Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

folks. Welcome. And I will call this November 5th, 2025 uh meeting of the Shauny Planning Commission to order. Uh roll call, please. All right. Um, Alexander here, Porter here, Barrett here, Johnson here, Hayes here, and Ree here. All right, we have a quorum. Thank you very much. Item number one, consideration and approval of the minutes from the October 1, 2025 regular meeting. Do I have any additions, subtractions changes? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. So moved.

Second. And second, please. All right. Alexander Iter. I. Barrett. Hi. Reese. I. Johnson. I. Hayes. I. All right. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Item number two, consideration of the 2026 planning commission regular meeting schedule for approval or possible action. I'll make a motion to approve the 2026 calendar. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. All right. Alexander I. Porter. I. Barrett. I. Reese.

I. Johnson. I. And Hayes. I. All right. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Item number three, public hearing and consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental at the property addressed as 3520 North Market Avenue, case number CUP03-25. Applicant Mary Wisdom. All right,

you don't need that.

All right, thank you for that. Um, as stated, this is a request for a conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental at the property addressed as 3520 North Market Avenue. Um, so this property is located um at the corner at the southwest corner of the intersection of North Beard and West 36th. Um it's currently zoned R1 for lowdensity residential and has similar zoning to um all directions surrounding it, north, south, east, and west. Um the owner is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental. Um so this is not an existing short-term rental that is coming into compliance. Um this is um seeking for approval to begin. Um, so as a reminder, a conditional use permit authorizes the owner or agent um to use a piece of property in such a way that is not allowed by right in a certain zoning district. Um, rather a is an avenue by which certain land uses are allowed provided the owner meets certain criteria. Um so in this the R1 zoning district um a short-term rental is allowed within conditional use permit. Um the comprehensive plan future land use map indicates a low density residential land use and the current zoning district um is meant to accommodate those types of uses. Um, and let's see. Um, let's see. Property has zoning. Okay. Um, the owner, as stated, is Mary Wisdom and, um, she's designated a property

manager who lives in town to be present when she cannot. Um, and we have that person's contact information as well should any sort of complaint or emergency arise. Um, are there any questions for staff? Thank you. At this time, I will open the floor to the public hearing. Uh, whenever if you'd like to speak for or against, I will try to keep it uh uh as even as possible. Um, if you would please come forward and uh write down your your name and contact information real quick and uh we will proceed. So, I will declare this portion of the public hearing open. Anyone like to come forward?

You're the winner. That's why we're here. Hi. I'm the owner. Okay. Wisdom. So, I figure yes, I should come forward and ask that it be approved and move forward. And I have my property manager with me as well. Okay. So, I don't know. You want me to sign in here? Sure. Okay. Um, this is our first experience doing this, so we're a little bit uncomfortable and unsure what's happening. So we just want to say yes, we hope it goes through and then goes to the next step which I think is another more open forum in the evening evening time. Right. The full city commission.

Yeah. And we've been delayed a month or so because of uh inaccurate or the wrong paperwork was sent out to the public. So um but that's all I have to say. I just hope it gets approved and thank you very much. Any questions? I do have a question. You said this was your first short-term rental. Yes. Okay. First experience. Yes. Well, uh, here in Oklahoma. Yes. I've had a short-term rental in, uh, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Oh, very active market there. Yeah. I've been through this since 2016 there. U, but not here. We didn't have to do this. So, this is new. This is a new process.

Okay. Well, thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this issue? In that case, I will close the public hearing. Oh, sorry. Okay, Steve. All right. At this time, I will close the public hearing and uh there's no further discussion. I will call for a motion. Make a motion to approve um the CU Top Right short term. I'll second motion in a second. Roll call, please. Alexander, I Porter. I Barrett. I Reese, I. Johnson, I. Hayes,

I. All right, motion passes. Thank you very much. Item number four, public hearing and consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental at the property addressed as 17308 Magnino Road, case number CUP04-25, applicant Will Jones.

All right, thank you for that introduction. Um, estate, this is another request for a conditional use permit. Um, similar to the previous request, it is a conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental. Um, however, this is a case where um the property owner um has been operating a short-term rental and um as we are continuing to guide um any current operations back into compliance with city code um they're requesting a conditional use permit. Um, so this address, uh, 17308 Magneino Road is located in the Twin Lakes area, um, just on the south side of Lake Number two. Um, and so it is correspondingly zoned TL for Twin Lakes. Um, this property, like most others in the Twin Lakes area, is a lease from the city. Um, which just means that they um they lease the right to own the building and the home. Um, so they don't technically own the parcel itself. Um, let's see. Um, similar to the previous item, um, a short-term rental is allowed in the zoning district with a conditional use permit. Um, and the applicant has provided for your review a copy of the house rules that they will have um, with this rental. Um, are there any questions for staff?

Thank you very much. At this time, I will open up the public hearing. If anyone would like to speak about this particular item, please come forward. if you would please uh just put down your name and contact information real quick and tell us who you are and what you'd like to say.

So, we're Scott and Nanchadiated. We live two doors down. We live at 17316 Magdino Road. So, this property is very close to our property. So, my husband here, Scott, has a couple things written down. He wants to just ask some questions. Yeah, we're not too familiar with this would be like an Airbnb type situation and I would think that anybody who lives within a couple houses of it would probably ask the same questions if we were to open up one. And uh some of the things we wanted to know because we're not that familiar with it. I know there's like four or five Airbnbs in the Shauny Twin Lakes area right now. um they've kind of required you to have houses and and not mobile homes, which is good. And this isn't a mobile home or anything like that, but there are some rules and stuff. And some of the things we want to know is how often this is going to be rented. Uh what type of security is going to happen because we live two blocks down. We have grandkids that come over all the time. Um is there a limit to the number of people? And we don't have the rules that you have on on this. um what is there if there's a problem? Who do we call? Um how many years this is going to go on? Is it going to be just for a year? Is it going to be for 20 years? Um and of course the regulations of the Airbnb. And these are some questions we just want to know because we live there permanently and we're two houses away from this place.

And being on the lake, people come out and there's Airbnb a little bit further down the road. But we have noticed on the weekends, especially holiday weekends, people come out, they're not really familiar with voting rules and it gets a little bit scary out on the lake. And so when our grandkids come out, especially when we notice that, we try and keep them wrangled in close to home. So we're just worried about the safety. So thank you. Uh and I know that they just recently bought the place probably within the last six months. So, uh, and we're aware of that. We knew who was there before and, uh, so yeah, that's just our concerns.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak?

Good afternoon. My name is Brett Vaningham. I'm here on behalf of Will and his wife Christina. Christina and they are in South Carolina. and they asked me to be able to come and attend some of that that um the concerns there this I don't in your letter I don't know what it what it says but Will is a superintendent out here at Dale public schools his wife is a principal over at Dale over at um Buffalo public schools and they purchased this property I kind of helped them with that process to be able to get to their when they purchase the property their intentions are they want to retire there this is what their ultimate goal is but during that period of time obviously they're both not to a retirement age and so they would like for to be able to have an opportunity to be able to do that to be able to be an Airbnb during that period of time and um they are uh very open to whatever you know rules and guidelines that you all want to set out they're they're very open to that whatever that may be. So as for some of the concerns that you know they had I'm sure that um once the people can maybe meet Will and his wife they can help with some of those concerns that they have as well. be more appropriate for you to answer their questions since we're not really a question and answer body.

I'll be glad to I'll visit with them whenever whenever we get done and try to maybe help help them maybe understand what what their goals and kind of then maybe make a connection to hear that communication like and get open between the two. So anyway, thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? In that case, I will close this portion of the public hearing. And if there are no more comments or questions, I will ask for a motion, please.

Okay. Ask one question. Not not them, but one thing that came up in one of the other ones that we were talking about and just as a I think this is something that needs to be talked about at the commission too, u specifically out at Twin Lakes. And I I can see why somebody would want to do this out there. I think it's a good thing that people want to be able to rent their properties. It doesn't bring people in. It does bring people in who will shop here and things like that. But one of the questions that came up was the response time if there are issues of of the city police department because there's the only the only my understanding is the only real Let's go ahead and make let's let's make a motion and we'll have that let's do that as part of motion discussion please. Okay.

So I I will call for a motion please. Make a motion to approve the recommend approval of the Airbnb application. Second. Motion and a second. Second. Roll call, please. All right. Alexander. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We have discussion. We have a motion. Actually, I would be willing to discuss. I would be willing to discuss it during commissioner's conference. Okay. I can do it then. That's perfect. All right. Sorry about that. Okay. Uh, so we are back to local. All right. Alexander. Hi, Porter. Hi, Barrett. Hi, Reese. Hi, Johnson. Hi, Hayes. Hi. All right, motion passes.

Thank you very much. Excuse me. Item number five, public hearing and consideration of a request to reszone the property address as 306 East 45th Street from C2, which is regional commercial to R3 High Density Residential. Case number RZ04-25, applicant Dean Kolita.

All right. Thank you. Um, as stated, this is a request to reszone a property um from C2 Regional Commercial to R3, which is highdensity residential. Um, this property is currently addressed as 306 East 45th Street. Um, however, you might recognize it. um as um last year approximately this time. Um this partial did come through as a plat. Um now the plat itself was approved by city commission but has not yet been filed which is why it is still addressed as a singular piece of property instead of a whole subdivision. Um so currently it is zoned C2. Um, and to the north is R1 zoning. Um, yeah, to the north is R1 zoning. Um, and is the site of a residential subdivision. Um, to the northwest is R3 zoning. Um, to directly to the west is C2 zoning. Um, and then to the southeast is some TA zoning, which is transitional agriculture. Um, so the applicant is wanting to reszone a section of the area that was platted last year. So it's not the whole subdivision, just a part of it. Um so the the original intent was that um there are eight total lots in that flat plus a um common area. And the lots 1 through 7 were always intended to be sort of a commercial

um area. And that last lot, lot number eight, is the one that they are wanting to reszone to R3. Um, and I believe the current intent um for that R3 zoning is um to eventually build duplexes there. Now the comprehensive plan future land use map um was developed with the most recent comprehensive plan that was done in 2019 and is used to p project and um predict desired uses in a certain area and the future land use map does indicate this area as um high density residential. Um the land use designation is meant to hold a diversity of housing types and even potentially some small scale commercial and is um usually used as a buffer between commercial zones and commercial areas and some of the lower density residential areas. Now, traditionally zoning from a higher intensity district um like this C2 to a lower intensity, which the request is to go to R3. Traditionally, this isn't normally advised. However, um staff would also ask the planning commission to consider the surrounding area um with the proximity to both the current zoning C2 and to the requested zoning R3 um as well as the current scarcity of multif family housing options within the city. Um and the future land use maps prediction and recommendation. Um, so with those three factors in mind, staff

would recommend approval of this resoning request. Um, now is there any are there any questions for staff? The the zoning would allow for even higher density than duplexes. Correct. To forlexes. Yeah. Um, R3 allows for duplexes, 3lexes, forplexes, and I believe a few other similar variations. Um, so yes. Okay. Thank you.

Anything else? Thank you very much. Okay. At this time, I will open the floor to the public hearing. If any thing if anyone would like to speak for or against this issue, please uh come forward and uh write your name down, tell us who you are and what you'd like to say.

Good afternoon. My name is Sheri Lenford and this is in my backyard and I am concerned with the uh possibility of lowering the value of my home along with the other homes that are already built there. I'm also concerned uh we have privacy fences up. Uh how tall can this building be? Is it going to be multilevel? If it is, then everyone in the upstairs is going to see right into our backyard. Um the the biggest concern is the lowering of my home value. Uh it was my understanding that there could have been some retail uh in this space at one time from the property owners that had uh purchased this. And um I'm just I'm just concerned with the the values of the properties uh lowering uh and uh the privacy that we have uh with our fences up. So, uh, that's my main concerns, uh, to, uh, for you not to approve this. So,

I have a question. In in the covenants for your addition, are there no twostory uh, houses allowed? No, only single story. Only only single story. Yeah.

Thank you. All right. Would anyone else like to speak for or against this item? Sir, Good afternoon, Dean Kita. uh representing the development group for this project. Uh we have um you know obviously this is commercial and going back to the and I'll address her for comments here in a second from an overall perspective. You know this uh obviously the comp plan shows this is projected to be you know high density residential. you know, where the the location next to the middle school, Gordon Cooper Technology Center, OBU, two miles away, the housing shortage in the area for that type of affordable product, I think it makes a lot of sense for this area. And the fact that the, you know, comp plan does project that and actually wants the, you know, guides the zoning to be that in this area, I think is is important. Also, you know, there's a different type of housing product out there that's maybe not next door and down the street. I know there's multif family complexes actually apartment complexes just to the to the west and then you have single family adjacent to us and there's some other higher density uses that are in the surrounding area. So this is kind of an

intermediate use, you know, if the duplex or tri, you know, this type of high density and the the way that so the use I think applies to this area and the way that this track is sh is shaped, it's basically the the majority of the property is behind the frontage on 45th. So from a from a retail and commercial standpoint, you know, that's not going to probably be the best use for that cuz it's sitting further back. Usually retailers and commercial want frontage. So, we have a small frontage, but then the majority of the property is kind of set back. So, for this shape, it's like an L-shaped track there. Um, there's kind of a leftover from when they did the original plat cuz all the other tracks are basically fronting onto 45 and at the corner there at uh Union. So, with this with that, you know, it it the use seems to it would fit better to have something that's that's more rentable or usable than the commercial use there just for the fact you may not be able to get tenants that are sitting that far back from the road. So that's one big concern that and that's the reason why that was one of the reasons why we wanted to change the request to uh to residential. And then you looked at it from a buffering standpoint and she mentioned privacy. You know if her tract is now there could be commercial directly behind her which you know you have a lot more traffic. you have, you know, a lot of activity. You have dumpsters that are, you know, you have all these things that are in a commercial area that this would help profer from low density residential to high density residential to commercial, which is basically exactly what is stated in the comp plan of what they want for this type of area for the it's an interstate corridor and it's also in in the interstate corridor uh designation. They did state that, you know, they want not just, you know, commercial and industrial, they want a residential type product and a specific states in there that they want the buffering from low to high uh density. So, it meets all the the guidance that the comp plan has and it makes sense from a, you know, basic common sense standpoint of not being able to even rent that out. You mean you could say

it's commercial all day, but you're going to get a tent to go back there. So, then it's just been state. So the use seems to fit. Um and then you know from uh from the property value standpoint you know anytime you're going to develop something you know my opinion the property values are going to go up. This is not going to be you know some low low rent you know or you there's obviously some things you could cost things like that that are not good for property just the case. It just gives another property and another type of product that people can use that is more affordable in the area. Um, and you know, some people call it attached multif family. You know, it's duplex is a term as well, but you still have your own unit. You know, it's not an apartment complex, so you're not going to have that that sensitivity. And, you know, 4.6 acre tract, you know, you can only fit so many units on that. And that's that's that limits the the use, the shape of the track. So, you know, putting you're not going to be able to put a private complexes in, which is not exactly what we're asking for anyway. So, um, with that being said, I think, you know, the fencing up, I think, you know, at per their plat, they're going to have their own fencing and our units has a buffer from the back based off of the the zoning code. So, we have to have, you know, distance from the back lot line as well. So, I think all that is from the zoning standpoint of R3, you know, I think it it all gets addressed in that. Um, so I think you know I respect your concerns but you know the value of bringing different type of housing products in the location it's in shape of the track and it's been told by the comprehensive plan that that is the type of product and use that's needed in this area and the housing shortage which is obviously big um which is everywhere in the US I believe um but you know especially here in the locations and the schools it just makes a lot of sense for this to be you know the the residential products that that we're going for. So, yeah, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Any questions?

I do have questions or surprise. Um, uh, is this going to be housing stock that's going to be available for sale or is is the developer planning to hold it and just lease it? Hold and lease is the current plan, correct? Okay. So, that really doesn't solve the problem of um the housing shortage because there's really not a shortage of of rental property. I my focus as a real estate professional is to um increase actual housing stock for purchase so that somebody um has the ability to improve it and become part of the neighborhood. Um would it ever be uh possible for anybody to own one side of the duplex?

I think that's not out of question. Uh the intent is for the ownership group to own it. Uh but at some point, you know, there may be an exit strategy to sell each unit separately or groups of. So it's not out of the question. It's, you know, you just have to sell it as like a condo regime because we're not platting it. Typically, when we do duplex developments, we're actually platting each side as a separate lot. Be simple. So that would have to go through a different process. But you could set as a condo regime where it's, you know, HOA owns the, you know, the whole common area. Yeah. Or townhouse. Yeah. Town house. Yeah. So it could be done that way. It just wouldn't be like a fe simple lot. It would be like if you're buying a single family house, but you could sell it in that regard,

but their intent is to hold it and lease. The intent is to hold the the price. Yes, sir. Thank you. Which is good because then, you know, we're in for the long haul. We want to stay nice and look nice. So, any other questions? I have not a question, but I want to have a conversation before we make a motion. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Oh, thank you.

Okay, I will if there is ever anyone that would like to speak forward against this. Anyone else? Come on up. Good afternoon. My name is Dan Vandy. My wife got me up so I have to speak. I um I have a question about this. uh is a surprise to the neighborhood that we only got the notice that they're going to do this. Now, there's 15 houses in there right now, all in the $350,000 range. There are in process of building one right now. When I bought there, the uh I was told there would be 40 houses in the whole development. Now, you're going to put, as the young lady said, in her backyard, it's in my front yard cuz I'm across the street from it. you're going to put any apartments in there because it that's what he said and they're going to hold on to them. And that that really it made it give, you know, just made a real comfort feeling to me cuz I drive around look at these apartments that everything's blown off of and nobody's taken care of. But of course, this this group is going to take care of theirs. But I'm curious what they're going to put in there to my property value then go to the the toilet. I've invested $350,000 as the other people have in that neighborhood and you're going to put apartments back there and rent them. That doesn't give me comfort. I bought in Shaune because I thought it was a

good town. I came in from Indianapolis and uh wasn't expecting to see an apartment across the street from me when I bought in this neighborhood. And I don't know how any of you would feel having apartments put in the back of your house. And I don't know what you pay for, but you probably wouldn't like the house apartments in the back in your backyard. I don't like the prospect of that, but I'd like to know what they're going to put in there. He's not sure what they're going to put in there right now. I want to know if it's going to match my value so my value doesn't drop. Or are we not worried about the normal uh citizen here? We're just worried about uh the the big the big guy. I thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Could I have a dress? And folks, the minimum of contact information is fine on there. You're just your address and number.

Um,

yes, sir. So D kita uh we are not doing apartments. So this perfectly so this is our conceptual plan. You can see the L-shaped lot. This is lot eight of the subdivision and then there's commercial lots you know basically the union there 45th is here. So essentially you know you different types of duplex units but that's the style we're going for we're going to try to do. um you know that's the cott cottage style which I believe if you look at the units to the to the east which I think this is it's pretty similar in in style. So this is the concept plan that we're going for for this. Um and as you can see you you can't put apartments. I mean there's just there's not enough room to do so it it is a duplex development that we're we're shooting to do.

I have a question if I get some clarification. We have R2 as well right? Yeah. So if you're doing that, why wouldn't we just do it to R2 then? Because the units per acre is increased above what R2 is. But if we get R3, that means you could build apartments there.

Apartments or I don't think you can do apartments, you can do triplex or quad, not apartment complexes. Unit count, you would exceed that for high density. But she's good on I I guess exact I I can't really address you, but I guess I can address the rest of the commission. And this goes back to what part of my concern is is that an R3 there's a lot of area out there that could be reszoned over and over again. And uh the distinction here for me is is that an R2 allows for something uh that limits some of the concerns about height. I think it also limits some of the concerns about once you get to something that's more dense than what an R2 would allow. You also require more parking space and more impervious area. So now we've got a water issue, how do we handle how do we handle runoff, storm water runoff that's going to flow into potentially somebody else's backyard. there's a lot of other issues that arise. So when I think about these things, I it's not about what the development is going to be because I think people need to be able to develop their land. It's about it is about adjacent property. And so when we think about R3, for me that's a much higher potential for a much higher density of of units than an R2. And it seems to me that what they're asking for would fit into an R2. I don't know enough about the number of lots or what it would be, but I have that's where my my concern about something like this comes in.

So, a little clarification too. I think on a R2 or duplex can also be an up down duplex. So, it doesn't mean that they can't build. They could go two stories though, but they couldn't go three stories or four stories or

Yeah. Let's let's have this discussion time in public public hearing. So, any answer? I just let you know about the the the subdivision that was designed that was improved with the plaque. There's a regional detention pond that all the water goes to. So all the infrastructure for that, you know, the lots has been taken care of, water, sewer, and detention for runoff if we're directing everything to the pond. So the neighbors will receive no runoff, you know, beyond what they already do. So just clear that. Thank you. Thank you.

Can we see the picture? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing for item number five. There's no more questions or comments. I will call for a motion. I would like to have some clarification on my concern about I hear about this number of units and what can go in, what the property looks like, but to me it seems like an R2 would be a much more reasonable. Let's let's have that motion discussion. Well, what I'm what I'm what, Mr. Chairman, if I can just if I can answer back to that. If we get a motion to approve as it is, maybe I want to make a motion to approve as an R2. Okay.

So, I'd like to have this discussion prior to that, but we're we're we're under I think part of the reason why is we're under new zoning regulations. These are coming up now. These are new to us to see. So, I think part of it is we as a group need to feel out what these look like. When we get something like an R3 as opposed to an R2, why does it need to be an R3 if if the developer wants to do this? Part of my concern is if we open up the entire pie, you know, to to development, uh, when we could maybe open up a smaller piece of it. That's what my concern is is is I need to understand what the difference is between an R2 and why an R2 wouldn't fit what they're saying they want to do.

I was count per acre and that's all it is. Is that correct that the she can fix it? Okay. So let's see.

Okay. So in the R3 zoning district, the maximum density is 40 units per acre. Um in R2 that maximum is um okay. Okay, that's not specified for R2. Um, on an R3, does it specify how units are arranged well as well and also common space like lawns and things like that?

So, those types of things are dependent on the specific use and not necessarily the zoning district itself. Okay. Um so let's see for R2 um let's see the the minimum lot area is 5,000 square ft. Um and the amount of lot that is allowed to be covered um is only 45%. Um and the building height maximum is 40 ft. Um where if we compare that directly to R3, um the lot coverage maximum is 70%. Um and the building height maximum is 50 ft. Um let's see

pretty much R3 just directly to answer your question R3 can allow for more higher density than what is we see in the picture and it's not guaranteed that what we see in the picture today will happen in the future and once we allow certain zoning we cannot control exactly what can be developed on the land. We need to go by the city codes which they regulate the setbacks um lot coverage stuff like that but we cannot tell the property owner what exactly we would like to see develop under land.

But an R2 though has set some limits about both height and the number of units that can go on the property. Yes. The zoning districts apply to what we call the bulk standards which is um the height, width, um you know size of the building itself um and restricts uses to a certain group. Um also in the use table of the codes uh duplex triplex quadlexes are allowed on either R2 or R3.

Yeah. So, but um if we want to expand above that, R3 allows for higher buildings for density uh a little bit higher coverage in the lot. And those are the main differences between these two uh zoning areas. Thank you. Thanks for your Okay, any other questions? Yes. Sorry. Would a plan unit development be a solution that would be kind of a hybrid between the two?

They can do PL unit development um unless but it's it's possible but not strictly necessary. Yes, I was looking for that part. It's it doesn't going to offer super more benefits than if they go to R2. Let's say that It's my understanding that planned unit development is where things don't fit in any other use. Yes. And yes.

So what I'm thinking of in terms of plan unit development maybe for single family rather than multif family so that they can have more coverage on the on the lots. The the purpose of a planned unit development is it functions as a zoning overlay, right?

Um to enforce more strict regulations on the area or to allow for specific uses um in conjunction with um the base zoning itself. So this property it's not it is an option but there are other options that are less complicated than a planned unit development um because there once you start um with that planned unit development process there are a lot of requirements that you need to meet.

Yeah I don't want to make it more complicated than it already is. Uh just to clarify I have opened a table use here and for R3 duplex triplex and forplex are allowed. Uh in R3 duplex triplex forplex courtyard bungalow court multiplex are allowed. So there is a little bit more uses in R3 than R2. And what's in R2? Was the R2 the first thing you mentioned?

Yeah. Two two to four. So for duplexes specifically, duplexes are allowed in um all three residential zoning districts. R1, R2, R3. Um R3 has the largest variety of residential housing types. Yes. Okay. Can I mention one thing,

Mr. Ko? I'm sorry. Let's let's get this train back on the tracks. Let's call for uh whether it whether it be a a modified motion or a motion to approve. Let's make a motion. I make a motion to recommend approval of uh RZ0425 um as is currently. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I will second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Um, we shall vote on the motion to approve as is. Um, Alexander I. Porter. No, Barrett. Hi. Reese. Nay. Johnson. I. Hayes. I. Right.

Motion passes. 42. Thank you very much. Item number six, community development department updates. Dear commissioners, good afternoon. Um, I just have very short update. There is a housing accelerator workshop conducting I believe it's next Thursday November 13 for the entire day. I think it start 9:30 to about 2:30 to 3:00 in the afternoon which is conducted in

I'm sorry P Steve could I ask you to conduct your your conversation outside?

Yes. Sorry about that. Um it is conducted in conjunctions between the uh University of Oklahoma School of Architecture and American Planning Association Oklahoma chapter and different group involving in housing uh developing or invited like uh developers, insurance companies, legislators, nonprofits, uh local governments to discuss what are the barriers for uh constructing and offering more attainable housing. So um I would like to extend that invitation to you. I can send you online the flyer uh I missed to print it out for you to give it out. It's free of charge. uh lunch is provided and it will be just as I mentioned workshop discussion what are the barriers and how we can cross over those barriers to um just open the way for more attainable housing in Oklahoma because we have issue and we'll all recognize that. So that's all for me question.

When is it? November 13th. I believe it's next Thursday. Yes. Um, but once we finish the meeting, I will uh and once I go back to my office, I will send you the electronic flyer because reservation is due November 7th. So, um, they require a reservation because they need to know how much food to order. Any questions for me? So, what's the food? I don't KNOW ABOUT IT. I HOPE IT'S GOOD FOR YOU. I'm sure it will be. Thank you. Thank you.

Slick chicken. Okay.

If I may, um, this is less of an update and more of a word of caution. Um, as far as public record, um, recently there have been some scams going around, um, with emails being sent out that are posing as city staff asking for invoices to be paid or wire transfer money to be sent. Um, I I don't believe any of the planning commissioners have received any of those kinds of notifications. Um, but I know several applicants have received some. Um the the working theory is that um when the agenda packets are published, they are publicly available public record and um these scammers are feeding um that contact information and staff reports into some sort of AI generator to um impersonate staff to ask for invoices to be paid and things of that nature. Um, so I just wanted to make it public record, um, and note of it during a public meeting that whenever staff asks for payment on an application, they will always be directed to call the permitting office and never through a wire transfer.

So, they're fishing expeditions. Yes. Yeah.

Good to know. Okay. Item number seven, commissioners comments. Nothing.

I I have two now. I'd like to put out there and I think these get passed up and I think that's that's one of the reasons I want to make them is so let's address this one first. I I do think I am sensitive to what they were saying. Not so much on property values. I'm sensitive about, but I'm also sensitive about what the what the effect might be on your land, the physical effect. And part of our new zoning code, which is fantastic. I I I I I like the way we redid it. It I like the fact that it gives more options, and I also like the fact that we're trying to create affordable housing in this community because we we we're we're like most medium-sized communities, we're lacking. But I go back to my issue here of and my no vote wasn't so much about wanting to them not to be able to develop their property. It's about why a thought about what the effect is on the adjacent properties between an R3 and an R2 versus an R1 to me is stark. And I don't know if there's some way u and I know you guys don't have this authority now but some way that we can develop a process of leading people through of of uh it's easy I know I think the landies are pretty standup people but this isn't about just them. This is about the way way we do business as a community. If they're doing an R3 and they bring in this nice big sign that says it's going to look like this, that means absolutely nothing to me. I lived out in the Timbers where they decided to build on the southeast side, southeast side. They said all the homes are going to look like this and they wound up being about 1,200,00 groups that bought it, probably 50% of them. So that means absolutely nothing. And so we as a city, I think, have to be

conscientious about what we allow in certain areas that's going to have an effect on adjacent properties. And um this to me seems like a a problem area in our zoning rules. Now, being able to to set an R3 right next to an R1, especially when you've already had people say that they didn't necessarily want that in their area. And that's it's it's it's not as it's not as simple to make that connection between a commercial, which is easier to do, I think, for me, um, and saying, "Well, no, I don't that's really a viable use here or not." But when we go to an R3, which can be units that are much like the ones that are down the street, um, and that is a big difference from what he was showing there. So, I don't know how we overcome that as a city, but I think as a as a medium-sized community, we need to think about those things because those those two couples were exactly right. They bought that under a certain impression. Now, that impression is not there anymore. And that's that's that's their they're looked at. That's just that's just your problem at this point in time. Uh the second thing is going back to the the issue with u uh the the CPS is we've and I what came up the last time I'm going to keep saying it until we figure something out here is the only thing as a city that we have if if the police get one thing if the police get called out there for people trespassing for people doing this it has nothing to do with that particular individual's up until the year when it until next year when it comes up for renewal. And in the meantime, people who live next door can continue to face just craziness

without any real consequence on the owner. And to me, that's that's not right. We we need to have some way of uh there needs to be something developed on both sides of it, too. I mean, you also don't want the next door neighbor consistently causing problems for the CUP as well. We're opening ourselves up to in that area out there, I think, uh, to some issues that could be easily solved by one, figuring out how our response time works out there. And two, uh, figuring out ways to deal with these permits if there's consistent violations. And I know anywhere I travel, I rent I rent Airbnbs. That's just what we do. Uh even if I'm going to a meeting, I typically get an Airbnb somewhere. And the closer you are to a body of water or something that's recreational, the higher the higher higher probability, you can almost chart it out becomes logarithmic at some point in time that you're going to have partying and craziness in these places. So if I'm living next door to that, I want some control on that. So I I think that the city needs to begin thinking through that process of how we deal with that because again now we're now putting a neighbor at risk who's invested in a property where there's nothing that controls except for a year-long warrant and even at that point in time we could still reissue the CBP and they're left without any any kind of amount of recourse to deal with that issue. So that's the two things I wanted to talk about. I know we can't solve those problems, but somebody needs to begin trying to solve them.

Getting micious, I think. Absolutely.

So, I I understand those are valuable concerns about uh nuisance and rule violations, and I can assure you before the city developed this process of short-term rentals, people are using it. this as a Airbnb only. Yeah, right.

And until we have the short-term rental regulations, nothing we can do as a city to prevent that practice because we don't have the legal right to tell people whom they can invite in their own property or not. So, we hear this concern multiple times from different groups and to this point, short-term rentals is the only tool that the city legally can operate under to have some type of control. Um, unfortunately, again, even though people promise they abide by the laws, they don't. If the police response was different before short-term rentals was allowed in Lakes properties, it was the same. So I cannot tell you how many minutes do they need to respond but at least now we have a process where these complaints can be recorded and as it was mentioned here if that goes up to some point maybe the city is not going to renew the license next year or the city have the right to revoke the license at any point. So this is the only controlling option that the city has how people can invite guests into their homes. And I agree with the statement the closest the to the water you are the more crazier stuff you can observe. But again those are private properties and this is as much regulation at this point that the city can impose. just the same.

Can you can you clarify the repercussions of them? Like say you do take away their permit and they keep doing it. What are the repercussions to the owner for doing that from the city? Uh once we um revoke the permit, they're not legally allowed to operate as a uh guest house. Mhm. Um and there is other legal processes that the city can impose uh if they continue to be in violation. Right. At that point we would involve code enforcement and they would receive citations. Yeah. Um and things of that nature. Is there a is there a threshold

where of complaints where as you go through review that you would we don't have or is it is it case by case basis? It case by case basis. We didn't set a certain cap how many complaints we need to receive. I think it depends on the situation cuz we didn't want to um set a threshold of x amount of complaints um so that we could prevent anyone from abusing that system. Um but that's the that was the intent of the annual renewal. Um but we we as staff can look at additional safeguards. Yes. Yes. Um and additional triggers to re-evaluate those types of things.

Plus also there is a nuisance code into the city ordinances and this can take an effect also which uh again police will be involved if this is keeps going on continual basis and I don't believe people will enjoy going in that direction and the I mean the same could happen in any neighborhood with any neighbors. Yes. But short-term rentals gives the city opportunity to maintain some type level of control even though it's not absolute control because those are still private properties but at least we can regulate uh certain rules and behaviors.

Without it, you don't have any means to um cite them for misconduct or whatever. Without the short-term rental, um without short-term rental, we cannot prohibit for property owners to um plant their houses, right? Uh how loud they are, how late they stay up. Exactly. We we can just act upon nuisance or trespassing or other violations, but we cannot prohibit them operating as RBNB. Right. Right.

The C requires them to disclose to the city that they are operating and gives the city the opportunity to um require any additional um what's the word I'm looking for? It it gives the city the opportunity to put additional requirements for approval on that property.

And we just said those are the standards of behavior. Uh, of course, uh, one of the property owners submitted house rules which are very common in this type of businesses and the city doesn't have the legal right to enforce that house rules. But the city has the right to um react over violations that are um connected to this short-term rentals. Thank you. Anybody else?

I would like to speak to the other uh thing. I'm sensitive to the nimiism. However, I don't always lean toward it because um every new uh development, every new housing concept was created in somebody's backyard or somebody's front yard. Um, I I disagree with the gentleman who spoke uh that this is solving um a need because there's really not a a need to be met for more rental housing. Um he What's wrong? I I

You're looking at gas. Yeah. Have you I mean you're a real estate professional. the slum lords in this town that rent the garbage that's on the market today. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about real real property.

There's there's not a shortage of housing for rentals. Um there is a shortage of housing for ownership and that's where you see um values appreciate more and without more attainable housing for people to own. Um, and we've seen this in numerous reports, local, state, and national, all over the country, that without enough attainable housing um, being developed in communities, prices um, rise faster. And so just creating more rental units doesn't have an effect on that.

Not on the housing crisis, for sure. Right. If this was about home ownership, I could have been all behind it. But when it became um an investment vehicle for someone um I was less interested. Thank you. Anybody else?

Well, I have plenty to say, but uh I won't. So, um but I remind everyone that these regulations that we're that we're talking about here with the short-term rental, that's exactly what we asked for. That's what we as a planning commission were were asking for. the city, you know, it was the wild west before. There's no actual, you know, you know, to to to regulate something, you have to codify it. And so, here we are. We're we're there. I noticed that the um that the anti on the uh the against I'm sorry, uh on the uh commissioning use permits uh were not out uh as as history shows, but uh I think we're moving in the right direction. that that's how this is how cities are run. And as far as the the the the the density goes, remember that that remember how frustrated we get when we have applications that are incorrectly uh the it's the incorrect zoning. I remember how frustrating that is when there's like this runaround between the city and the back and forth and it's like well so so somebody actually complies to the letter and you know we we've got something to say. So I I I I highly I highly support that whole structure of of zoning as buffers between different classifications. That's what they're for. And no uh no uh uh offense to the real estate professionals, but I categorically uh uh deny and reject that property values go down with what you build next door unless it's a lead acid battery reclamation facility or a biomed waste incineration factory. And I'm not the

one who say anything, you know, but if I can respond to that, but but that's the that the brand new structures in this town that has a a a legion of aging and decrepit buildings and houses. Completely agree.

Anything built new is a move in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. That's why I'm on this commission. That's why I volunteer for the city. I want this city to grow. that Nimi attitude is not helpful. It it's it's just not. And and I again I reject that that you know uh borrowing the lead acid battery reclamation facility property values don't go down. The only reason they go down is because of uh financial downturns. Um then this city has experienced a growth in property values the likes of which I've never seen in my lifetime. maybe in the 60s or 70s with that inflation change, but holy smokes.

And probably never see it again. No, we never see it again. That's nationwide, though. That's not just that's not something we did, especially here. That's everywhere.

Well, we uh So, um two things. I don't have a problem with CVs. I completely agree with that. What I'm saying is when we do things, we need to learn to adjust. And if there's things that come up to us that seem like something we need to adjust about, we need to talk about those things. And CPS are great. I completely agree that before it was the wild wild west, but that doesn't mean once we solve that that we just sit on our laurels. If there's an issue, we need to talk about it. And this and the second thing is of all the developers in the world and all the real estate agents in the world, 99% of us are are are that have a concern are land owners and residents, including you. So we are a buffer in some ways to ensure that there's good there's good development strategies that occur in this town. So when we ask those questions only vote no it's about that.

Yeah. No I I highly uh if everyone were to vote yes on every single thing I would doubt the uh utility organization uh of this commission. So no that is exactly why we're here. no matter how uh how it appears. So that's why we're here. I'm glad we're doing it. Thanks for your indulgences. No, I'm not involved. This is why we're here. Uh and again, um I'm not trying to be demeanive or dismissive. I'm just trying to run a meeting in the best manner in which I see I see fit. Well, that's appreciated.

Um because I have seen these meetings go off the rails. Um, we're nowhere near the right of way as far as tours are concerned here, but I just want to, you know, uh, I'm not trying to, uh, to be the boss of anything. I just want this to go well. And I'll show up next time. I promise. So, let's go with our feet. Thank you, friends.