropriate with 50 feet of C1 across the north to um, you know, nothing. I I I I think just speaking for myself that a PUD would be appropriate.

Yeah, it we just we're not we can't agree to that. I mean the the question as to what does the C1 do on the the 50 ft those C3 uses that are much more intense than C1 uh are forced now to that frontage along the Northwest Expressway right so the intense uses you couldn't have half a building where like the north half is this light you know light commercial and the south half is heavy so what it really does is any of the uses that are going to be up against the neighbors are the uses that you would expect to walk to the light commercial uses.

But but I mean 50 ft's not really I mean that's just going to be your service bays behind the C3 basically. I mean that you're not developing meaningful C1 in that 50 ft if you got C3 in front of it on Northwest Expressway. But I I I don't I'm I'm but I also accept the point that C3 is appropriate here. So there's a blue line stream. There's there's tree cover and drainage concerns that have been raised and those kinds of things can be discussed in a in a PUB. How far is this from the nearest ENQ? From the what? Nearest ENQ. ENQ. Seven miles. I don't cemetery. I don't keep a very ENQ like I think it's too

miles to the three or four miles to the east. I I got it's probably seven miles away. One of the questions I had and I guess I misunderstood on when you were saying cuz this doesn't run straight east and west. It's on a it's on an angle. And when you spoke about the 50 ft being down zone to C1, I thought you meant where it abuts Chapel Drive. We mean that that it butts those homes.

I understand. But what I guess one of my request is and the second part of my comment is I kind of see if it was a pud that you know in puds we talk about fencing. They all have their fencing up. It's existing. We would be able to talk about some setbacks and we would be able to talk about driveway uh number of access points and and possibly where they'd be. That's about it. That's all we could really argue about on this. But one of my concerns is whichever way this goes is that we protect the uh northwest 50 ft also where it abuts Chapel.

Sure. So what do what if we do this? What if we do 50 ft and I get it? It's at an angle but the the 50 ft abuing Chapel Drive C1 and the 100 ft abuing those homes along what would be the northnortheast as C1. So you've got 100 feet on the the north and 50 ft on the west. We've now fully buffered any abuing single family home. I think it's a great idea and it kind of feels like a pud now. Well, I mean that that it achieves the intent, you know, really and and I agree that the the chapel drive buffering that is is is is a better achieve. Yeah, that's

definitely But I still think PUD in this spot would would make the surrounding residents feel a lot better about it. We could dictate what was happening on the fencing, the setbacks, it's just I know it's hard. Yep. First off, staff actually recommends to maybe move this to a PUD and they don't regularly do that. No, they they recommended C1. The planning commissioners may prefer a PUD at this site due to its proximity to residentials in the

Oh, yeah. It's just not the recommendation. Yeah. No, but I mean a suggestion maybe. Yeah. So, we can do 100 on the north and 50 on the west of C1. I get I I get the sense that the majority want to see this as a PUD. So I think the question is are you willing to come back with PUD or you want to move forward with the application as is? Well, we want to move forward with the application as as is, but we're willing to propose the modification as stated. Okay. Well, okay. So we're willing to say okay just to get everyone's kind of where they are. I mean how do you feel about for me with the public opposition

the the existing conditions I I mean I'll recommend denial. I mean that would be my recommend. Yeah. I would not support the amended application and and I would be more in favor of the PUD. So, and at the least a deferral to have a conversation with public opposition gone, I could probably again get behind it. Well, we've got six weeks. Um, I'll give Mr. Collins my card just so he knows how to get a hold of me uh between now and and city council. Defer it? No, no deferral. Okay. I I mean,

I'm I'm with you guys on the the PUD. I I agree with that. I could probably get there on the the additional proposed um but that's just me. So I feel like it's there's more more okay support for the PUD here. I'm the same as Commissioner Goine. I I think with the adjustments he was making it was leaning towards a better product that I would have been okay with. But also I understand PUD would be preferred by some. Okay. Well, it's my ward. I'm unable to make a motion, but if anyone else is ready to I will make a motion to recommend denial of PC 10992.

All right, we have a motion to recommend denial of PC 10992. That's been seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. Reminder that a vote yes is a vote to deny. Thank you. All right, that's recommended for Janat. Item 14.

Item 14 is case SPUD 1796 application to reszone 15801 South I44 from C4A and AE2 to SPUD 1796 and AE2. Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Uh, this is one that previously came before you as a straight zoning application. Uh, we converted it to this SPD. Uh, want to thank Commissioner Meek. We spent a lot of time uh, working with him on this. Mr. Meek spent time meeting on site with both uh, my client and Miss Turner. So, what we've come to now come to you with now is this SPUD in which we have uh modified the sign, excuse me, the height requirement of a fence to be an 8 to 10 foot uh solid and opaque metal fence along the highway. Um, one of the requests from Commissioner Newman was that the fence height to be measured from the grade of the adjacent gravel or parked parking area, which we do agree to. So, uh, this has been used in a in a manner that's industrial for a long long time. My client owns all of the stuff to the north as well. Uh, he has done, um, I think he's put forth some effort to clean it up. He's been bond there recently. And we think that the addition of the, uh, fence along the highway will will serve to, uh, to benefit the traveling public. So, there are no two ETE, but we will add the TE uh, with the language that I read. All right. You

want to lead our discussion? I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. Thank you, chairman. Um, yes, I appreciate the movement that was made here. Um, there's not and in the conversion to a bud. Um, with that conversion, there's not a whole lot to ask for. Um, other than what we were really after was to try to get the 730 ft to have a screening. Um, it's the only thing that's under the zoning request. So that's all we could ask for it on. Um I do like the TE that Commissioner Newman added and commissioners have any other comments regarding this.

Okay, with that said, I'd like to recommend approval of SPUD 1796 with the new TE as read by Mr. Box. We have a motion from Commissioner Meek to recommend the item to city council subject to the technical evaluation.

It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison, excuse me, Commissioner Powers. Please cast your vote. It switched.

I always think it favors you guys. Commissioner Nobles recused. Thank you. All right. That item is recommended for approval. Item 15. Item 15 is SP SPUD 1791 application to reszone 424 Northwest 27th Street from R2 HL and uh Jefferson Park UC overlay district to SPUD 1791 uh and HL Overlay District.

Hello. Um, I'm Holly Hunt, HH Design. I'm working with the property owner to basically our whole goal in this SPUD is just to allow for the third dwelling unit which historically was there. This uh property was a single family dwelling in R2 which allows by right the duplex. Um, it tradition or historically had a twostory garage with a garage apartment and that's no longer allowed in R2 zoning. Um, so we come to you today in hopes that you will allow for that to be rebuilt. Um, I've submitted drawings. I'm happy to answer any questions. We did just um go through the historic preservation, as you know, they recommended approval, which we're thrilled with, and staff as well. So, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Powers, again, W 2, I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

Am I on? Yeah. Um, I think this is great. This is the kind of density we need in this area. Duplex, three-car garage in the back with apartment over the top. Love it. Wonderful. I did speak to uh Katie Fidal just to make sure that uh she was in alignment and and of course they still got to go back through a design process. The one thing that I would like to uh make sure that we include though in the spud is that there won't be a circle drive. That would be really inappropriate for uh this area and midb block and all of that kind of stuff. And there was at least one exhibit or or set of designs that indicated that showed one. So I want to be clear about that and I think the best way to do that is just to add it as a te number two no circle drive. Um, my fellow commissioners have any questions, comments, concerns?

I agree with the circle drive and and all your other comments as well. You know, as a matter of fact, TE number one, Katie and I did speak about the circle drive. I knew that would get nixed um through the HPC process. We're happy with that TE um as well as the that first TE being to reduce the parking. We had originally had proposed having much more parking including the Circle Drive. So now we're just going to meet the regular requirements for the zoning ordinance and and we're all in agreement with that. Okay. So um given that I will move approval item number 15 SPD 1791 with the addition of TE number two, no Circle Drive. So subject to the TEES and the addition of TE number two.

Yes. All right. We have a motion uh from Commissioner Powers. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. Thank you, Commissioner. As recommended for approval. Good luck. Item 16. Item 16 is SPUD 1780. Application res 1940 Southwest 9th Street from R1 and SROD.

Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. uh here on behalf of the applicant. This is an application for a series of lots that would allow for duplex development in the scenic river overlay. Because it is in the scenic river o over overlay, we were required to go to the urban design commission. Uh the urban design commission heard this matter and granted a recommendation of approval unanimously. Uh there is no protest. There are no tees. Happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Goine, this is W six and I don't have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Uh yes, I've reviewed the case with the applicant. Um I don't have any issues. I um yeah, I think the duplex product that they're proposing is is uh within character and density of of the neighborhoods and would be good to infill some of these lots. So um any other questions or concerns, commissioners? Looks like a note. Don't see none. In that case, without further ado, I'll move to recommend approval of SPUD7 1780.

A motion from Commissioner Goine to recommend the item city council and second by Commissioner Newman. Please cast your votes. Thank you. This is recommended for approval. Item 17. Item 17 is SPD 1790 application to reszone 3244 Northwest 26th Street from R1.

Hello, my name is Wes Naim. I reside in Norman, Oklahoma, 4413 Warrington Circle. This is my client. This is my client Hen. He's the property owner that would like to reszone. We're uh requesting to reszone this commercial uh from a residential R1 to a commercial property. It uh historically has been a a commercial corner neighborhood store. And it will remain the outside will remain the same size and everything it is. The only thing we're going to do is improve the finishes, the fixtures, and the equipment. And then in in uh improve the parking and the landscaping for Oklahoma City requirements and um we're here to answer any questions and we appreciate your consideration.

Thank you. Um Commissioner Powers, this is W two. I don't have any one second. Okay. Thank you. I I was curious about the signage. Um, I noticed that the signage that's there is um quite small. Um, and I don't I I just see a reference to sort of per code kind of um signage. So, I was wondering what your plans are about that. I I I'm not even sure what every time I think about the sign code, my eyes glaze over. And um I mean I realize there's no billboard or EMD signage, but what are your plans for signage?

Currently there's a a corner sign. It's up on the north and east east corner. It's it's a a white line in the site site plan map there. And then there's some building air conditioner units that are up in the middle of the roof on the elevation you can see. And we intended to kind of hide those units with a building sign that says the name of the store. So on our elevation in the in the middle of the drawing, there's a signage at the top on the on the roof and then there's also the street sign. That's the street sign has always been there. You can see that from a street view on maps. There's a structure there's a structure that's a platform. It's a mechanical platform to access those units. And so the structure is already there for us to mount the sign onto. So, given the location of the property, the fact that it is so embedded in in a residential area, um I I would like to see some control over the signage that it be uh either, you know, not lit when it's not open or that it um be limited in some way, you know, backlit lettering or something to keep it from getting out of control. Do you

Lights off for the science at night? Okay. You're okay with that? Yeah. Lights off the side when the store is not open. I think so. Right. And especially the one on the roof. I think if it would just really not lit, it' be probably I think the one on the roof would not be lit at all. Painted metal. I like that idea. Painted metal. Painted metal. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, if there's not anybody else who wants to be heard on this, including any of you folks, I'm just going to move approval of item number 17, SPD 1790. Uh, with the Is there even a TE on this thing?

There's no TE. There's no TE. So, with the addition of a TE concerning the lighting on the signage that the rooftop sign, if any, not be lit and that the signage on the currently it's a pole sign, which I'm not crazy about, but be that as it may, it's there in existing that the sign that this exterior signage be turned off when the shop's not open. Yes. Okay. How's that?

All right. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item for approval of the city council subject to the two TEES as she read. That's been seconded by Commissioner Goine. Please cast your votes. And as recommended unanimously, good luck. Thank you. Item 18. This is SPUD 1800, application to reszone 1933 Northwest 39th Street from O2 and C3.

Uh, good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, the application before you is an SPD that would allow for uh outdoor storage and specifically outdoor storage of roofing materials that will really act as an outdoor showroom uh for the products that my client sells and installs. There are three TEES, all of which we agree to. There is a TE that Miss Powers like to add to uh eliminate the vet clinic, which we agree to, and then an additional TE to commit to the landscaping plan. And Jerry, would you mind showing our site plan to commit to the landscape? Uh we should have the landscape. There we go. Commit to this um as what we will install, which we do agree to. So, we agree to the three TEES as stated and then the two additional ones as requested by Commissioner Powers. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. M Comm Commissioner Powers, I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Um, do you know what use, if any, you'll make of the alleyway behind this property? I don't. I mean, our access is is from 39.

It's you can't access through there, but it's uh Okay. Currently, there's a fence on the property owners property line to the north. There's a fence on yours. And so, there's this alleyway. I don't even know who maintains it down through there. That's I mean, it's all grass. I don't think it's ever been paved, but if it has, it was long, long time ago. Um, so I'm just curious about it. Be that as it may, um yeah, it does look like it's unimproved. Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's totally unimproved. Um I um we decided the height of the sign would be 9 ft maximum. Is that what you said?

That's what I believe the code uh says. Do I need to get a line call here on sign code? Do we know what it would require? The signage is of concern to me at this property. I'm so sorry.

Sign code. You one must be like Nicholas Cage in um National Treasure to really decipher what in the world is allowed. But what I can tell you is that Miss Turner when she was at her desk today went to the street typology map, found out that it is considered uh I believe what was it? Oh, a connector street. Then we went to another um book and found what it says there and what we discovered is that 9 ft in height and I believe around 70 ft square feet in size based upon all of those factors combined. So let's just commit to that. 9 ft in height, 70 square feet in size. We want to commit to what the sign code says.

Well then I need to know what the sign code says. So, well, our reading of it is irrelevant. Yeah. I mean, if you're are you not willing to commit to your own reading of it? Well, no. I I I want to commit to the to the sign code. Okay. So, let's find out what that is. Okay. Sarah Welsh Planning Department. So, first I need to know if it's a pull sign or monument sign. David, pull sign or monument sign. Okay. Let's hear both. Okay. Let's go with monument sign. one poll. Okay. So, there's while she's looking at that, I'll say

perhaps this is a there's a a money in the in the new bond thing to turn 39th Street into a streetscape. It'll it'll reduce it down to two lanes, bike lanes, turn lane in the center. And for the folks who live, you know, especially in Putnham Heights and and the neighborhoods, there are still neighborhoods that front onto 39th Street as you're going east

um from here. And it would be nice. It'll be great for them, but I I would not normally be willing to push uh the commercialization of these properties any further east than they already are. They're taking over a piece of property that's zoned R1 currently. Given all that they're doing, I'm okay with that, but I don't want a giant sign on it. So, what happened to Sarah? Or new easy to read sign code is being ciphered. If the trees are as pretty as they are in the colored landscape, they won't even that's kind of where I am. Vibrant construction.

I'm And I think that's great. It's all good. Great exhibit. That's why this is going so easily. What do you think? So, does that mean that you do or do not want to hear the sign? I do want to hear the sign. Absolutely do. Okay. So, um based on the site plan, it looks like there's 150 ft of frontage. So, they could have one freestanding sign. Um the amount of signage allowed would be um one square foot of signage per I'm sorry, hold on. Great. Greater than less than. Got to do got to know that. Okay.

Um, uh, for when you have over 100 ft of frontage, you can have 1.5 square ft per each linear foot. Uh, for a I know that David is enjoying this. um for ground signs in the C3 district, which this would be considered C3 since that's the base um district located along a connector street. You can have 75 square feet of frontage up to four. I'm sorry. 75 square feet of uh sign area up to just a minute

10 ft high and I'm willing to give you that extra foot. So that's what that's what the TE is going to read. 75 square feet. It's not a TE. It's what the code says that that the issue is that we can't allow the spud to be more than the sign code would allow. That's why we always just say um signs per code because there's a different calculation if they want to pull sign. You could say only monument signs. That is something that you can restrict it to. I'm going have to start bringing it planning commission. I don't know what I think about that. I don't know whether I want to restrict it to a monument sign given where it is, but I would. Would you,

Miss Turner? Can we restrict it to monument signs? No. Yeah. The the code is designed the new sign code's designed so that if they wanted a pull sign, they would only get 9 ft instead of 10. And that I mean, and then it's 70 square feet of front of um area. Okay. So, you get a bigger sign if you go monument. five extra square feet and an extra foot of height. I And I honestly I don't care. We'll go per per code. Let's just go per code. I'm good. I'm good. We're going per code. That and that was very good. Thank you, Sarah. That's where we are.

All right. Anyone else have anything? I think we're ready for a motion. Okay. I'm going to move approval. Item number 18, SPUD 1800, subject to the three technical evaluations and you were adding two. Yes, we're going to eliminate the animal the veterinary use uh restricted uh 8300.11 and we are going to commit to the landscape plan. Landscaping shall be as per displayed in the exhibit.

There you go. All right. All right. We have a motion uh from Commissioner Powers to recommend the item to city council subject to the technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes.

Thank you. And that is recommended unanimously. All right. Item 19.

This is SPD 1787, application to reszone 1133 Northeast 18th Street from R2 in HNO. Okay. Uh Fallon Brooks Magnus, Jolly Design, 11 Northeast 11th Street. Uh representing the applicant. Um this is just a uh sorry this is a regular lot uh two lots in a neighborhood and we uh have just updated the site plan. So what you're seeing in the MDS is actually allowing for six units. Um so we've made a lot of changes last minute. So I'm going to run through the list real quick so that we can get it on record. Um, we agreed to increase the setback at the alley to 5t, 20 ft on the front on Northwest 18th Street. Uh, we reduced the density by one dwelling unit to five total units. We shifted the sidewalks back to the original location and we provided one tree per residence that does not count towards the landscaping minimums. So, uh, so there's a lot that's going to have to change in the MDS. That's for staff. Uh, but we've met with the neighborhood. Uh, we've done quite a lot of work on this. So, any questions?

Okay. Um, Commissioner Harrison, this is W seven. I have one person signed up to speak. Okay. If we can go ahead and hear from them first. Okay. Is it Amanda Sakurai? Good afternoon. Afternoon.

I'm Amanda Sacharai at 946 Northeast 21st and I'm the medical community neighborhood association president. And um like the representative mentioned, we did get to meet as a neighborhood and we had a lot of feedback from neighbors and the items that we requested uh were the setbacks becased and um the sidewalks be continuous so that people are able to walk and that not be interrupted or hindered. And we wanted to see more trees and other landscaping which that was met with a tree in front of each unit. Um along with um parking spaces were a concern. Uh neighbors were worried about parking uh going out into the streets or just covering the sidewalk. And so um that was also increased it sound like with parking spaces um being moved and um having one designated for each unit. There was also some requests to um emphas emphasize the density cap and the space which this was changed um uh as you can see with the five units now instead of the six which we were really we really happy with and just adding more green space in general I think was a concern from from from neighbors. it is a really historical area and so we also had um a chance to the neighbors got to see the designs and um then went back and had the designs um input from neighbors and just sort of matched more of the historical vibe if you will. So we were happy with that. Um yeah, all that being said, I think we understand that change is inevitable in our neighborhood and we just want to make sure that um the communication is there and that um our neighbors are being respected. There's some multigenerational homes in our neighborhood. So, it's really important to us. So, thank you for your time and your hard work on on working on those changes. So, overall, we're we're supportive of it. Great.

Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Any comments, questions from commissioners? Just to check again, the sidewalks are now going to be put back at the right up against the property line, right up against those houses. Now, originally, we shifted them to the south so that we could get a parking space between the garage and the sidewalk because we know people are just going to park on top of the sidewalk, right? So, that's why we moved it. Uh, we had a lot of really negative feedback about it, so we just eliminated a unit, moved everything back, and put it back where it belongs. So, yeah. Well, I mean, I like the way it looked before. You say that again. I like the way it looked before. I mean, oh, the

and again, I know it doesn't line up with the other two, but the as it redevelop, it would be just look better and more consistent to be out and that way you wouldn't have to walk around a car every time. Yeah. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. This allows a straight line through it. I I don't love that there is uh Well, I actually I like it better this way. I like that the parking space is on the property and not in the public rideway like it was before. That was actually the biggest complaint. So, um, yeah, we put them back. Yeah, I like I like that the whole basically development got pushed north. So,

and Mr. Chair, I have a quick comment partly because you're here so much these positive comments, but um, thanks for I'm I'm the one that doesn't like when we cram too much in. So, in this case, corner lot, it's like two lots combined on the corner. Five was better than six. six would have been pushing it, but the fact you had setbacks, sidewalks, trees, landscaping, parking, and you had the neighbors on board, very well done. Thank you. To get a lot worked into this corner lot. Yeah. And I like I like that. Um the facade setback is more consistent with the existing neighborhood, too. So, yeah. Thank you. Good feedback. Good discussion. I

think we're ready for a motion. Uh, I move approval for item 19, SPUD 1787. A motion from Commissioner Harrison to recommend approval subject to the technical evaluations. That was and the changes that were requested by the neighbor that we agreed to because they've not been put in the MDS yet. Sorry. Well, then we probably need to do something to memorialize that. Yes. Can we please have Fallon read in the changes? She's she has them prepared. Yeah. I just have a list right here.

Okay. Um, sorry. Um, to increase the setbacks at the alley to 5T, increase the setback at Northeast 18th Street to 20 ft, reduce the density by one dwelling unit to five units total, shift the sidewalks back to the original location. Increase internal setbacks to 5 ft. Provide one tree per residence that does not count towards landscaping minimums. All right. So, we have um those as additional technical evaluations. Thank you. Okay. Is that satisfactory? Is that correct? Okay. How many total TE's are there?

Just just say subject to the technicalations was read by the applicant. Got it. As read to record just subject to all the TE's that were read into record according to item 19 spud 1787. I move approval. So, we have a recommendation to approve the item subject to the technical evaluations to city council from Commissioner Harrison. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes.

And that is unanimously recommended. Thank you. Item 20. Item 20 is CPA 202510, consideration of a map amendment to the comprehensive plan removing the heavy industrial Luda on a 44 acre tract of land located east of South Sunny Lane Road and north of I240.

Hello Bari Cortis for the planning department. Uh this is CPA 202510. Um the request is to move the heavy industrial land Luda layer from the urban low intensity base Luda designation. The associated zoning application is PUB 218. These uh PU was already recommended for approval in the November uh meeting. Um you can see the location down here in the north uh southeast part of the city. Um like you can see right now it's uh the Luda is heavy industrial. You can see some um urban load to the south and urban load here to the northeast of the project. Um in terms of land use, uh the site itself is um undeveloped with some residential to the northeast to the south and some industrial to the north. In terms of zoning, it's uh zone um industrial too. Uh but like I mentioned, it was recommended for PUD 211A for residential use. Recommended for approval in the last meeting. Um in terms of water is served by water is served by sewer. Uh in terms of emergency services is falls within urban response time for emergency services too. Um in terms of strip uh topology, there's some improvement that um some resurfaces that is in the planning stage for the 2025 bond that is coming for Sunny Lane Road is close to major highway I240. The findings the proposed uh urban load

luda designation is compatible with the ad adjacent urban load luda to the northeast and the residential and commercial development in the area. Additional housing in this area is desirable due to exproximity to tinker air force base. A major regional employer and to recreational amenities such as trust trust bar to the southwest. Removing the heavy industrial layer from this area provides a compatible extension for urban load development without fragmenting the remaining heavy industrial designation. Based on the findings above, the staff recommends approval of the request. I don't know if you have any other questions. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Puit, this is your ward.

You want to lead the discussion? Um, yeah. I'm not sure much to discuss. This probably should have been discussed before the PUB, but you know, here we are. Um, that's the only thing I would ask is how how was it missed? Was it just overside or what happened there? Probably just clean up. Yeah, I don't, like I said, I don't really have much to discuss on it. Um, it's got to happen if the PUD is going to move forward. So, right. Any comments from commissioners? All right. I think we're ready for a motion. All right. I'll move to approve CPA 2025-10.

Have a motion to approve CPA 202510 from Commissioner Privet. It's been second by Commissioner Goine. Please cast your votes. That is recommended for approval. Next we have 21. Item 21.

Item 21 is KCPA 202511, consideration of a proposed map amendment to the comprehensive plan changing the Luda from rural low to rural medium on a 6acre track of land uh located east of North Mustang Road and south of Northwest 164th Street.

Again, planning department. Uh this is CPA 202511. Uh the request is to change the Luda from rural low to rural medium. The associate zonian application is beauty to 119. It's located to the northwest of the city. In terms of the Luda right now is real low with some urban low to the north um some rural low and is surrounded by rural low too. In terms of land use, uh, is residential with some undeveloped to the north. In terms of zoning is zonas AA right now. In terms of city services, um, the applicant is proposing to install um, water wells and is located in a potential connectivity area. In terms of sewer, the applicant is proposed to install um ATS systems. It's in the within the open shed for um sewer services. Um in term of uh emergency services is within the rural response time. In terms of the street uh typology and capital improvement, um a capital improvement project is currently in the planning stage for North Mustin Road with the 2025 uh bond too. And in terms of finance, a smallcale residential development with large lots is consistent with the policies of plan OC for the rural medium Luda designation and supports the preservation of the area's rural character. Designating this area as rural medium will help preserve the 16 character of the neighborhood by maintaining a low density development pattern providing a transition from future uh urban low style development to

the north and a larger lot development to the south. The proposed developments use of Arabic septic system on large lot large lots is less likely to result in significant environmental or health impacts. Larger lots provide more area for natural filtration and reduce commulative loading on groundwater resources. Based on the findings above, their staff recommends approval of the request. I don't know if you have any questions.

Okay. Um this is my ward. I do not have any comments or questions. Anything else from staff or from commissioners? Okay. Uh I'm unable to make a motion. So, I just need someone to move the item. Well, I'll move here. This I move to recommend approval of CPA 2025-11. It's just we we recommend or we approve it. We approve. Yes. Move to approve.

So, we have a motion to uh approve the item from Commissioner Goine. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes. And that is approved. Item 22. We call that Uh 22. Yes. Item 22 is case PD 2119 application uh to reszone 16100 North Mustang Road from AA.

Good afternoon. David Box 525 Northwest 11th here on behalf of the applicant who's also here with us. Uh this is a corresponding item to what you just heard. This is an approximately 6acre tract on Mustang Road. Jared, do you have the aerial? This is a if you blew it out further, this is in a section that is rapidly changing outside of what you see before you on the screen. Everything else has recently been zoned uh either straight R1 or R1 in a PUD to reduce down lot sizes. If you go back to the other one, there we go. Uh you can see it's you have a carve out of AA, but you've got uh 6,000 foot lots platted immediately on our north. What we are trying to do is a bit of a family compound type of uh development. So we want five lots on the approximately 6 acres. In our view it'll you know serve as a nice transition from the more dense R1 to the north to the larger 5acre lots to the south. Um we want a maximum of five lots on this with a minimum lot size of at least one acre. There are three TEES and TE1 asks us for a density of 0.5. That would be a three dwelling units. What we want is five uh so five lots on six acres. On TE2, it asks that private access road shall be constructed in accordance with city of Oklahoma City standards. Our belief is that they're asking us to have uh pave street. What we'd prefer is gravel. If you look at the neighborhood to our south, it's a gravel road. One of the questions that was raised in my meeting with uh the commissioners, I don't remember who brought it up, what the question was, would that impact the ability to have trash service? So, we did talk to staff and they indicated that gravel road uh will not be detrimental to the ability to have trash service on that. So, that's not an issue. And then finally, on TE3, we agreed to that um the sidewalk TE. Again, this is an area that's changing. There are not sidewalks out there now. Uh, but as you know, all of these single

family neighborhoods in this section of land will be required to do it. So, there will be a pretty vast network of sidewalks at some point here in the near future. So, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I don't know how many of you remember uh perhaps Nate does on this track of land. Originally, we had a different proposal and there were a significant protest. We had community meetings with u somewhere around 100 people. So, it's the same same owner, same uh same person. I think it's telling that now what we've come forward with to my knowledge there's no protest uh is something that is generally wellreceived by the community. So just so I'm clear so you you guys were were not in agreement with tech TE1 or two but yes to three.

So yes on three. TE1 we would simply modify it or seek to modify to say there should be a maximum of five. Oh, it's already in the pud. So yeah, we just we would ask to strike TE1. We limit it to five in the the document itself and then strike TE2. Do you think that TE2 would have picked up a requirement for a firet truck public services turnaround if T2 would have been left in? Yes. Yeah. Because it's it's a cult. Um you got to have that turnaround and from No, maybe we We change TE2

allow gravel but required to meet all life health safety requirements that that may exist for turnaround. I perhaps the word specification gets us there. But the bottom line is whatever fire might require we're good with in terms of turnaround. We just want the ability to do gravel.

Well, maybe we keep it and say except that gravel shall be permitted. I want to go one step further because I kind of got educated by Mike Wilson at the fire department about it. This is the time where we can put it in because after it leaves here, it's just single building permits. It's never looked at as a development again after it leaves here today. So, we would need to specify a a uh firet truck turnaround because it is yeah 4607 something feet that apparatus would have to back out of without it. What if we keep the TE and just add except that gravel shall be permitted because then we're still meeting standards and specs which undoubtedly would include fire marshall specs but all we're seeking to do is allow the use of gravel. We don't seek to void our requirement to meet turnarounds or or anything like that.

Can we ask Barry to clarify? Yeah. If you think this would go before fire after today on a residential building permit, it's

a very large public works. Um, start off with the the the reason this uh comment was made on the development review come out the staff report for the road to be built to city standards. And it's it's a matter of terminology where we've been differentiating between private streets and roads and private drives. And anytime we've run into the private streets, private roads, that is what kicks in the requirement for hard surface paved roads to city standards. Again, a terminology I think which it within the language we probably need to change it to say the private drive that gives us a little bit more latitude to go with the lesser surface. Now, we still have to have the approach done, but that would I think that that would work towards David's request to go with the gravel surfacing if we change it to to that. And again, that's just trying to be consistent across the terminology that we're using for the private developments. Um, if I offer my opinion on uh getting language in there about the fire turnarounds, I would side with uh Commissioner Meek that we probably ought to have that put in there because residential uh building permits in public works, we do not see and review those. Those go through without any uh comment from us on those at all. So that that would be my opinion, but y'all are the ones in charge.

We we will have to plat it as well. And so presumably I assume fire looks at plats at that time. We don't meet. Yeah, maybe if they don't perhaps Butler can chime in on this because I I specifically got told that we as a commission danced all around one of these one day without making a commitment and lost the ability to commit to anything. by not putting tees in specifically on these family compound type situations. That's what this is about.

So, can it not uh Mr. Box's last comment was, can we not just add to that TE, but it may be gravel? Would that require to have a turnaround, but it could be gravel? If we just add the words except that gravel shall be permitted, we're committing to meeting all of the city standards and specifications. I find it impossible to believe that fire safety is not included in that. Um, and what would where is fire safety housed if not within Oklahoma City standards and specs?

Well, it it's it's actually come in a different area that that's typically going to fall under the public works per purview when we're looking at the Oklahoma City standards specifications and really doesn't we we don't address fire department. I'm not saying you do, but this isn't limited to public works. This says the city of Oklahoma City, the whole city. We agree to meet the whole cities.

Cuz my concern is if we add here must have a turnaround. Well, then what if we forget to do that? Sometimes it's like, oh well, they didn't say it has to have a turnaround. I would need to know, but is in accordance with city standards and specs require a turnaround? If it does, I think we I'd rather leave it the blanket in case we forget to add the turnaround thing every time. already told us that if you leave it blank then it's not going to be covered. Was Mr. Wilson saying that a turnaround would not be required in these circumstances or

No, this is custom zoning and what his comment was and I wish he was here would call in buzz in something like that. I yeah I hope he's watching but uh he said on a family compound type development that we're doing a put on that's the last time it's seen is right here and at council and then it's just simply building permits but that's not accurate but we're going to see a plat we have to plat it. So that's okay his belief is wrong.

This this will have to be platted. It will come in as a minor subdivision plat. So it will go direct directly to final plat but because if it was three lots it could be done administratively and with lot splits going with the five it will have to be platted it will have to come before this commission again uh for that plat and at that time I think that rightway and the easement that is shown could uh can be required to meet the width would show the the culde-sac for the turnaround and we could get it in there. Uh if if if you want to defer that requirement to that point on the plat or if we want to get that in that language in there now so that it's understood when the plat comes in that that culde-sac uh will have to be provided.

I I don't what language we we're not seeking to defer anything. We're saying we're going to meet all requirements. Fire reviews plat. All we're wanting to do is add words to allow gravel. Like fire reviews plati. End of story. And and I heard that by changing private roadway to to drive. So So striking that and saying private drive shall be constructed in accordance with city of Oklahoma City standard specifications. That permits the use of gravel. Sure. that that's fine, too. We just, like I said, I want to be very transparent that our desire is to have gravel. We don't intend to put anyone in danger out here. Um,

right, Barry, I you were having a conversation with Sarah. If we amended the TE to say that a private drive shall be constructed in accordance with the city, that would allow gra the use of gravel as a surface, right? Yes. Okay. Okay. I have another comment, but I want to move on. Are we good with that? we get there.

Yeah. Maybe the the one that was an issue before wasn't being platted. I mean, I specifically remember it was a it was a family compound where it was mom, brother, sister. It was a road went down the side. I think you represented it. Went all the way to the back. The guy kept saying, "Yeah, we'll do whatever is required. We'll do whatever's required." Then he had on the exhibit it said like um tennis court or something where the turnaround would have been. And we were we even spoke to him. Is this like a tennis court or is it a turnaround? It can't be both. Well, we'll do whatever is required. Well, we didn't require anything. And then I was uh

well, maybe I mean maybe this is a broader topic that fire needs to come to planning commission because I'd be shocked to learn that they don't have the ability from a life life health safety standpoint to require turnarounds. That that is a absurd answer if that's true. Um, but whatever Mr. Wilson and the fire marshall says we have to do to to meet Oklahoma City specs and standards, we want to do. Okay. As long as it's on gravel, I'll do whatever's required. All right. All right. Commissioner Lford, you had something else? Yeah. Um, before I go on to sewer and water, but first I can't help but ask, uh, Commissioner Meek, do you firemen not know how to back a truck?

Well, it's a city ordinance that over a certain length, it is required. I'm kicking because get in because there's more accidents going backwards than there are forwards in fire engines. Um and he did there was a comment in this that says no objections provide fire hydrant location to serve this development or sprinkle the dwellings. So you would think if it was a big enough issue he could have made a comment there too. All right. Um the sewer and water is is this this does not have sewer and water. Right. Are you trying to do septic? We talk about all the time here. You keep mentioning the R1 around it. Are these others on sewer and water? What's the sewer and water situation? Have I missed it?

Neither. Water is far away and you can't have one without you can't have sewer without public water. So those houses right to the north. So there you can't touch them. My belief is it's in the front of the lots and we can't go condemn through a yard to go get their sewer and water. Okay. which would tell me that maybe five lots here is too many then if you cannot get sewer and water to here. So to use the comparison of oh around it there's all this R1 well apparently they can have sewer water though. So if you cannot then it seems to me to be too much too many lots if these can't be served by sewer and water.

So in our belief is similar to other applications that have come is it it's on a spectrum. If you had a quarter section of 1acre lots without sewer and water, all of those concerns start coming into play. When you're dealing with a small only five lot on six acres, our belief is that those things don't come into play because we do meet or exceed state requirements as it relates to aerobic systems. And if you had sewer and water, well then all of a sudden now we're doing 6,000 ft and now we're bumping up against the 5acre lot. So in our view, this is a transition from that more dense to the AA. And because it's such a small scale, it has a unique component that perhaps means five lots on 6 acres is not inappropriate

unless the next one to the south says let's do that much on no sewer and water and then the next one south of that. Those are already developed. Okay, go to the aerial Jared mind.

I get your point. This is just unique in that everything else already developed around us. Okay. I'm not sure. Depends what you almost That's why I was I agree with your point and I was thinking about the same thing, but I the scale of five kind of threshold and you hit the one acre like if it was any less than that.

Yeah. And and I've seen the commission when you have, you know, if you had 80 acres of 1acre lots, that that's a that's a significant concentration. The the five lots on this site in our mind is just not not a significant concentration. David, do you have to have the five lots? I mean, yeah. I mean, based on the number of family members that he has, that's Yeah, because I wrestled with the same question about Yeah, it's only five systems, so does that offset the concern? I don't know. Let's find out. Oh, we've lost it.

All right.

19 uh with disposition of the TEES per Mr. Box's uh recitation. Strike TE1, modify TE2 to say drive instead of road, but explicitly stating gravel shall be permitted and we agree at TE3. All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Powers uh subject to the technical evaluations is read in to recommend item for approval. It's been second by Commissioner Goine. Please cast your votes. That is recommended for approval.

Item 24. Oh, excuse me. Item 23.

Item 23 is case SPUD 1782, application to reszone 1839 Northwest 16th Street from R1 and Gatewood UC uh to SPUD 1782. Good afternoon. Taylor Bulk, 1409 Northwest 16th Street. I have a spud application uh for what would be existing uh two lots off of Northwest 16th Street and North Kentucky Avenue. Uh we work closely with Sam Gresham Architecture on the site plan and the architectural drawings of the house. uh it would be what our focus is uh to actually build on the site. During the application process, we worked closely with Thad Johnson, the senior planner, uh to ensure that the utilities would be approved. Uh we had communication with the engineer, Rachel Diesson, unit operations supervisor, and uh Dustin Craves as the utility engineer, and he uh approved the site for the utilities. uh stating that proceeding with the application utilities are on board with the concept. We agree with the changes made to the master design statement and the recommendation uh to retain the two properties that are existing off of uh Northwest 16th Street. We would agree to that being added to the master design statement. We're excited to increase the homes in the Oklahoma City metro, meeting the Oklahoma City goals to increase density of homes for the future.

The proposed lot splits requested along Kentucky Avenue would create three lots, which is consistent with other approvals on corner lots in the metro. Uh I can give a couple great examples. One of which recently approved was North College Avenue in Northwest 16th Street, which is very close to the site. Uh previous uh application for Northwest 22nd Street and North Florida Avenue had three lots uh split on the corner lot. Does anyone have any questions?

Commissioner Goine, this is your ward to lead the discussion. Uh sure. Thank you. Um I Oh, well, that's that's the issue. I'm in I have reviewed the case. I'm in support. Um I think the the density is is reasonable. Uh the design fits in the character of the neighborhood. We're retaining the existing historic homes. Um these are large lots on 16 that actually are fronting 16th. Um and it's a corner development. Um, so I I don't have any questions.

So this is existing. This is three lots existing, correct? And it's wanting to go to five. I'm seeing we're adding we're adding two structure. What currently two lots, right? Currently two lots each of which are on a third of an acre. Is it four total or three total though? Uh there's currently two in total and we're proposing to have a total of five. Oh, you are proposing five. Yeah, that's that's very messy. How? Yeah. Well, can you uh on the presentation? Sorry, I'm looking at

if we were to show the show the site plan with the lot lines, please, and just talk us through that. The the I know you've got some funky easements. You've got to get water and sewer to these units. Ex just explain how people get to each unit. It looks very simple until I

Yes, I I would absolutely love to discuss that on the if I were to start on the west side, which would be currently 1843 Northwest 20 uh 18 43 Northwest 16th Street. Uh that's the corner lot. Um that driveway would be the exact same as it is today. No changes. So that that that would be on the those would be the south west corner would be not no changes. Um what we have for utility lines which is a design concept uh approved from city utilities the utility engineer. He needs to

I'm gonna Well, let me jump in here. I get it now. I just needed to study it a little bit more. I mean, you've got two existing homes, one existing ADU. You're breaking that ADU off in in its own lot. You're adding two separate lots for for new homes. And because these are such deep and wider lots, and you have the corner, you're able to make all that work with some fairly complicated uh lot line um for for utility easements. I still don't have an issue with it, but that that's my that's my thoughts. Thank you. I I like it actually better if the east lot was to stay one lot and just make that back property an ADU. It just cleans that up.

On that on those lines, we said this one was an ADU, now it's going to be its own lot. These five wouldn't also then be able to have an ADU added to where there would be five plus five ADUs. So, we end up with 10 buildings. Okay. if they were able to meet the ADU code, which the I don't think you you certainly couldn't on the two back ones. I you can't put them in front of the house. You've already filled the side and the back. So, I don't think there's room for one even. And our intention would not be to add any ADUs and our intention is not to have any ADUs on just the intention. But if you're not able to, then that makes me comfortable.

What the only thing I'm uncomfortable with slightly is breaking an existing ADU off in its own lot. I frankly think that should stay with the main corner house as an ADU. That's how it was traditionally built. That's it. They support each other. So, if I I I'm going to throw this out for commissioner's discussion, but I would say that we we we probably need to make this four lots total and keep 1710 North Kentucky as accessory to I like that not just for this one, but I also like it for the precedent setting nature of this. But, um

yeah, there was a lot of discussion during the adoption of the ADU about not being able to break them off and sell them separately. So, I think maybe that's someplace we don't really want to go. Our our intention would be to uh during during the peritting process to add to that structure and to make it all one unit, not having ADUs on that on that parcel of land, that lot that would be created in the middle on the west side. Our intentions would be to have a a permit to make it a full-size structure. Um being being a corner lot um we have lots

we have a lot of examples of corn lots being able to be put into thirds. Um couple which I I mentioned um and our intention we we could either demo the structure to be um only if deemed necessary. Our intention would be to keep the structure and add to it. But we can demo the structure if necessary so that we can create that third party salot. I'd love to hear recommendation from you. When when they do divide those up, they usually divide them up equally also, but those and that lot would be extremely small for just that ADU. Yeah. I mean, I could easily see you taking, you know, two of the new new construction products that you're building side by side on off of Kentucky Avenue. Then you'd have an ADU. Then I'd have one lot on the inside on the east side. That'd be a single lot with an ADU. Um you're building a house behind houses and it that that you know if you have the existing ADU on um the eastern property then then you know great but you don't. So, I'm I can support uh a four lot development in the split here and um but I think my recommendation is going to be retain the ADU as part of the the traditional lot that it belongs with and not split that one. Um or you come you continue this and come back with a different proposal. I I mean, I know you've gone through a lot of work to get this to work because it's complicated with with staff and the city and the utilities. Um, but you know, if you're if you're going to knock down the ADU and just and replicate the same product that you have on the far northwest, then why not come in with that? Why not show it that way?

I think if we take a look at another slide, we might kind of address some of the issues that you're bringing up. If we can go to the aerial view. My name is Pamela Vul. Um, I also live in the neighborhood in um in part of Clover LLC. Um, my address is uh 1628 Northwest 18th Street. Um, if you look at across the street on Kentucky Avenue, take a look at the way that those houses are positioned on Kentucky. Directly across the street, there's smaller lots. It It fits in very well in that spot. Yes, there is a there there is an in the the infill lots that are closer spaced on Kentucky across the street. It

these really are big lots. There's it's it's a lot of wasted space. It was something that um as he's owned these properties for a while, we've had discussions regarding how to best utilize that space. Um it's just it's a lot and it would be really nice to be able to bring more homes to the area. It's it's highly desirable desired homes. Um we've taken a look around at how the other light lots are positioned. Um and this is what works well in that spot.

Yeah. Well, I understand that. the the far northwest lot 17 1716 North Kentucky that's you doing what has been done across the street so you've already kind of ticked that you've used that token on that house the ADU that's attached to the corner home traditionally that's an additional one so like you you know what I mean that that's the and the the issue that's making me uncomfortable is because it's currently an ADU structure um you break it off as its own property so you can flip it and sell it, you know, then

that then there's no there's nothing we can do. So I I don't that that one's kind of tricky. The complexity of it I think has to do with a lot which I have zero expertise at. But if if the question is if this ADU were not here, would I be okay with them building another full-size, you know, unit like the one to the north, like like 1716 on this piece of property? I absolutely would. It would be fine with me. Yeah. Well, me too. That's what I mean. Two of those houses in a row make perfect sense there. So, I don't have an issue with that.

Very large lot spaces. Yeah. Yeah. I Commissioner Powers, I see what you're saying. I might be able to too, but um let me make sure what I asked earlier in that site plan. When you say there's not enough room for ADUs, are they able to spud to make those buildings smaller and then add the ADUs or are they stuck with your answer that I would be willing to put in the master design statement that we don't have any intention of putting any ADUs in if that would make the commission comfortable. Yeah. and a and a and maybe that works and and it's not that I'm questioning you. It's more future owners if all of a sudden they go, you know what, I'm going to make this building a little smaller and now you get the right to add a ADU

and now I'm sure the small one you couldn't but then all of a sudden you make the other four smaller and each one gets an ADU. Well, it is an SPUD. So if we if we add a TE that just says no additional ADU shall be permitted on these lots, I can get behind that. Okay. At least maybe that and then maybe what commissioner I'm I'm up to all on whether you want to let them have the unique tiny little lot. Sounds like a plan on on our end. Are you guys okay with that? But yes, we are. That's our intentions. Well, I'll make a recommendation and keep this moving and everyone we'll see where it lands. Uh I'm going to move Sorry.

Sorry. I'm so sorry. Sarah Welch Planning Department. So, um in staff's recommendation or in staff's comments, we talked about how when we were working with the applicant, we established a minimum lot width of 55 ft. I want to make it clear that you'll need to you'll have to um give him a smaller or a narrower lot width in order to accommodate the building behind the lot on the east if that's your intent. If you want them to be able to split that off, then you'll have to to amend that uh lot width. Does that make sense? Um I Jared, will you go back to the

So our so staff's recommendation was to keep the east lot which appears to be a duplex. I mean it has two doors, two mailboxes and then um the building in the back would be considered accessory. Um I know the intent is to split that off. However, when we were working with the applicant, we suggested a lot with the 55 ft um and that was agreed to. So, if you are allowing them to split that e that back lot, then we'll we'll just need you to provide a TE to give them a 10-ft lot width for the eastern most lot. Okay. And that's more about the access drive. I mean, they've got 55 ft. It's just in the rear, not the front on the

Well, no, because if they're going to split it off, then that one lot will only have 10 feet of street frontage. Yes, it's a street frontage dimension, but the w the lot is 55 ft wide on the north edge of it. We use lot width and street frontage interchangeably.

That's fine. Well, I'm I'll add that to you then. Uh if that's So, okay. Um I'm going to say I move to recommend approval of SPUD 1782 with TE one as written. We will add TE2 that says no ex no accessory dwelling units shall be permitted on the new lots or you know within this SPUD and we will add a TE3 that says uh minimum lot

minimum lot width of 10 ft is allowed for the north uh east lot owner Um some that was a little rough, I know, but No, that's okay. I just want to make sure. So, or not to be just we're going to be dealing with this later. So, um the current accessory dwelling unit, is that allowed to be split off? Yes, we're we're allowing that that to be its own lot. Okay. Um so then I think you'll need to say the minimum lot width shall be allowed to be 10 feet and then establish a maximum number of lots. Five.

Okay. The m TE3 shall read the minimum lot width shall be 10 feet and the maximum number of lots shall be five. And I strongly encourage you to build another one of those new unit on on Kentucky. Um that make more sense than having a a weird Yeah, that was the motion.

All right. I have a motion from Commissioner Goine to recommend the item the city council subject to uh the one existing technical evaluation and the two new ones read into the record. It's been seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please cast your votes. Oh it said six, but we did five, right? All right. And that item is recommended for approval. Thank you very much.

Item 24. This is case SPUD 1785. Application to reszone 1614 Northwest 16th Street from SPUD 931 and Gatewood UC Conservation Overlay District. Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street. here on behalf of the applicant. Uh what is before you is an SPD that would allow for a total of five dwelling units to be built here. This is along 16th Street in the plaza. Jared, if you could have a site plan. Um we've designed this manner to have a duplex along the front edge and then a triplex in the back with the parking in the middle. There are two TEES, both of which we agree to. And happy to answer any questions. Great. Commissioner Goine, this is also your ward.

Okay. I got some fun ones today. microphone on. Um, yes, the original proposal that I saw for this lot, you all wouldn't even want to believe what it was, but um, that was Caitlyn's, not mine. I I think that's the tactic that some of these developers use is they come in with a giant apartment complex with overhangs and 22 units and uh, you know, very limited parking and then and then you say, "Wait a minute." and they come back with with five and you say, "Oh, that's much better. Thank you. I'm I'm in favor." Um, but that's exactly what I'm saying is is I am okay with with this is you fell for it

as a as a as a duplex and um and parking in the middle. So, duplex on 16th. There is currently a duplex uh or sorry, this is between two duplexes on 16th. Um so, we're infilling that, but we're providing a drive that accesses parking in the middle and then a triplex uh to the rear of the lot. being where this is on 16th near bus stops in between larger multif family um you know there's a three-story uh apartment complex there's across the street there's some you know low singlestory duplexes and uh bars and and higher scale stuff so I'm still okay with it I'm I'm open up for discussion

any other comments no other comments only because I've said it on all the others and the other ones barely got there and these all have been close calls. This one's too many for that size of acreage for me, but y'all can be for it. I'm going to make a motion. Uh we've been here a while and we'll we'll see where things go. Uh I move to recommend SPUD 1785 with the two TEES as written. A motion from Commissioner Goine to recommend the item city council subject to technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your votes.

Thank you. That item is recommended for approval. Item 25. This is SPD 1786, application to reszone 1929 Northwest 15th Street.

Good afternoon. Mark Zitzo, Johnson Associates, 20 Sheridan Avenue. Uh before you is a uh a lot that we are uh I guess what we submitted was for 16 units, but to hopefully make your decision even easier today. Uh we've agreed to both tees uh that the staff has recommended, one of them being a limitation of eight units. So uh with that, I'm happy to answer any questions, but we would ask for your approval. I'll note that this lot, while it looks like typical single family lots, this is a lot that's over 12,000 square feet, which is twice the size of a traditional single family lot. So, with that, happy to answer any questions. Okay.

Um, Commissioner Goine, back to you. I don't have anyone signed up to speak.

Okay. Um, yes, we we talked at length about this case as well. Uh my my biggest concern was I I don't mind the you know the product and the design of that they're proposing is um unconventional but you know in theory the the kind of smaller infill units I I I can get behind. The key was was um just the the density of unit. So going from 16 proposed to eight uh I definitely um support and can you know, just just, you know, barely I'm comfortable with, but I am comfortable with that. Um, the yeah, driveway width is no issue. The the issues I wanted to see done were shifting the units back to align with the the traditional frontage of the homes on the street. Um, and I think the applicant agreed to do that to make the

front yard set back 20 ft. And there is a dimension on the site plan that's up right now and I can't read it but I um nor could I read it in my packet. So I did actually want to know what that number is but um I'm told that 20 ft will make the fronts of these units align with the existing homes. Um I just haven't scaled it. Uh the maximum lot coverage to be 75% maximum per code. I think that's in the MDS already.

Correct. as is the 20ft front yard. So, I think the only TE we wanted to add was that the uh rear yard setback, which is the northern setback of this, uh be per code, which is 10 ft for a rear yard setback. That's right. Yeah. Um you've already limited the height, haven't you? Yeah. Is it per code? It's the Oh, it's per Yeah. Oh, is it? Okay. I I thought it was 30 on this one. Did we did that? Uh we know that the buildings are going to be under 30. So you know okay not opposed to to move it along but is is the plan still to have eight buildings. So the site plan's going to end up changing. Right.

The my biggest issue is I don't want I don't like the four buildings in the back because I don't like the proximity to the properties on the lots north of this. So the the the intent of the setbacks and the tees and the and things were to to get rid of eight separate structures and have four how many buildings will be on this site when it's done. So it's going to end up being reconfigured. Uh but I mean the way that it's currently designed it's looking like four but we don't know that exact number yet. The architect is reworking it. So, we figured limiting the unit count to eight is ultimately what protected and mitigated Commissioner Goin's uh concern.

Same number of people could be on the lot. It's I mean that that's why I was trying to figure out how many buildings were being right. Quick question. When we allow home sharing, what is it limited to per building? Per lot per what? Per lot. Per lot. So, no matter what, all of this can be homeshared, whether there's eight individual units or four duplexes or whatever. We would have to file the home share permit. I'm sorry. We would have to file the home share permit and go before board of adjustment and they would look to see if anything else on this block was permitted and then and if nothing was, are they able to deny it? Two.

But if if nothing else is on the block yet, do they have the right to deny it or they have to then grant it because there's nothing else on the block yet? We'd grant two two units. Yeah. No, two units or two lots.

I'll I'll I can speak to that. Sarah Welch, Planning Department. So, um home sharing is allowed um if you are going to home share your property more than 10 days in a calendar month or if you don't live there, then you have to come to get a special exception and you have to get a special exception granted from the board of adjustment for every address. um staff is limited in taking the number of special exception applications by um we can take no more than 10% of the dwellings on the block. So we have we count how many dwellings are on the on the block first on the block not not the street. So it's the it's the it's the platted block. Um, so the more units we add, yes, there is a chance that you could go over a certain threshold because you can have one, you can have like if there's up to 19 dwellings, you can have one. Between 20 and 29 dwellings, you can have two. Once you get over 30 dwellings, you could have three home shares.

Thanks. So, if we approve this on these skinny little inner lots, not the corner lots, we keep doing this, we'll end up with 100 dwelling units on this block, and there will be allowed to be a lot of home sharing. And this is it's a lot of density, a lot of stuff. Uh I'm going to keep listening to everything you're working on here, Commissioner Goine, but each one of these that comes up presses the envelope further with especially when I think about the home sharing involved. The one of the reasons for the one of the reason I'm sorry and it's not just because of me myself. It's because of the neighbors. It's like did we send notice to these neighbors? Is there's no one signed up to speak? No. I mean I'm look these are some nice looking lots and houses all around here. So, uh, it's my concern is for them, of course, and the rest of the the rest of the city. So,

sorry, sir. We received one phone call. They asked what the rents would be. We explained it, connected them with the developer, and never submitted formal protest. I just know like these are not skinny little lots. This is oddly wide and oddly deep for the court.

Well, yeah. And it's it's an oddly oddly sort of designed site plan as well as but that I think may change. Um and so we're trying to have a framework that keeps it within a reasonable um sort of maximums. So I I don't in my mind these are clearly going to going to be rentals. Um, so the the home share thing I don't necessarily that didn't come up as the main concern to me because if it's apartments, you know, you don't I mean I guess someone can Airbnb their apartment and have people coming and going, but it's no different than a a tenant coming and going in an apartment, I guess. So I I wasn't sure how that affects

um you don't it's typically not like big parties and stuff and in just a a smaller Oh, it's the turnover. It's the transient nature of home sharing versus somebody's written here for a year. That's one thing. But if somebody's written for two nights that's the difference. I think that's where the board of adjustment protects the neighbors. They have the right to show up if people are concerned about that. They can put minimum night stays. They can limit like the number of units. They look at the bedroom count. Like they do all of that in an effort to protect. That's how the city has set that system up. Yeah. Yeah. I did again I just wanted to know really what the count of individual houses would be on the lot structures the structures well I like the idea of limiting the number of structures in addition I haven't said that yet but

yeah and that was because of the question the concern that you expressed about the ones in the back being that's going to be affected by how many actual structures there are so

so I I think our hope was given that we had agreed to the the tighter setbacks that If this was going to get potentially redesigned, it's not just lpping off the back four. It could potentially end up being a bit more of a cottage court style where there's smaller individual uh what would look like single family homes. So Weston the architect is currently working through that. So if that's something that we can work out with the city council woman before we can get confirmation on if we need a building uh number cap, we can do that before city council. That gives them time to look at it. But we've agreed to all of the setbacks and the other regulations and the reduction in unit count.

I'm just saying the same number of people could be there whether it was 16 units or eight units twotory single family, right? I mean yeah I mean that wouldn't change whether there were four buildings or eight buildings though, right?

Yeah. My comment was when I reviewed this and looked at it just doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood to me. I mean, it seems like the duck out of place. And I don't know, I kind of agree with I feel like sometimes we've gone a little bit overboard on some of the density that we've allowed in some of these um lots during the middle of the block. So, I would I would challenge you not to necessarily look at this particular block and think about class intent pen more holistically. There are significant significantly dense projects throughout class intent pen. There have been converted churches. There are town home projects that are multif family projects. There's one not like one block over that's a threestory mixed juice apartment building on 15. So like there is a variety of density and they're all very dense. Like this neighborhood has changed probably more than most other ones in the core. But while this particular block might be early, the density has continued to march closer toward Penn. It it started over at classen and if you look at the time lapse of cases that have been heard and approved it has slowly pushed closer to pen.

So if you could switch to the page that's more black and white. No. Yeah, that Yep. That one. I'm not seeing what you're saying. I'm seeing this in the middle of 200 lots that not one single one of them looks like what you're proposing right in the smack in the middle. Yeah. So it unfortunately this map it's cut off but on the right that line you will see threetory mixed juice multif family buildings and significant density. It has continued to push this way but Tenpen was always R1 and R2 and that hasn't stopped any of the other projects from being approved and constructed.

So I I understand that's where you are. I I think ultimately where we are is we're asking for the eight units. We've c we've come down from 16. Staff has recommended approval. We have no protest and we'd ask for a vote on that.

I I I appreciate that. I think there's there's valid valid points on both sides. There is a lot more density than is reflected by this. However, this is also midblock um of a of a single currently sing more single structure war one lots. Um but I can make a recommend. I can make a motion. That doesn't mean people agree with it. Uh, and unless there's any new other comments, I think I'll just do that. We'll see where things are. Um, I'm going Oh, okay. Wait, sorry. One thing I know I understand your um resistance to the max uh capping the number of structures. The only way that I could not do that I could not add that TE is by increasing the rear yard set back to 25 ft. So I the when I when we were talking about this and I said rear yard setback per code I forgot it was 10 feet in my mind I was thinking 25 ft because I need I think we need a little we need more of a buffer for the the

that if it helps there's a 20 I think it's 20 15 or 20 foot alley behind us so we're not sharing a property line. So with the 10 ft I don't know if Jared can measure that alley but we may already be there. Yeah. Oh, well, you're saying Well, I don't even Their fences are on the center line of it, though. I mean, so, but you're saying that's also buffered. Well, okay. What would you rather have? A maximum of four structures as a TE or a 25 foot rear yard setback? I'll take the 25 and that with Councilwoman.

Okay. I'm going to move to recommend approval of SPUD 1786 with the two TEES as written. an additional TE that uh three that says uh rear yard setback shall be 25 ft and sorry TE number four says a maximum height of 30 feet tall. So, I have a motion from Commissioner Goine to recommend the item to city council subject to uh the four

four technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please cast your D. No second. And that item is recommended for approval. Thank you. Um, next item is item 26. Commissioner Noble, I need to step out for a minute. If you could take over. Is there a vice vice chair?

Oh boy. All right. Uh, item 26 is PUB 2120 application reszone 8701 North Kelly Avenue from SPUD70 uh, and R1. Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest 11 Street here on behalf of the applicant who is still here with us. Uh, this is an application that would convert what are now vacant a vacant church building and associated buildings into uh, a PUD that would allow for a mix of both residential and commercial. There are six technical evaluations. Um, so we agree to TE number one. We agree to well TE2 asked us to specify a maximum number of residential multif family residential. We would specify that to be 350. TE3 specify additional mitigation measures to address potential compatibility issues. The landscaping landscaping code requires a 5-ft uh landscaping buffer. We would propose to make that a 10-ft landscape buffer at at areas where we are adjacent to single family residential. We agree to TE4. We decline TE5 and we agree to TE6. Happy to answer any questions. It is worth noting if Jerry if you go back to maybe the aerial. Uh this is in an area that is you can't see it on this map but the the half and the south half. So you've got Andreddy's and Flick Brew House and kind of that commercial power center is just to the to the west about a half mile. So close proximity to a lot of uh exciting things that are going on

and you TE5 was the one you said no we we decline we want to meet the sign code. We all got a bunch of clarity earlier. We want to meet the sign code. You need to change that. Okay. Didn't we say earlier we couldn't Well, we could restrict it, but you could you can seek to restrict it, but you can't you can't increase it. You can't increase it.

So, the whole point of the sign code was to potentially, I guess, fix problems that existed with the sign code. And so, we've done that through a lot of time and effort and public money. And so we want to respect the process that was undertaken by everyone on this horseshoe as well as staff, the public, the consultants that were paid and meet the criteria as established in the sign code. I'm kind of curious. How do we get 350 dwelling units out of out of here? Are we, you know, two, threetory? So what's shown are eightlexes, single family residences. allow for the ability to have multif family.

Yeah, it's going to be zoned R4. So, that's just a pretty picture. That's what Yeah, this it's um I'm used to that, but I just, you know, maybe see an apartment building or something in there would would make it more sense. But, okay, that and that's question I was having. I mean, is it if it's going to be zoned R4, is are there going to be apartments and you just drew a bunch of single family homes? Well, I didn't go back to it. I I believe Mr. Zitz out drew this for his office. I I don't know why this was produced.

Uh our our goal is to allow for multif family zoning. Um and the commercial as well, but what we've done is limited it to no more than 350. It could develop a single family. We allow that use in there as well, but we want to allow for the potential of multif family, which there is some multif family going on, you know, to our west. We think it is an appropriate use in that area given all of the things going on in the area. Right. I just think that I'd like to see the site layout if it's going to be multif family right up against the our we could commit to a specific plan at a minimum. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, speaking with a few people in the uh community, that's the major concern. I'm sorry.

Speaking with a few people in the community, that is the major concern. You are right up against a larger community. Um Hope Springs, I believe it is, as well as the Musgrave edition. So, it's the concern of what has happened to your south with multif family and some of the incidences that continue to arise over there. So, that's the concern of if we're looking at a great deal of multif family here. So if we can commit to a specific plan. Yeah, we can commit to a specific plan.

So So one moment this graphic that you're saying is just one of option, but it could be drastically different. If neighbors who got notice asked for more information, I'm not sure what they receive. Is this what they receive? Because they may not be able to read a lot of the technicalities. And if they received this, what what do they receive when they call in and say, "I'm I'm interested in the notice and I'd like more information." This is what they got. Um I can tell you uh Sarah Welch Planning Department. So when we send out mail out not when we mail out notice we provide a link to okc.gov and they get to see what the applicant submitted. So the original master design statement and the site plan. So yes this.

So Mr. Box I'm a little concerned here that while we could get the explanation here to me this would notice would be somewhat useless if anybody looked at this. Do you have the notice? Yeah well you know I hear 350 I know. Yeah it's not from that picture. I I don't know exactly what the notice says. I think staff, let's see, it does say proposed use is to allow commercial and multif family residential. And and I'm not saying they'd be illiterate truly, but if they looked at this, they could think, okay, maybe they're duplexes.

Well, I know if if I got that, and I've been doing this for eight years. If I got that, I would have thought, oh, okay, it's going to look about like this. Maybe those are duplexes. I would be fooled by this picture if I was the neighbor. They don't get this. If they they get even less if they look in for more information other than the simple notice they reached out. Sure. If they reached out or go online or whatever, this is what they would see and they would overlook the word multif family and think, "Okay, this looks nice." And I I don't know. So I think I have a This is a simple I'm going to press for a deferral until Yeah. something is more clear put out there for the neighbors to see what's realistic.

Yeah. It's more like overlook of the multif the number of multifamily. I think you know you see that and that just like me even though I know just it's a picture to know that's not this is unusual for a picture to be this drastically well specific when in fact it allows for much different much different yeah I I'm not saying this is unusual I don't remember us seeing something like this well to my knowledge there is no protest I don't know what the I know you said maybe you got a few calls I don't know what the nature of those calls real quick but you get my point not be protesting because this looks Fine. I don't know how many people actually reach out to staff to receive the document. Do you Sarah, do anyone reach out to your office? I I'm not aware.

I don't know that um standing here, but it's available online. Right. The notice would lead them online. They they wouldn't necessarily call and say, "Hey, I went online and not looked and it looks fine." They we might not know if they went online and looked. Sure.

What's the solution? I mean, is it we do a continuence? We got a problem. Do a continuence. They don't necessarily get a new notice. That's the thing. To go look and see the new revised drawings, right? So, that's a bit of a problem. I mean, there there's a a bit of an issue as it relates to a deferral because double notice was issued by the council person, meaning notice for both hearings has been sent. Um, I've never had a situation where a double notice hearing was deferred. I I don't even know what happened. What's that?

So, double notice was um approved. We have it queued up to be introduced at next week's council meeting. We would have to strike it, which would mean that the applicant's final council date would move to February. Okay. Mr. Box, I'm going to ask then what is your solution to make sure that the neighbors that got noticed? Yeah, this graphic was so drastically misleading that I don't see how I can be in favor of the drastically misleading graphic. You you'll have to have a solution that Yeah. gets the neighbors the proper information.

So, what I would do is I would between the commissioner and Councilman uh Pennington, I will revise or I Mr. Zitz's office will revise the exhibit. we can go meet with everyone that Kamal has been in contact with or Commissioner Harrington has been in contact with to ensure that they see what it is that is proposed. Does a specific plan requirement get noticed renoticed to No. Okay.

Yes. Just there's some uncomfortability here. It's again it's very misleading. Um, and uh, I know Councilman was was trying to push this along as best he possibly could. Um, but if this is what's going to show up to council, we're going to be right back in the same place.

We we can we have time to modify it before council for sure. We can get a new exhibit put out next week. Um, so that that's not an issue. The issue is the double notice that Kamal has. So, I thought you might propose I didn't think you would, but you'd propose that you all would send the notice to all the same no neighbors that would normally get the notice and you would include the corrected proper graphic. That would be one way to make sure that all the neighbors were familiar with ex and and you'd say, "Well, we don't normally do that." Yeah, you don't normally do that. Okay. I mean, we have that if they mailed way in advance to the same neighbors that would normally get it a proper

We will revise the exhibit. We will personally send the PUD master design statement with the revised exhibit to everyone on the ownership list and and in anyone else however much in advance of whatever the next thing would be either here or city council or we'll do it next week and it's just going to be probably three tracks and and that would be if there were alternatives alternatives would be okay. We'll show apartments. I mean we'll we'll show apartments. I mean if you wanted Yeah. or if it was clear this is one alternative but here's another alternative at least if they knew there was a different alternative. Sure, we can do that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that's satisfies me to this point. Okay.

All right. Anything else? Yeah, I mean I think we should include that as a TE. You can. All right. All right. All right. I move for approval of item 26 PUD 2120 with the TE specified.

Okay. So, we agree to TE1, TE2 350, TE3 a 10-ft landscape buffer. We agree to four, strike five, agree to six, TE7. The applicants representatives, specifically Miss Turner, shall be required to mail a copy of the PUD with the amended site plan to everyone on the ownership list uh by December the uh 18 19th. Her birthday is the 18th. So, we'll give them give her the day after. Mine's the 17th. She doesn't get that. What's that? Mine is the 17th. She doesn't get that. Okay. It's a busy week with But with those

good resolution. Thanks for offering to do that. Ser, I thought you were going to say no, it was not feasible, but I think that's reasonable. No, I'm I'm sorry. Um, will the will the exhibit be revised to limit where commercial could like the whole thing could be C3 or the whole thing could be R4 currently the way it's proposed? Are you revising your We'll show commercial on the front and we'll show multif family in the back. But will you create those? Will but will you create in the master design statement uh where each could occur or are you still seeking to allow any commercial development across the whole site or any are for development across the whole site. It's uh let us talk to the client. talk to you before

and the way I would hope that would be resolved is that's a great question and as long as what y'all do if commission councilman Pennington the rest of the council thinks that what was sent was a reasonable alternative then yeah other than you know you don't have to do the absolute most drastic thing you could possibly do instead if y'all put it out there and the council thinks it was reasonable then exactly and the specific plan that comes later kind of looks like what we're, you know, seeing here. Yeah. And my concern there was just that, which is normally what happens. This wouldn't happen. Yeah. That wouldn't happen if we went with this. The specific plan wouldn't look anything like this. 350 units. So, yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So, so we had a motion and the applicant read in the TEES. I don't know if we got Did we get TE7 in there? Yeah, you did. You read in TE7. Okay. So, and it won't be in that's that's that's a great question. I would be adding a TEA for the specific plan. Okay, that's fine. It's already in there. I think if if any Yeah, I would. Okay. Yeah, it's in there. And Sarah

Sarah's concern was addressed. I think it was it leaves them some latitude of what they send and if fortunately councilman Pennington has familiarity if he thinks it was still misleading then he can say it's still not sufficient just okay that was my thinking okay motion has been made all right

all right so we have a motion from commissioner Harrison subject to all the technical valuations read in seconded by commissioner LeForge please cast your votes Thank you. That item is recommended for approval. Item 27. This is PUD 2084 application to reszone 13803 North Council Road from PUD 1430, PUD 1545 and AA. Okay,

Mark sits at W Sheran Avenue. Uh before you is a bit of an interesting case in that we originally filed this as a straight C3 on the hard corner where it says PUD 14:30. Uh over the course of really several months, adjacent property owners asked to become party to the application. So, you know, I think we filed this back in April or May and we're now here with a complete application. During that time frame, we received uh communication from the adjacent neighborhoods to our west that had concerns and those concerns were about marijuana uses, uh traffic access into their neighborhood, uh hotel placement, multif family. So, we feel we've addressed all of those. Uh and really the last thing we did was we eliminated the residential uses including R2 uh duplexes in which one of the neighborhoods sent us a letter saying that they had withdrawn our objection. I don't know if there's anyone that's signed up to speak on this today. Uh but we had received I mean you probably have them in your packets dozens of letters. And so I think now the fact that the chambers are basically empty is a good sign that shows the progress we've made. And so uh the last thing I'll note is PUD 1430 and 1545 both allow uh various C3 and O2 uses. What we've essentially done is add in the agricultural track to our north and then the agricultural where it says oil well storage tanks and we've attempted to design it in a way that it could all work together if the property owners were able to sell this as one property to a new user. So uh staff had one TE in there that we do not agree to which was uh the private drives had to be constructed to city standards. I know that's been a requirement on residential properties uh to ensure that a individual home buyer was not going to have a substandard street. We're dealing with uh commercial users and similar to an office park, the parking lot and those drive aisles are built to a parking lot standard, not city street. So, we would ask for your approval uh

and that TE be struck. But I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mark. Um, will there will there be a office park association that'll be responsible for maintenance of the the drives and parking? Yes, there will be a property owners association. Okay. All right. Um, this is my ward. I do have someone signed up to speak. So, we'll hear from Mr. Jayfoot.

Good afternoon. I'm Jay Foot with Stone Manor Lakes. I'm here with Nikki Hoover. She's our HOA president. And rather than protesting, I actually want to thank Johnson and Associates, the homeowners, and all of you with the city that actually worked with us on listening to our concerns, making sure that Deer Creek continues to grow and thrive, but does so responsibly. So, uh, we're just really here to say thank you for being a part of this process, watching Deer Creek boom, and, uh, we do appreciate it. I wish we weren't number 27 on the packet, but uh we we were committed to that. So, I was going to say we we appreciate you sitting here all day to say something uh positive. So, I've had a lot lot of protesters sit for a long time. I've never had a supporter do it. So, thank you.

Thank you. If he lives in the city limits, he's not going to want to serve on the planning commission in Deer Creek anyway. Hopefully, he'll enjoy dinner before fighting the traffic north. So, uh, any other questions, comments from commission members? Okay, I think, uh, we're ready for a motion.

Oh, I I forgot. Uh, Don, he's gone. Oh, it was Don. You want to do it? If you're ready to do it, you go. Well, no, I think you should. I'll make Okay. Um, I hope there wasn't any extra tricks. Was it just a motion for This is a recommendation. Recommendation to city council. And we're striking TE1. Striking TE1. He would like us to. So we have a motion from Commissioner Leforge to recommend the item striking TE1. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes.

Oh, and that item is recommended for approval. Thank you. Item 28. This is PUD 2122. Application to reason on 101 Northwest 150th Street from PUD 557.

Mark sits at Winning Sheridan Avenue. This is currently a peed that's essentially straight C3. What we've done is amend it uh to add a tract that would allow for town home development uh attached single family adjacent. Um, we had when this got noticed, we had an HOA reach out. It's the HOA off of the single culde-sac that backs up to the ponds. Jared, if you could go to the aerial at that work. Um, so their only concern was drainage. One of the TEES on the sheet that I just handed you was uh specifically to address their concern uh which was TE8. And that's simply about ensuring that we have a proper fence and that we provide them our drainage analysis prior to the development of the property which we're in agreement with. They have uh very nice common areas and just want to make sure that trash doesn't blow onto it and people aren't wandering uh into their uh gated gated neighborhood. Um so walking through the TEES uh you have them in front of you. Uh we would ask that you delete TE1. As I noted, it's already commercial. We're seeking the flexibility to allow it to go either commercial or residential. The neighbors were aware of that. It's already zone C3, so we're not asking for anything more. Uh and then TE2, uh we agree to um adding additional language though that site proof screening may consist of the side of a proposed building if said building results in appropriate screening and shall be a minimum of six feet in height. No building setback will be required if the building is used for screening. That's just for the commercial tract. uh TE3 uh we don't agree to that was limiting the building height to 35 35 feet in tract 2 that's the commercial one we're seeking per code uh which is set back from uh the neighborhood and that is as it is today TE4 uh we are seeking to just keep

the signage section per code at TE5 we're seeking to add additional language that the low density uses which is the one unit to four unit have a maximum of 30% architectural metal be permitted that allows the senior independent living in tract 2 the allowance for architectural metal TE6 was uh asked to provide a minimum open space and so the added language was for residential development within tract one a minimum of 3 and a half% usable open space should be required TE7 was uh fencing shall be installed along the north property line where abuing the existing common area to the north as shown on exhibit B said fencing shall be permitted in blackcoated chain link and then TE8 at the time of design of the outlet structure the developer shall notify the abuing neighborhood HOA to the west to prevent design conflicts with the existing drainage structures. Uh this shall be provided to the neighborhood HOA prior to platting or specific plan application where applicable. So with that no one from the neighborhood has shown up. I don't believe you have anybody signed up.

We would ask for your approval. Happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Harrison this is your ward. You have any questions, comments? I do not. Anyone else? Um, I just would like to ask staff if there's anything in the new TEES that we you want to bring to our attention or anything that we should be concerned about.

She's reading. She's reading. I I was going to ask a question on the 3.5% usable open space. How does that compare to where's that number coming from? What's the logic?

A great question. So the subregs actually for a residential neighborhood of this size with this many units would not have any open space requirement. The subregs call for I think it's 2.7% unless you're attempting to get a waiver on impact fees and then it goes up to three and a half. So, we took the 3 and 12% number. If you go back to the site plan, Jared, it's a relatively small neighborhood. They all have private backyard space. And so, the three and a half essentially accounts for the two common areas at the end caps where there will likely be uh small park space.

Mark, I'm going to push back hard on TE number four. What's the problem? Sign code was just adopted. We have continued to say we will we're in agreement. When we went through all the public engagement on the sign code, it was we didn't want X. We wanted to limit the size of freestanding signs and all of that was done and the city made the choice to continue allow EMD and billboards in certain locations. So rather than further hamper the development, we've sought to just seek it per code. you and David teamed up on teamed up on that today.

It just so happened to align, but I I mean I think you've seen this over the last several months uh of people attempting just to build per the sign code. So I'm hearing the tone you're trying to set. Maybe that's usually appropriate, but am I wrong? The reason for a pud was sometimes something should be altered. in this situation, maybe the sign code if it allows EMD signs maybe should be altered. Is that

that's fair. I I would argue where it's a little bit tricky because we have this conversation about, well, you chose to do a PUD, therefore you chose to negotiate because you wanted something else. The unfortunate reality that property owners and developers are in, you do not have any base zoning districts for the most part that can get approved at this body or at city council. So, we're forced into the negotiation. So when we show up and say we want something per code, it's well, you chose to be here, so now we get to negotiate with you, and you just went through a city-wide negotiation on a sign code. So I I do think it's a little unfair to say that we're always choosing to negotiate because if we filed this a straight C3 or we don't even have a zoning district that allows for town homes to be built, like we have no other choice. And so I I do sometimes think it's you all putting additional

You have another choice. You could choose straight zoning, which would get denied. Exactly. Because it's not appropriate for that straight zoning area. So therefore, you're wanting something different than a straight zoning area. Therefore, we're talking about a putt, which is your choice. You have chosen to pursue a putt instead of straight zoning. It's a it's a false choice, but in any event, I do not think, unless you convince me otherwise, I don't know why EMD sign would be appropriate here. I think that was a perfectly fine te. Well, I think most banks when you drive down have EMD signs, right? like you you see little tickers at the bottom of their signage. Okay, we're fine to talk about level. I missed a bank. Okay, I missed what this was. Then there's a bank here. Bank a bank is one of the permitted uses. We ultimately don't know who the commercial tenants are going

or what kind of EMD sign it would be. A little ticker sounds like you know nothing, but if EMDs are permitted I work at a bank. We don't have an EMD sign at our branch.

I've seen lots of banks that don't as well. But I I mean I do in principle though we passed a sign code. The sign code should do what it's intended or else the sign code should be modified really. We should I I do actually agree with kind of their stance on this. Um that you know that I'll just leave it at that. But and as well as I agree that EMD signs are not appropriate here because these are residential. I was I was understanding that there's maybe some ground floor commercial on these two units and then residential above like kind of a a senior living and sort of semi uh managed type housing here. But so all the great work done on the sign code it may not be perfect for the next 50 years. It may actually need to be tweaked on occasion and in the meantime we have all option here as the staff recommended a TE and I've not heard a compelling reason to disagree with their TE yet. at for this location. I mean, we can say, well, the sign code is what it is. We heard it earlier and it could be Mr. Boxing up there, too. I'd say, come on. It was very hard work and sometimes we're going to want to deviate from it. I I wish I but it's

fair. Yeah, I think it's fair and because because of the proximity to the residential u proposed in this development that I mean although you want flexibility, you don't even know if you're doing residential for sure, right? Is it a situation where the EMD could just be directed towards Santa Fe to the ground? Like we're obviously not going to have signage that's projecting behind us that that doesn't benefit any retailer or commercial business. I mean, but the the building on the north,

four billboards on this location, period. That's it. The idea the idea that somehow because we went through a process and wasn't it though uh to code means that, you know, we're never going to have to vary it ever again and and it solves all problems and answers all questions. It's just nonsense. So,

yeah. And I understand. I just think when we look at, you know, commercial that's fronting a major arterial, the sign code did interpret that being appropriate for EMD signage. And so that's what we're trying to adhere to. So if we need to talk about, you know, we won't have any of the signage, you know, on the back side of the buildings facing residential, we're more than happy to do that. That's all I cared about. Could we amend the TE to basically say off- premise signs and billboards are not permitted within the PUD and EMD signs shall be limited to North Santa Fe frontage. That helps that that helps a lot.

Okay. The only thing I would say is that with our new sign code, we can't use a PUB or a spud to get something that would be less restrictive than what the base zoning is. So this base zoning is R1 and C3. So they would not be allowed to get a billboard anyway here. So meet code. See the code works sometimes. It if that's the direction of the amendment amended TE we would be supportive of that. The TE is also f I mean it's it's an SPUD. You said just a billboard would be allowed or the EMD would not also billboard. Billboard. Just a billboard. Okay. So the EMD we need to say it would be on Saturday. Okay. So, we

I I tell you what, I I'll I I'll go with this. If you can get it uh worded in a way that those uh residential properties to the north that the EMD is not visible from their homes. Um so the I mean I think we can like there's a large detention facility between them so there's already a buffer there. Um I mean do you have proposed language? I mean where facing Santa Fe probably I think maybe addresses between you and them I'm guessing but yeah I I think maybe addressing Santa Fe. So you want the the sign face to run parallel with Santa Fe and not perpendicular where we see it from north and south.

Well that no one would be able to see a sign. Okay. Like you'd have to be directly across the street, right? Um we know we're not putting signage in the detention pond. So there's a fairly sizable setback. Commissioner Powers, I see what you're trying to do, but if somebody has a two-story house up there, it's kind of hard to do that. And when somebody chose to live that close to Santa Fe if they end up with a sign that was appropriate for Santa Fe, I feel like they may they may have their notice. Otherwise, they needed to live way up tucked into a neighborhood. But if you're close to Santa Fe, you might end up with an appropriate sign on Santa Fe.

And it's already zone C3. That's per C3, the sign code. And that putt has been there for a significant period of time. So that piece of this would not be changing. We'd in fact further be limiting it to say no billboards.

You probably don't need my vote. So but I'd like it. I'm good. Let somebody make a motion then. Well, I I I shall move forward. I move that we approve item 28 PUD 2122 with the amended TE4 regarding the EMD lighting that was read in as which is the elimination of billboards and signage shall face Santa Fe, not project into the neighborhood. The neighborhood. Yeah. No. Yeah. No billboards. No billboards. period. Yeah.

All right. So, we have a motion to recommend the item of the city council subject to the amended tees.

It's been seconded by Commissioner LeForge. Please cast your votes. Oh man, that item is recommended for approval. Okay, that was our last item, but we do get to go back to item nine, super tall tower, and hear more about signs.

And Rob will come back up. I think he's identified it, but I think Jared, we've also been told that this works, so maybe he can Thank you, Jerry. I think you're so you can just scroll down to whatever slider. Okay. Because I don't see the page numbers.

Oh, I did it by the PDF page numbers. That's fine. I'll just scroll. I'm a fast scroller. Robbie Deo. Um, so I can use this now. Great. All right.

So, as we mentioned, these aren't part of the package. These were the original submitt from a year and a half ago. This starts this page starts the what is asking to be approved. Um and uh so as as we go through sorry these are the basically the I'll go through each one of these uh but we've kind of broke it down into different components. So it's the monument sign external facing uh oh I guess what wayfinding uh the tower identity signage which are the four towers. Um, and then we broke down the what we'll call the podium level, which is the retail and commercial into uh three different levels. There's level one, level two, and then level three plus some upper levels. There's uh, you know, in the super tall tower, there's a a restaurant that may be going up there that would be asking for a restaurant sign on the tower. Um, then we move into um actual tenant signage. And then the the last one is the LED signs. Uh again, it's the basically from the podium about plus or - 80 ft down. Um I did uh so I'll go through how this is laid out. And the one thing I want to point out, and you'll see this as we go through is that in the tables that I'll be sharing with you, everything you see up to the LED signs, it says no dig uh digital is not allowed. So, it's already in this package that all these signs that we're talking about, the building signs, the tenant signs, uh wayfinding, the names on the buildings, um cannot be digital. So, it's it's already addressed in here, and I'll point out to you where it is. So the way it's broken down, like I said, this this is set up. And so um each se one of these sections has an overall plan and then um just because of

the size of it, we have kind of zoom in areas and we show it in elevation. So um this is for monument signs. Uh these are, you know, low ground mounted monument signs typically uh with the name of the the development on it. Um so we've identified four possible locations for monument signs. doesn't mean that's where all we're going to use them all, but um you know for the time being um that's where they're shown. The external facing way finding these are really um mostly entrances. Uh this is the entrance to the below grade parking. This is the entrance to the above grade entrance to parking. So they're really identifying um kind of primary entrances to the um different parking fields because um below is all public. Uh this one serves just the hotel. This ramp here goes down to public up to residential. Um and so you know there's just a lot of different parking areas. So so that's what that signage is for. And then um on this side which is facing um the existing and new arena along the along the railroad tracks is this side. and and uh you know, we're asking for probably a mix of project identity signage uh which could be the project name as well as tenant signage. And so you'll see it's kind of covered in both. And the way it's broken down is um there's an overall square footage and you could either use a piece of it for the name of the project and then some for tenant, but it's it's not duplicate. It's you only get the amount that's shown. It's just you have the option to use it a couple different ways. We're still looking, you know, at visibility, but I stayed at the Marriott across the street and there actually be great visibility to the to the new arena. Um, you know, identifying this facility. So, um, in here, this is where, um, you can

see, you know, digital is not allowed. So, it's in in the um the different the the different sign types and then, you know, all not allowed. And you'll see this in every one up to the to the very end that digital is excluded. So the idea the worry about swapping out one one of the signs on the tall building to digital uh I think it is covered here that that can't happen. Um and then this is where we just start talking about kind of the number of signs uh the area and the area is kind of based on um the limits that that we show. And so what we've done and then you can just see we've gone into you know kind of a blowup plan. This is Reno. Um and and a blowup elevation to kind of just show where these um these signs would happen. Um and so we just go through side by you know basically elevation by elevation identifying uh where possible signs could be uh the size of them and um you know what they are whether it's a monument or wayfinding um or project ident or or project identity. This this basically is the side that uh the railroad track I think is elevated about to this second level here. And so this is all above the the railroad track in terms of um possible signs. And and and as I mentioned all of this is um parking. So um it it helps you know to provide you know maybe something that's a little nicer than just five, six, seven levels of parking. So, um, do you want me to you want to ask questions?

That's good on that face. I don't have any questions on this. I'd like to see if you have a rendering um of this side. I'd like to see that. Yeah. Uh, the render. Let's see. I don't know if I um I mean, basically, I think this is all I have. Um, which is this is the podium level right to about here. So, you can see the towers are are kind of springing out. So, as I mentioned, everything is really podium and below. So, it's really um to be experienced by the, you know, the blocks around it, not miles away like you said. I mean, that was one of the comments from before is right.

Yeah. And so, Oh, yes. Thank you. So there's just kind of a little So you can see all the towers spring off of the podium and and like I mentioned on this elevation in particular, you have the elevated uh train track um that block and that's why we don't have it going down the ground. I mean this probably won't even be necessary. We just haven't really studied what's visible. So I mean obviously the idea is if we're putting signs is for visibility. So any questions about this section then? No.

Okay. So this is where we, you know, we kind of went started into it a tower identity. So this just shows where a possible sign could be. Um, so super tall tower, all four sides because it could be seen. Um, three sides here, three sides here because the short side here, and this side really wouldn't be seen. And then, you know, the hotel tower, um, signs on all four sides. you know, the odds of them putting it here is probably unlikely because it wouldn't be seen, but like I said, I'm I'm trying to create um variety of options for the tenants. And so we we kind of have to identify where we think a sign can be and then uh and then put the controls on it. I mean, similar to the conversations you've been having where you're using the sign code, this would be the sign code that would get referenced for any sign that gets installed in this project. Um, so same thing here. Tower signs digital. No. Um, and then, you know, it just basically has this super tall. We break it down. Uh, primary signage, secondary signage. Um and the secondary signage is just as an example would be like um if it was a Hyatt one sign could say the Hyatt and then below it could say uh the residence at Hayyatt as kind of like a secondary signage. So another component of it. So it's it's related to the tenant. Um it's related so either to the tower um or like I said a hotel. Um and so that that's how these are broken down. And then it just gives you the maximum quantity which really aligns with you know however many sides you see you know four four three three uh

quantity for the building total not per side per yes per per building total. So there's there could be four of the super tall and and like I said that's because you can see there's one two three four on this plan and that's so that's how it's it's described and uh but I think on your summary so your total area though would be divide like if if you wanted to spread it out equally your 41,440 ft it'd be 10,000 and change each. Yeah, the you wanted four signs or you could have one sign. There's 40,000 1,000 signs. You cannot because the limit um there's limits on

Oh, per elevation. You'd have first you hit your per elevation and there's 80% of the width and then um the heights 30. Yeah. And then here's the height. So, you couldn't do like a 100 foot tall sign and use it all on one side. So, it's like I said, the reason for the size of these letters is because they're

three, four, 500, 2,000 feet in the air. So, uh they seem huge, but in the scale of things, um you know, they're they're scaled appropriately for kind of the the building size. So, we break down each one and and like I said, the quantities really align with uh the number of faces and then whether there's one or two. Um we're allowing um um the like the tower uh there's a conversation that you know the the dream um may go dual brand and so we've you know we're allowing for um two different hotel names on the same tower. Uh so if it was the same tenant they wouldn't have two signs because they're allowed one sign per facade. So, but we had a great ability because they're talking about possibly doing a dual branded hotel. Um, maybe raising um, you know, originally the project was designed to 345 ft, but the height limit was re re removed in the original spud. So, there's talk about maybe raising the hotel uh, a little bit taller for some variety. And so, if they do, they would be adding another another um, hotel tenant. Mhm. So that's that's what we're looking at here. So it's broken down the same way, but like I said, I want to point out they can't come in into a digital sign. Uh these are um and further down I'll show you there's a section that actually goes into very detail about what how to make the sign that can go there. So um it even gets into letters, you know, lighting and everything else. And so um like I said, these are just possible locations. Like I said, the reason we say possible is I mean it's the width, but you know whether it's up or down a little. Um we don't know. Um so we just would want a little flexibility to locate this where it makes sense. If the hotel ends here, they may want their

hotel sign here and then the next hotel here. So, um, like I said, we're trying to design in flexibility while giving you guard rails to, um, you know, process every, you know, the sign approvals through. So, I'm got a question on that. So, in this scenario, if you had, I guess, a hotel that occupied the bottom half of this, then they could have a sign at the top of their hotel. And then if there was another hotel that was further up, then they could have a sign. Is that we've only asked for two plus design? What's that? That would be bad design. That like that I just don't like that.

Um I mean like multiple like we're going to we're going to have big signage. Like it's just not good. I don't actually think you'll end up doing that. I know you want the flexibility. I I that would be a terrible decision as a developer. Well, people like their names. Oh well. Yeah, I know. and they're willing to pay for it, but that doesn't mean it's good architecture. Good good architectural towers do not do that with their signage. Like maybe in Vegas, and they may not it may not even be necessary. You know what I mean? So, you don't see it in New York. You don't see it in cities that build tall towers all the time. You see it in uh theme parks and and that kind of thing. So, I don't think we're trying to create a theme park here. But um so that's that's my concern on that.

Just be really clear. You're saying the the multiple signage up to the hour is bad idea. Yes. Yes. Um I get the flexibility, but uh I you know, and this is really I don't want to do this for all your signage on the building. I get most of the project. It makes sense. All the, you know, wayfinding monuments, leader reader boards at the low-level podium and stuff. It's really it's these tower monument signs is my only concern. and having multiple signs at multiple levels on a on a given facade of a tower. I just I'm not going to support that. Um but that doesn't mean it other people have the same concern.

I have a question too in regards You've got this up there. Uh I did a little bit of math and so the upper signs on the super tall tower can be 50 foot tall the letters. Correct. Yes. And the lower buildings, which are significantly smaller in scale, are 30 foot, which is basically 60% of the 50 foot that we're putting up at 2,000 ft. We're putting that on buildings that are 3 or 400 ft. Yeah. I mean, these are maximums. I say, you know, unfortunately, that seems way out of whack to me.

Yeah. the the the problem with the the maximum is if you try to you I guess it's name specific name dependent somewhat because you know if it's a short name I guess they could probably use the 30 ft because they won't come close to the 80% width uh but a lot of names are limited by the 80% and then the height is a function of the font and the design it kind of you know one slides with the other almost but you know if it's a high they probably could do the 30 foot Um because it's a you know five letters or you know versus Yeah. I I don't get the point why there's a sign 1900 foot up in the air. So you know one time

you're flying by it. You're not going to read it. We had a a whole discussion. I don't know whether the sign code solved this problem or not because I can't read the sign code. didn't have a 2,000 foot tower where anything that was um lettering on a background, the entire background was part of the signage uh calculation as opposed to just the lettering, right? And is that still the case? Yes. I can't remember. I could look it up in our uh famously straightforward sign code if you'd like. In here we're using in here we're using the rectangle. Yeah, they're going they show how they made they're going left.

When I go further down it shows how that it's calculated, but it basically is the rectangle. So you don't get to follow every little letter. No, no, I understand that. But um at least I I would I would hope so. I would have not even thought about that. But

this is a very complicated situation. Can you go back to the GR graph on the the the numbers summary for the super tall? Okay. So, how can we limit the number of signs per elevation? I I don't care about the total quantity. I mean, sorry, the the total size and area and the limits of size per elevation. I'm just talking about sign quantity, separate signs per elevation. Um, and is that a problem if we limit that um from three to one or three to two? Whoa.

I I I think it would be I mean unfortunately the owner is not here, but um like I said the to if that tower gets built it's going to be something that's different than anything around. So people are going to want their name, especially the super tall. It's almost

you could limit it on the two multi you could limit it on the two multif family buildings. I would ask that you limit it to two on the the hotel tower and then on the super tall I maybe within a certain distance from each other. I just um like I said there's talk about um commission two hotels going in there. Um would it be is it is it a thing? You you mentioned you've noticed a lot of signage in bigger cities, but um I mean I I like the idea personally of limiting it to one on top, but they have four sides. I mean if you had like Hyatt on dual another one another whoever the second big tenant is on the other two.

Yeah. I'm not talking about I'm talking about per elevation like three signs going down. If it was two per side, it's still eight. It's still two, four, six, eight signs. Yeah. But if you have one per elevation, you could have somebody occupy these sides and another business occupy these sides. That's four. Yeah. Look, at the end of the day, I think it's all uh the discussion is not really worth trying to solve now because I'm confident enough that that we're not going to have this issue with this tower. That's just my my feeling on it. So, uh, we can focus on the phase one parts cuz they they'll probably

said it, you know, if it get if if we're getting stuck on just the tower, then maybe that we push that piece because that's a phase two and bring it back for some more discussion. And I would I would say we we we let's say phase two signage gets submitted separately and we approve that separately maybe because in time things will be more clear as what's happening and how it works. it's 19, you know, if it gets, you know, we still have the FA. I mean, we still have other things to deal with with that time. It may be 1,000 ft by the time we're done and then maybe you don't want three signs cuz it's not super tall anymore. I think we'd be okay um removing

that from the vote as a you know, as a an aside because like I said, it is phase two and we have more time to address those concerns. Yeah, I I would I would suggest that's the case and atro at a more appropriate time with with better information, people can talk about Super Tall Tower. That's phase two signage. Let's approve phase one signage. Yeah, if we can do that.

Although, I will say it's very helpful to me to hear your thoughts on these things even now because you're not going to be with us that much longer. It's something that's way beyond my area of expertise and good design matters. There are so so many places in Oklahoma City where friends and family will say, "Who let that happen?" And you know, it's like I don't want to have to answer, "Oo, I did." You know, it's like I it's even if we do decide, and I'm perfectly all right with that idea, pushing off the tall tower to phase two, um because I'm like you, not holding my breath. But um even if we do that, I would still like for us to have this discussion as we go along.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm I'm not going anywhere today. I know it's late and we need and people have things they need to get to though. So should we click through this and and I mean if you want to like I said and I'm also good with limiting it on the residential to just um one per face for elevation. Um, like I said, I would ask that if you do limit it that you limit it to two on the on the um the proposed hotel tower, just knowing I I mean, I personally agree with that just because I think it makes sense. Yeah. So, I mean, so I'm okay with those limitations if if that provides better guard rails for you guys. It certainly does.

Okay. Okay.

All right. So, we can go. So that's the tower identity and now we like I said now we just go level by level. Um and so um basically like I said we've just kind of identified where retail signage can happen. This is you know obviously we're not going to have a sign that goes from here all all the way around. These are this is actually real tenant signage uh you know brand names going in. And so uh we identify all the different locations and the different uses. Um same thing all no digital um you know internally lit um and then each one is broken down kind of to uh the you know different area you know different makeups and like I said as we get further into this section we can go through this there's very

do five seconds a slide like do do one sentence a slide and we'll sell you to stop someone so again no digital um and And then it just just shows where a sign could be. Like I said, if if this tenant is just, you know, 20 ft wide, he he gets 16 ft of sign at max, you know, and so it's it's literally per tenant uh per use. And so it's all broken down. Uh like I said, this just goes around level one and then the next section is level two. Um so it just shows you, like I said, where a hotel sign could be. They still have like I said to all the requirements to meet and uh and then this just repeats on level two. You can see

back one. Go back one slide. Sure. This is the view standing on Reno. And so from the ground to about the bottom of where it says tenant residential hotel, that's 80. That's the 80t that I've been talking about. And so, like I said, here's there's one, two, the third level is is only on the hotel side and it's mostly hotel uses. And then this is all parking. And then same on this side. There's uh there's parking from this level up to this level as well. And so the we'll get to the LED signage um you know, which is uh different than the the tenant sign.

Okay. And and so like I said, this you know, as you move up, there's just um we really only have retail on on the in inner level. It's all accessible from inside this area. So uh hotel signage and some retail signage. Um same goes through, you know, how you determine the height and width of it. Digital is not required or not allowed. Um go to level three. Oh, sorry. This is just the elevation of level two. Same, you know. So, we go all the way around, identify every area we think there'd be a sign. Um, and then this goes into level three, like I said, which is basically, uh, hotel level, uh, meeting rooms, that kind of stuff. Um, may they may not even have a sign, you know, for it.

Good. Good.

Yeah. So, um, same thing, digital not allowed. And then it just breaks down the different sign types, you know, uh, hotel, residential, hotel, uh, tenant, um, total area. Um, so you I'll just, you know, so I think you get, like I said, this is just there would be I think they're talking about a restaurant up on the upper level. So I don't know they'd put a sign up there because it's not going to be that tall. So they might want a sign, you know, down low for it. Um, but just to some allowance for sky restaurant. And then here's the section I'm talking about where it talks about uh prohibited signs, you know. So, this goes into the very specific similar to your sign code uh on uh you know, every sign, how it can look, what's allowed, what's not allowed, storefront signs. Um, and so this is where it kind of controls it. um the the manufacturing of the signs basically. So you can have back lit, front lit, not lit. Um um and and so this controls the signage on the site other than the LED sign which is which is uh the next section. Uh so it it goes in we have some blade signs just down on the retail level. Um and then the last one is the the podium LED signs. I said we kind of identify externally facing and internally facing. Um um one can argue this is all external facing because you could see it. Uh I don't think we we're not asking for any difference between the two. So um in terms of what's allowed or approvals um and then it it just goes through same thing. These are just maximum areas. We're just showing, you know, we haven't worked out every detail and uh, you know, there's just some realities that

come to um, you can't put it on every square inch of every every facade. I think it'd be a good idea if you would, I know this would be probably a total pain, but if you would um, uh, revise these where you use the terminology LED to read EMD. That's what we're used to. That's how we think of it. So I think it'll just it'll um you know keep it from becoming confusing. Sure. Yeah, we can do that.

Um you know, this is just showing you examples of you know what we're trying to create um here. And like I said, I think you know, if you look at some of the renderings for the arena and the new multi-purpose arena, you know, they have similar graphics down at the plaza levels. you know, really to engage the, you know, it's it's really more for the local, you know, a block or two way. You're not going to see these signs. Um, is is A8 that the sign listed as A8? Is that the Reno frontage? Um, or it's back on the the pre the A8 section, the 26,000 ft. Is that Reno? Probably. Let's see. No, it's this is the one that I was saying it's this is on the um fre No. Okay, that's the railroad track.

The railroad side. Yeah, I've just separated it to either or both, but limited to the area that's identified. So, um, like I said, it's a big blank wall right now. Um, and so it'd be nice to

create some visual interest out the trains and like I said, the arena. Um, and so this is, like I said, this is just kind of showing what we're thinking. Um, and then it just breaks it down same thing to just where they could, you know, where each one of the can, this just aligns with the square footage. And so they would be within those areas, not necessarily the full area. Um, and so we we same thing, we just break it down side by side, showing an elevation, a blow up. Um, so you kind of kn see where it's at. And then um and then this like I said just was kind of the summary which said you know the original um SPD was approved about 430,000 square feet of signage. You know the max we'd ever get to is 300. That's if we put every sign in every square inch that we show which is really not the intent. Like you said uh Dan I think you understand that like we're going to make it look good at the end. You know that was kind of your concept.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. No, no. Just just cuz we can doesn't mean we will kind of, you know. So, I understand that. But then every time you see where we're sitting, it's like Yeah. Just cuz in writing you you you know, sometimes people do. I understand.

But um look, I I've I've caused enough uh difficulty here. And um I appreciate what you're doing. I appreciate the package you put together. Um and it it there's a lot of information. It's hard to make it simple to digest. Um, and I think, you know, you've done a good job of that. Anyways, my that's my at the end of the day, my only comment on this is I do think it would be prudent to limit the the the the building signage to one per face on the residential, two per per when I say per face, I mean per elevation and two on the hotel. I'm okay with that. I think that'd be my only comment. And then pull out the tall tower and then the Yeah. tall tower to be approved at a later date.

Yep. I I do want to make the comment that you did put together a very good package. I reviewed it last night and it was um you put a lot of work and effort into it and I appreciate that. Um the one thing I do want to point out here is and I understand the intent not to use all the square footage, but we're talking about seven almost 7 acres of signage at 300 and some thousand square feet just to kind of put that perspective. um the 30 foot letters and I I just pulled up something on my phone. Um you know at a,000 ft viewing distance it's recommended I think a 2 and 1/2t letter from AI and we all know how accurate AI is. But a 2 and a half foot letter is it?

Yeah, that's what it says for thousand square thousand feet. My eyes are not that good. Um I don't know. I just it's a lot for me to bite off. Remember their max they're maximum building in Houston that's got it's only 13 stories so I think it's maybe I don't care 178 or I mean it's 200 feet tall maybe and and it's got 30inch high letters on it and it's just a normal apartment. Yeah. 30 inch letter 30 foot or inch? 30 inch 30 inches like a foot and two and a half feet. Yes, for a for a 200 or

well it's 14 stories so I'm trying to you know but it's it's around 200 less under 200 foot threshold but I'm just saying 30 in and that was just a building that was just built and they're big for that building. Um I'm just trying to give an example. I mean I think the 50 is out but if we want to reduce it to 25 or a little bit less like I said I think the width is going to drive drive it before it gets to those heights. Yeah. Yeah. Um but um we're okay dropping it a little bit if if that's makes you

I was looking at the the letters like the the skyline signs for the B tower for example and uh the bank first I think u they're the new one at 499. So uh B is is about a story high. So that's what they're the top of the so it's you know maybe 15 12T 12 to 15. I didn't mean to say what I that's the height I think these should be. I I'm good with your heights. I just was for an example. And and I'm not trying to say 30 foot's wrong. I'm just trying to wrap my head around 30ft ladder. You have me wondering if it isn't wrong. I mean, how tall is this ceiling? And you saying at 12t I remember 25.

It's taller than this whole room. The ladder back taller than this whole room. But the thing is going to be at 2,000 ft in the air. I'm talking about the tall tower now. Are we 30? No. If you want to reduce it on the lowers, we're talking about the hotel and the res. It'd be totally different if we're talking about at the top of the tall tower. We're if we're talking I think that one's at 50. That's only one at 50. If you want to take the rest to 20, it's we'll probably If I remember right, bank first was 14 ft is what we granted the varian 14t letters. Yeah. Yeah. That bank first and that Okay. Yeah. Which one? And that's up at the top of the bank first tower. That's taller than these short buildings, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

The short buildings. Yeah. The two residentials are uh 350 and I mean the hotel is currently 350 now but likely is going to and let me say this bank first in more of a traditional like office building. There it is. They're trying to make this more exciting. The oak is whatever this time square whatever. So I get it could be unusually large compared to bank first but make sure it's not to your point Bobby. uh what is extraordinarily I I can just tell you that sometimes we need a little more height for a logo type you know what I mean like yeah I get that you know what I mean so what happens is the logo when you limit heights Yep. You know your logo is this big and then your letters smaller. So,

kind of what I was talking about earlier, you know, when you're talking about the actual lettering, if you're talking about something that has a background to it, a logo, and then the lettering is, you know, but I Yeah, I think that the the the other thing that that we should keep in mind is signs these signs are very expensive. So, they only want to make them as big as they have to be to to work for where the viewing is. So I I you know I I I'm kind of

the number of times that people I think reading a signed that they didn't need to go that big what I'd be happy to limit it to 20 for the lower if he's saying that that seems reasonable because then if for some reason they needed it you'd be able to come back and say actually here's the logo that technically we need for the 30 ft and Yeah. So to keep them from doing something crazy that would be for a shock value that we would regret. I'm okay with that on the lower ones. Like I said, I think you need that height on the high one. Would they? I mean, who knows if they put us on it's going to be in the clouds half the time. I don't even know how you reassign that. And I'm perfectly fine with the high one. It just in my head I've started looking at the proportions and then started thinking about the actual It's a It's a fair comment.

You you taking his offer on the change it to 20 foot though. I feel a lot more comfortable 20 foot. That's a one-/3 reduction. Okay. It's I I think it's okay for the taller I mean the shorter towers like you said cuz the most it's going to be is 499 which the FAA has approved. So, you know, they're all you know it's shorter than Devon. I think that's at 850. Okay. And then so there would be no EMD above plus or minus 80 ft. I call it the podium level. Just like I said because it's

Yeah. I mean, if you're going to make that as a a comment, I would just say above no none above the podium level because that's really what it's intended. It's really to I mean create a different vibe, you know, kind of an active vibe and to help screen um you know, seven levels of parking that we're putting above uh the retail. better than I thought I would at the beginning of this discussion. Honestly, I mean, this is a lot of information. Are we taking any action on this today? Yeah, we're approving. Oh, no. Yeah, this is it, right?

What did we discuss on I know you talked about limiting the number of signs on the lower building or on is the residence tower? Yeah, the two residential towers. One per side is fine. And then on the we'll just call it the hotel tower, I ask for two. Motion, please. I think so. per side. I think so. Yeah. Yes. So, in the residential towers would be a total of four signs. If they Yeah. Only three were shown maximum anyway. So, and they probably wouldn't put it on the inner side. Like I said, I'm not sure where they'll put it. They If it was me, I'd be putting it probably north and west facing and not east and south just because of the buildings.

Then let's circle back just for a minute. Are are we wanting to take out the um power and leave it as part of phase two or do we feel like we want to take some action on that today? No, we do not. No, I think we felt better leaving it out. Okay, that's what I would phase one is far more important. So, if we can get through phase one, it's worth removing phase two. So, so well, uh does someone want to make a motion? You want me to make an attempt at this? I think I think you have the best handle on it. I had and in honor of your last meeting, we'll let you have the last

last motion, last uh meeting of the day. And I had these things written down and now I've lost the paper that I uh had it had them written on. And I just changed pages, but um so uh we are um I'm going to move to approve the signage or the SPUD1613 SP1 with the following technical evaluations. TE1 is is to limit uh hotel sorry limit residential tower signage to one per elevation to limit hotel tower signage to two per elevation and to uh remove phase 2 signage from this package so that so phase two signage is not approved today. We're approving phase one signage only as indicated on the site plan uh divisions between phase one and phase two.

There's one other that we rename it to EMD and and we yeah we'll rename uh LED signs to EMD signs to more accurately reflect them. And are we limiting the height of characters of letters on the uh hotel and tower to 20 ft hotel and residential tower signage to 20 ft maximum. Yes. So then are we is there also as part of this that that we are uh going to see uh specific signage in smaller package forms as they come forward. Do we need do do we need to specify that as part of this process or is that already built into the process?

So any future signage will have to adhere to the document you're approving with the changes and then those get submitted to the city for signed permit review in accordance with this. Anything outside of this would have to come back to you. So we won't see it again. So we won't see it again. Right. I mean, otherwise, like logistically, you'd be looking at 16 square foot signs super hundreds of times over, which I don't think is what the planning staff wanted. I don't want to do that. Your staff enforces what this says basically. No different than today. There's a lot to bite down on though.

It it is that that's the motion. Well, I'd like to add one more TE that there's no EMD signage allowed above the podium level. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. TE5. Yes. Uh to read no EMD signage allowed above podium level. We agree. Okay. That's good. Okay. Um All right. All right. So, I have a motion from Commissioner Goine to approve the item subject to the technical technical evaluations. It's been seconded by Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your votes.

And that is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you for bearing with us. Oh, absolutely. I hope it was I hope it was worth a missed flight. It's okay. Oh, we make you miss your flight. It's all right. Yeah. Sorry, I'll go in the morning. This was worth it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. And consideration. Okay.

Uh, additional items, communications and reports. Planning Commission committees. There are none. Planning Commission members. Well, of course, we hate to say goodbye to Commissioner Goen. I hope your I hope your reunification with your family goes well and is happy and it's great that it's Christmas and all that, but we sure will miss you. Well, thank you. Think about it sometimes. Oh, I will for sure. You really you've been you've been a wonderful source of information and and help to me in during your time here. So, uh, I will definitely miss having that resource as well as your charming personality.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Meek. Commissioner Privet. Bye, Dan. Twice now, but maybe. Oh, yes. Yes. Commissioner Harrison. Safe travels. Enjoy, man. And thank you for the time. Just watch us on YouTube. Text me what I'm doing wrong and everything will be just fine. Are you saving me for the last? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

I also want to say I've been been here with you for a long time. So, it's been a pleasure. Appreciated the professionalism when we've had disagreements. They've never been ugly. They've always been very healthy. So, thanks for all that. And I didn't know this was your last meeting where I would have been maybe a little more differential today. I was Oh, no. Russy, that's what makes it fun. That's and it's been good. It's been a pleasure. Appreciate it. Uh well, yeah. Thank

Well, hold on. I'll I'll let you have the last word. So, um yeah, I just want to echo what everyone said and um your um views and insights have been invaluable to this commission and so those those will be missed. And then I was talking with Jeff, we'd like to appoint you to like special envoy to UK planning. So, we'll we'll have some check-ins. Happy to happy to do it. Uh well yeah, thank you. Thank you, Nate. Thank you, everyone. I appreciate all the all the sentiments and um yeah, I'm I'm I'm physically leaving Oklahoma City, but but not spiritually and and I I'll always be connected to this place and my my parents are still here and my job's still here. I just happen to be doing it in London. So, I'm still working on Oklahoma City projects. You may even see me on that side of the oval at some point, you know, for all I know. But I'll certainly be back uh you know on a fairly regular uh basis. But um but yeah to what you said too it's it's um the it's been a very rewarding experience and um you know we learn from each other. So, uh, I think that's been I've learned so much by doing this and I think that's been the best part of it. And not only from, you know, you learn from the people on this oval, you learn from your community, you learn about the city, uh, and it makes you a better citizen. Um, so I think it's uh, we're we should be really proud in Oklahoma City at how well our city government works because there's a lot of places that it it's not like this. and um we have some really talented and dedicated staff and well-meaning uh individuals that that believe in this city and support this city. So, I'm proud to be a part of it and uh it's been a great experience. So, may uh I'd be happy to do it again. So, thank you all very much. That's all from me.

Yeah, thank you. Um planning department um just thanks Dan. Uh we would love it if you would be doing it again. you've been you've been part of a a great commission. Um, and so your uh your perspective has been really appreciated. London's a nice town. I've been there once. So, it's a hat of the king for me. Um, but that's uh that's all I have. Municipal counselor's office. No, I do not see any citizens to be heard. No other business. We are journed. Thank you.