Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the September 15th meeting of the Stillwater Planning Commission to order. It will be the process this evening to call for items on the agenda. The commission will hear briefly from staff first, then the applicant and or their representative. Then we will open the public hearing and hear from those in favor and then those in opposition of the request. When you come to the podium, please clearly state your name and address for the record. And then before closing the public hearing, both the staff, the applicant, and or their representative will be provided an opportunity to respond and to provide additional information and answer questions. After all interested parties have spoken, the public hearing will be closed, and we will hear closing remarks and alternatives from staff. I will also let you know in advance that we will allow each person to speak five minutes, and we will keep a timer. Okay, the first item on the agenda is to receive public comment regarding a map amendment for a property at 1202 East Virginia, and we shall hear from staff first.

Yes, ma'am. There is a proposed map amendment to rezone from RSS, or small lot single family residential, to two family and multifamily, RTM, the property located at 1202 East Virginia Avenue. Here's an aerial view of the property. It's just north of Virginia Avenue, about a quarter mile east of Perkins Road. As you can see on the left-hand side of your screen, that is the existing Walmart, which is on the northeast corner of Virginia Avenue and Perkins Road. Here's the zoning map where we can see the existing property zone RSS or small lot single family residential. To the west we have RT residential two family and to the southwest we have RTM residential two family multifamily which is what the applicant is requesting to rezone to. Tonight we're going to discuss on the north and east side of the property is RSS or small lot single family residential as well as on the northeast corner there's RSL or large lot single family residential and on the south side of Virginia we also have RSS or small lot single family residential zoning as well. The future land use map from the comprehensive plan has this property slated for neighborhood commercial in the land use category. To the east we have the existing low density residential and to the west of that we have regional commercial which is like the Walmart or the bigger box as well as that shopping center. So to explain a little about what neighborhood commercial is, neighborhood commercial is intended to be, for example, small scale retail or personal services, which is appropriate in proximity to residential uses. It's intended primarily as a buffer between the higher intensity commercial and the lower intensity residential. Moving on to the dashboard. So the dashboard is written in the comprehensive plan. On the left-hand side of your screen, we have development types. So each of these development types are basically categories for developments. And this is intended to guide rezonings as like the one requested tonight. So the two development types we're going to discuss tonight is the second one down, which is missing middle homes. Missing middle homes are a two out of five on the appropriateness scale. And it's specifically appropriate as a transition from commercial uses to residential. adjacent to low and moderate density residential is most appropriate. And multifamily homes, which is just below that, which is not appropriate in the neighborhood commercial. So to kind of distinguish some of those, multifamily I think is going to be one of the confusions tonight. So in our code, we define multifamily in the land development code, multifamily is three or more dwelling units as a use type. So what the applicant is proposing would be multifamily because it has more than three dwelling units. That is on the use type. When you look at the development types as defined by the comprehensive plan, we'll start with multifamily, which is the second paragraph down. Multifamily homes development type are described as multifamily dwellings with 13 or more units. These developments are generally too large in scale to be appropriate as infill or redevelopment near existing single-family neighborhoods and may include ancillary uses like parking structures in certain office or commercial uses. Housing of this type is predominantly rented. So in the comprehensive plan, it's specifically stating units, dwellings, or buildings, however you would like to say that, with 13 or more units. So now we'll read the missing middle right above that, which is the missing middle homes. As a quick explanation, it's basically everything between single family homes and your multi-family homes with 13 or more units. So the missing middle development type encompasses numerous traditional housing styles of a moderate density such as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, accessory dwelling units, cottage courts, townhomes, and apartments with 12 or fewer units. These housing types are generally appropriate for infill and redevelopment in proximity to existing single-family neighborhoods. These homes are likely a mixture of owner-occupied and renter-occupied. Now, I'll let the applicant get into explaining what they're actually proposing, but generally they're proposing eight buildings with 12 units each, which is why staff is interpreting that to fit into that missing middle home. But just to clarify, the use type would still be multifamily, defined in the land development code, but in the comprehensive plan would be considered missing middle. So that's kind of the confusion there. I'm open to answer any questions if you have any.

Questions for staff? Thank you. At this time, we would ask for the applicant to come forward.

Good evening, Commissioner Stephen Ghost, Ghost and Associates 113 East 8th Avenue. Our client, like Henry, covered a lot of it. We're asking for a change from the RSS to the RTM to allow this multifamily Development to act as a transition between the commercial or we feel it's appropriate To provide that transition between the single family and the commercial to the west. It's a long skinny site And I think Henry Here if we can pull this up is the conceptual site plan that is being proposed, those 16, again, three-story, 12-unit buildings in the middle with parking around the edge. Here's kind of some renderings of what that would look like. Virginia Avenue, in this case, is classified as a collector, which has adequate right-of-way on the site. There's a traffic impact analysis currently being done to look at the impact of this on the adjacent street network. And I know drainage is typically a big concern Drainage and traffic are always, when we're changing something, a big concern. The drainage study will be done with the plan should this move forward. But really, there's a high in the middle. So part of it drains to the north, part of it drains to the south. That really covers, Henry covered the rest of it. So if there's any questions now, or we can talk about it after the public hearing.

Any questions for the applicant at this time?

So is that the only entrance off of Virginia?

Right now, one entrance is proposed. It meets fire code. Try to keep people on one spot. There's a little bit of a hill to the east, so trying to keep it concentrated at one spot and not have multiple movements going on.

There appears to be parking on the north and south sides. Is there anything on the east and west?

So on the east side of the buildings would be like handicapped parking and probably guest parking or delivery. We're really trying to keep that feel of those buildings with some courtyards and walkways and trees and interactive area for the residents instead of spreading it all out and surrounding each building by parking.

Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. And we did receive some requests to speak online. And then we have some that signed in as they came into the room. So we'll start with the online request. We'll work our way through that. I'm going to go through in the order in which it was handed to me. I see we have a couple of duplicates, so we'll get to those when we get to these that are signed up. If you got here late or did not see the sign-in sheet after we've had everyone who's had a chance to speak and you would still like to speak, you can certainly do that. As I said before, we're going to limit it to five minutes per speaker, and we'd request that you try to not repeat a lot of things over and over. So with that, Monica, is it Santolin? OK. You can correct me when you get up. If you can just give your name and address for the record. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Monica Santillan, and I live at 313 North Donaldson, Stillwater, obviously, 74075. So I'm here tonight to respectfully oppose MAP Amendment MA 26-10, which would rezone approximately 9.7 acres at 1202 East Virginia Avenue from small lot single family residential to two family and multifamily residential. I understand that Stillwater is growing and our community needs a variety of housing options. However, growth should be thoughtful, compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, and supported by adequate planning and infrastructure. I don't believe the information presented for this rezoning gives residents or the commission enough assurance that those standards will be met. The property directly borders single-family residential zoning to the north and the east. Changing it to RTM would allow significantly different level and type of development next to established residential areas. The proposed three-story apartment buildings, increased activity, parking areas, lighting, and additional traffic will substantially change the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The staff report refers to a possible development consisting of eight buildings with 12 units each for a total of 96 units. However, that proposal is not the full extent of what the requested zoning could allow. RTM zoning permits multifamily development at a density of up to 20 dwellings of units per acre by right. And on a 9.7 acre property, that would allow as many as 194 dwelling units. That's nearly twice the number included in the preliminary concept described in the staff report. This distinction is extremely important. The commission is not simply being asked to consider what the current concept of 96 units seems reasonable. You're being asked to grant development rights that could remain with this property even if the concept developer or ownership changes. Once the properties rezone, future development could potentially be much denser than what is being discussed this evening. I'm also concerned about the impact to traffic. The staff report states that the property has access to Virginia Avenue, but having access to the street does not necessarily mean that the surrounding street system can safely and comfortably handle additional traffic. A development of 96 units would generate a substantial number of daily vehicle trips. A development approaching the zoning maximum could generate even more. Yet the information provided does not include a traffic impact study, projected vehicle counts, an evaluation of nearby intersections, or an analysis of how additional traffic could affect surrounding residential streets. Virginia Avenue and the neighboring streets are already used by residents, pedestrians, cyclists, school traffic, service vehicles, and visitors to nearby businesses. Before allowing this level of density, the city should understand how those additional vehicles would move through the area and whether improvements would need to protect safety and prevent congestion. Parking is another major concern. Depending on the number of bedrooms and residents per unit, this development could bring hundreds of vehicles to the property. The zoning comparison tells us what RTM permits, but it does not provide a detailed parking plan for this specific development. If the number of onsite parking spaces is inadequate, nearby streets could become overflow parking, and that could create more congestion, limit visibility, and make it difficult for residents to enter and leave their properties, and create access concerns for emergency and service vehicles. These impacts should be evaluated before the rezoning is approved and not after the neighborhood begins to experience them. I'm also concerned about the natural environment. Although the property is currently vacant, it is not empty. It provides a habitat and travel quarter for deer, foxes, native birds, and other wildlife regularly seen in the area. Development may be inevitable at some point, but the intensity and design of that development matter. Before approving higher density zoning, the city should consider how much existing vegetation would be removed, how wildlife movement would be affected, and whether meaningful green space, tree preservation, wildlife buffers, and protections from excessive lighting would be required.

Where's my timer?

OK. I was like, I didn't see it. I'll skip ahead. I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to select alternative three and not recommend approval of this map amendment. At the very least, I ask that you select alternative two and table the request until the city has received and reviewed additional information concerning the actual proposed density, traffic impacts, parking capacity, neighborhood compatibility, environmental effects, lighting, landscaping, and buffering. Rezoning is a long-term decision, as you all know. It is reasonable to require a complete understanding of potential consequences before making that change that may be very difficult to reverse. Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration of my fellow neighbors.

Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Chair. Sorry for interrupting. I do just want to make one correction. In the staff report, I wrote that there were eight buildings proposed with 12 units each. That is incorrect. I knew that. As I was writing it, I just wrote the wrong number. There are 16 buildings proposed with 12 units each. So I just want to correct myself before the public hearing continues so that we can move forward with correct information. And the 16 buildings is what was shown on the conceptual site plan the applicant presented. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. The next one I have is John Salinas.

Hello. My name is Johnny Salinas. I live at 313 North Donaldson Drive, which is the neighborhood immediately adjacent to this property. I'm here tonight to ask the Planning Commission to reject the request to rezone 1202 East Virginia Avenue from a small lot single-family residential to two-family and multi-family residential. I understand that Stillwater needs housing. and that property owners have the right to develop their property. But I also believe zoning exists for a reason. Decisions about density need to be taken into account, the neighborhoods and infrastructures of the already surrounded, sorry, account the neighborhoods and infrastructure that already surround a property. My biggest concern is the traffic and safety. Virginia Avenue already carries a significant amount of traffic, And those of us who live there here experience it every day. The Virginia and Perkins intersection in particular has become increasingly difficult to navigate as commercial development in the area has increased. Adding a substantial multi-family development could mean many more vehicles entering and leaving Virginia Avenue every day. And those vehicles don't simply disappear once they leave the development. They travel through the streets where our families live. where people walk, where children ride bikes, where residents enter and leave their homes before approving substantially greater residential density, I believe the city should be able to demonstrate that the surrounding streets and intersections can safely accommodate that additional traffic. I'm also concerned about the long-term character of our neighborhood. The existing single-fam zoning provides a transition between the intense commercial development along Perkins Road and the established residential neighborhoods behind it. Rezoning this property for multifamily use would significantly change that transition and could set a precedence for additional high density development moving further into the neighborhood many of us have invested years in our homes and in this community we are not opposed to growth we're asking that growth be thoughtful compatible with existing neighborhoods and supported by adequate infrastructure Once this property is rezoned, that decision will have consequences long after tonight's meeting. I respectfully ask the commission to preserve the existing residential zoning and recommend denial of the MA 26-10. Thank you for your time and considerations and concerns for the people who live here.

Thank you. The next name I have is Nick Dinsler.

Good evening. My name is Nick Dinsler. My wife, Sarah, two kids, and I live at 1111 East Hanson Street, which borders 1202 East Virginia Avenue to the north. I lived in Stillwater my whole life and lived at our current residence since 2016. I'm here to speak against the proposal of rezoning 1202 East Virginia Avenue from small lot single family residential to two family and multifamily residential because this drastic change threatens our neighborhood safety, infrastructure, and established character. If approved, the rezoning will harm the already congested East Virginia Avenue traffic, along with making the intersection at Perkins Road and East Virginia Avenue even more dangerous. According to page 8 of the 2025 annual Stillwater Police Department report, The most dangerous intersection in Stillwater in terms of motor vehicle accidents is East Virginia Avenue and Perkins Road. There are more accidents at this intersection than the next two highest locations combined. Approving this rezoning request will add upwards of 200 additional residents just under 1,500 feet away from this intersection. Another concern is the proposed rezoning does not align with the newly adopted Envision Stillwater 2045 plan, nor does it align with what the majority of Stillwater residents want in terms of housing. According to an online survey of Stillwater residents shown on page 111 of the Envision Stillwater 2045 plan, the majority of residents want to see small, medium, and or large lot single family homes to be the focus of new development. Also on pages 54 and 55, the feature land use map has 1202 East Virginia Avenue categorized as neighborhood commercial. Having the property remain a small lot residential or rezoning it to a neighborhood commercial would be a much friendlier transition to the surrounding neighborhoods. If the rezoning is approved, the increased Stormwater runoff could be an issue as water flows onto the property from many of the surrounding residences. 1202 East Virginia contains a natural semi-permanent pond about 30 feet inward from the north border. This pool is large enough to be seen from satellite imagery and contains water around 90% of the year. There will need to be serious planning on how to handle all of this water. Lastly, rezoning the property as two-family and multi-family does not fit in with the current neighborhood. Many of the surrounding residences are very nice and well-kept homes. Building structures upwards of 35 feet high in the existing residences, sorry, near the existing residences, many of which are single-story, would just destroy the existing neighborhood character and severely compromise our privacy. For many other reasons brought up tonight, I ask that you please deny the rezoning request and leave 1202 East Virginia as a small lot single family residential to protect the long-term stability and safety of our community. Thank you.

Thank you. The next name I have is Kevin Campbell.

Good evening. My name is Kevin Campbell, and I live at 318 North Donaldson Drive. And I've been a resident and owner of that home for 21 years. I come from a large city. LA and Phoenix is where I grew up. And one of the things that attracted me to moving here was the size of the community and how intimate it is. And we live on Donaldson Drive. A nice way to describe it would be Professor Rowe. There's an awful lot of history there of longtime professors that have made that street their home and still live there. There's a lot of character and personality there. But most of all, we're now decades of people that have paid our taxes to support our community here. Our homes are our greatest possession. I'm hopeful that what the Planning Commission does is plan long term for the long term viability of their citizens. I'm concerned about this particular proposal because actually it's like a rerun. Most of the residents in this room dealt with this attempt to make a multi-family apartment house complex back in 2009. Ultimately, we were successful in reaching a compromise that included the expansion of the current student married housing that's on Hall of Fame and McElroy. And frankly, the area that we're now talking about functions as a buffer zone for us. And if we were to lose that to another multifamily, 36 foot high set of buildings with all the traffic and everything else involved, we would lose that buffer and it would be right literally on top of us. my property 318 is on the eastern side of the road and it is directly up against the property line that you're considering here I'm curious Frankly, I would like to invite any of you to come by come to the neighborhood come by knock on our doors and you can see the kind of Environment we now have and really what's at stake if something like this comes together like the folks that spoke before me none of us are opposed to Developing more housing. I understand there's always a need for more housing but this city is wide and sprawling and there's plenty of other spaces that are that don't require folks that have been paying our taxes to all of you all these years to compromise and see the potential value, resale value of their homes just plummet. And I think that's a real concern. I'm also curious, the oil rig that has been there for years and years, It was finally capped off within the last six or seven months. And has there been a study to the environment in terms of the impact of that oil rig and what has been done to assure if, in fact, you agree to this proposal, what's been done to protect the people that would be moving in? There's been mention quite a bit about traffic and all of that. About three weeks ago, one of the neighbors on Donaldson was T-boned, pulling out of her driveway by someone speeding down Donaldson. Because that housing development, the multi-family student housing that is there, It occurs to those residents after they're there for a while that a quicker way to get through the neighborhood and around to Walmart is to take Donaldson Drive. And we don't know what that driver was doing, but he rammed into that neighbor of ours. And there's an awful lot of traffic even now, and it seems to continue to be growing. It's already a busy street. As was mentioned earlier, that intersection is already famous for its accidents. You can hear them from my back deck when the metal hits metal. I'm amazed that that Seven Brew Coffee Company was placed right there near that intersection. It's just added to the congestion. The area that you're talking about is really rough. It's uneven. It's full of wildlife and brush. It would take a great deal of effort to get that all reworked and make it ready for the type of housing project that was presented today. And now that I've heard the clarification about the number.

Sir, you've reached five minutes. Yeah.

It's just too much.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

The next name I have on the list is Sherry Dawn Proctor.

Hello. A few points I would like to help appease some of the area residents and assure this council that have been looked at and have been addressed by The city.

Sorry, would you please state your address for the record?

Oh, sorry. I'm Sherry Dawn Proctor, 7 West Stevie Court, Goddard, Kansas. I have a second residence outside of Ponca City, but I am the co-listing agent of this property. I've been in real estate for 50 years and cut my teeth in Houston, Texas, where there is no zoning at all.

Excuse me, which property are you representing?

1202. Virginia, which is the subject of this hearing. So I would like to first make a point. Point one and point two is Stillwater needs housing. You have a need for more housing as your city is growing and the people that serve you at the restaurants and at the retail outlets They don't live in the nice single family homes or they aspire to one day. They need a place, a starter home to help build their families and or their wealth to be able to buy single family homes. But Stillwater needs more housing even though it has a wonderful student housing for the population that is very volatile through in and out of your area. I assure everybody that Walmart, before they built their building at the Perkins Road and Virginia Avenue, did a traffic study and an impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood. And it was approved to allow them to go there. And there is another shopping center directly to the south that has, I believe, a workout health club facility and a big laundromat that lots of people use. And so yes, there's going to be more traffic on Virginia Avenue. But more importantly, the pond that has been on that property as it was drilled for years has been remediated. And as far as the drainage and the stormwater, that will be addressed by engineering to obtain a building permit before construction. Or your municipality will not issue the permit without the proper drainage, I assure you. You will be looking at that. Next, as far as units per acre, the property directly to the east is two and a half acres and currently has 32 apartment units on it. And it has an extra empty acre and a quarter that could double the number of units. So to prorate on the one and a half acres of that parcel, and the owner is in our gallery here, that is 19.2 units per acre. Oh, excuse me, that is 25.6 units per acre prorated in the existing Virginia Square apartments to the east of this parcel of land. And what's proposed is 19.2 units per acre or less density than what is already existing between the little industrial strip between the Walmart and the residential houses. At today, the cost of building those houses that are to the west, or excuse me, I'm getting my east and my west mixed up, that these fine people behind me live in, it would cost at least double to build them at today's cost, if not triple. So we need affordable housing, and you need affordable housing in your community. And that's what this developer is attempting to provide. As far as the environmental impact of that pond, that was the drilling overflow pond. And the state of Oklahoma Corporation Commission has two separate departments, one that ensures that it gets cleaned up to the environmental standards that is acceptable to them, and then the Corporation Commission has an environmental department. They verify the environmental findings of the other department. They have both cleared this site for development, whatever it may be. And that is the state of Oklahoma. And they will tell you right now that it is ready to be developed.

Ma'am, you've reached your five minutes. OK. Thank you very much. The next person I have on the list is Susan Barnes.

Hello. My name is Susan Barnes. And I live at 424 North Donaldson Drive in the home that my parents lived in since 1964. I don't have a lot to add to all the people before me, but I do oppose this multifamily dwelling for all the reasons that everybody has said. Traffic, water, all those things. I've lived in the house since 2016 when I moved from Tulsa to be back with my mother who lived in this home since 1964. And in that time, I have noticed that when Perkins Road was being enlarged, that the traffic on Donaldson Drive increased significantly. With this proposal of a multifamily dwelling, It would only add to that that people have already done. I know it's already been said that the traffic has been increasing, but I reiterate that thought because it has. I've noticed it, I felt it, and my neighbor was the one that got hit just a couple of weeks ago just backing out of her driveway because of a fast-moving vehicle. There's children on our street. There's wildlife that come through our area. And so this proposal is just, in my opinion, is ridiculous to have that many homes, I mean, that many multiple homes built for that area. I'd like to preserve what we have had since 1964. Thank you.

Thank you. The next name I have on the list is Teresa Tully.

I honestly did not intend to sign up, but I do want to state that I- Could you give us your address, please? Yes. I live at 1001 South Walnut Street. And we've gone through a lot of changes in our neighborhood. And so I can understand some of the things that are going to happen. For instance, the talk about the traffic on Virginia and Donaldson. I know I live on the corner of 11th and Walnut Street. It is the only through street from 12th to 6th. And it is ridiculous. We have cars that drive down that street 50 miles an hour all the time. So I do know it does impact the neighborhood drastically. The majority of the homes in the area where I live are now rental properties. Many of them are becoming Airbnbs. I'm not really opposed to either one. I know there is a need for both. But from what I understand about what is being proposed for this building, It sounds much more like apartment complex to me than family housing. I may be completely misunderstanding, but if you're going to add over 100 units, that doesn't sound like families to me. So it seems to go against what the lady that was one of the sellers of the property, the realtors of the property. And in fact, one of the statements that she made just made me think about the other property that's already there, that already has apartments, that there's an opportunity for more apartments to be built there. And if you got both of those in there, I can't even imagine what it would do to the area and the neighborhood. So thank you for considering that.

Thank you. OK, these are all the names that I had of people who had signed up. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward and speak? If you would like to speak in favor, let us know. Or if you want to speak in opposition. Sir, you can come to the podium.

Hi there, my name is Jeff Campbell. I live at 318 North Donaldson, and I'm here to oppose the plan to change the zoning. In 2009, we addressed all these issues, and the city council's wisdom was to reject this plan. In 2009, the company that tried to build on this property then went ahead and bought the property at what is now a Light Stillwater and slammed all those apartment buildings into that spot. In 2009, we warned everybody that when they put those apartments in, that was going to cause the neighborhood to have just an insane amount of traffic. We've seen now since 2009 that we were correct and that's how come we have all this traffic now. We're talking about affordable homes. The affordable homes already exist in Stillwater. It's our homes in our neighborhood right now. Those are the affordable homes. If you're going to go ahead and build these apartments next to them, you'll be trashing them and bringing in some apartments that are going to be at a very high price currently and you're going to be destroying actual legit homes that are actually affordable. So I don't really even buy this argument that these are affordable homes that they're going to be building or anything like that. It's ridiculous. Same with the argument that the traffic study was done by Walmart. Walmart's been in place there, from my knowledge, it's been there for almost 30 or 40 years. That's a really long time ago to have a traffic study. I would think you need to update that. I would just go ahead and say that I have been canvassing the neighborhood and speaking to all of the members of the community I have about 90 signatures here. It's too late for me to submit that for you guys. I'm going to do it at the next meeting. Cause I know that I believe there's a three, is there a three day?

There's a, there's a multiple process to this.

Staff can assist you. Okay. Thank you.

Cause I want to present these eventually, but basically I've been talking to all the community residents and I've only met two people out of like 90 in the doors I've knocked on that are actually in favor of this. Everybody else is very adamantly against this. And a lot of them said they wanted to be here, but, they have jobs and they have families and it was just too short a notice. So, all right. Thank you. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this item? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward.

My name is Amy Pitchford, and I live at 302 North Manning, a couple of blocks east of the project. I just want to say very quickly that my husband and I worked really hard to invest ourselves in a nice home, and we would just hope to retain the character of our neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Yes, sir.

Good afternoon. My name is Daniel Felipe Barrantes Murillo. I live in 402 North Manning Street. Also, it's a little bit on the periphery of this project, but I'm very concerned and very opposed about this project because bringing all these multifamily apartment complex buildings will basically take away the character of a neighborhood and what it means for prospective families, which I and my wife recently bought a house there, and we're planning to bring a huge family and start creating in that neighborhood our lives and we don't want apartments students frats any kind of those things including the traffic which is already a lot thank you thank you anyone else that would like to come forward yes

Hello, my name is Laura Rickman, and I live at 1104 East Hanson. I have lived here my entire life. And I will just inform the realtor that Walmart has been there for probably 35 years. I do remember it when it moved, and I was very small. So traffic has increased greatly in the past three and a half decades. So traffic is my main concern. Yes, I live near it. I don't back up to it. We have another apartment complex to the west that we can see from our back patio. On certain nights when people are on their patio, I can hear them speaking and they are a ways away. I don't want that for my neighbors who currently have a nice nature area. I get development. I've grown up in the family business of development. My biggest concern is now hearing that there's, what, 194 door fronts? That is a lot of cars. I currently will try to take Virginia sometimes off of Donaldson. It's getting harder and harder and harder in the last eight years I've lived in this neighborhood to turn, even to turn right onto Virginia off of Donaldson. People go way too fast. There's some funny hills and valleys that go through there. And the street is fairly narrow. I feel bad for the people that have their driveways on to Virginia currently. I don't understand how they back out and not get T-boned currently. And if you're adding 194 doors, that's just that many more cars flying up and down the street at all times a day. And I am concerned for the traffic impact that this is going to create to this neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience would like to speak this evening? Anyone at all? Yes, sir.

My name is Joe Schrader, and I live at 218 North Donaldson. And we built our house there. in 1991. And this land is just right west of my property. And everything the neighbors are saying here is true. This would not be good for our neighborhood. And it would lower our property values. And the traffic is horrendous, just like Our neighbors have been saying, it's not good. This is not a good project. It's bad. And I just want to encourage you to turn this zoning down. This should not be changed whatsoever.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward to speak this evening? Yes, sir?

I'm Brian Rickman. I live at 11-4 East Hanson. This just isn't good for our neighborhood. It's so much traffic in a dangerous situation that we already have there with kids. And when you try to add this much infrastructure in such a small area that's already compacted, it's going to cause problems. Like she said, my wife, we live right across from an apartment complex now, and the sound, constant cars in and out, lighting, the height of it, it's just, it is really hard in a neighborhood to kind of compare these two or put them together. It's just a tough spot. I know people don't want to build, but houses would be a great thing to go in there to continue with that neighborhood and continue that neighborhood to the west. So I oppose it. I think it's a bad idea. And I think the biggest problem you're going to have is infrastructure with traffic control, traffic and infrastructure overall with your sewer, your water, your electric. We can't take care of it now. So I'm opposed to it. And that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Anyone at all? Okay. OK. Let's see. At this time, we would have the applicant come forward. And if you could address some of the questions that have been raised.

I wrote down a few things just to go over. The parking and number of units, right now the plan is 192 units. 194 are allowed by code. If you do the 20 units an acre at the 9.7 acres, city code requires effectively one parking space per bedroom. So we would have parking on site for that, plus a little bit to accommodate visitors and things like that. Lighting the current city code requires a photometric plan If you're gonna put lights on the side of buildings on light poles to show how they're shielded from adjacent properties So that would be addressed at permitting They're gonna require a fence along a anything adjacent to the single family. So there'll be some screening for that. Now, it's a six foot fence, but it's something. The oil rig, our client has had people go out to do soil tests. There's still some remediation going on out there, but that's how that's being addressed. We still feel like it's as far as a transition from commercial to single-family this starts to fall in line with what the Comprehensive plan is calling for, you know, it's a little vague on that 12 Units per building, you know, is this missing middle? Is it multifamily but compared to some of the more garden style apartments? This is a plan that seems a little softer a little more of a transition. So I We talked about the traffic. We talked about the stormwater. The traffic study is underway. We couldn't start the traffic study until school got back in session because it's just not fair to count traffic in the summertime when that's not the real condition. So the traffic's... Engineers they get backed up and this is their busy season one school is back in place and stormwater again We'll address that through a stormwater analysis that's reviewed by David and his department during plan review. So And then yes, there's gonna be some traffic increases, but we'll see how that does it I live around the corner and deal with all the majority of the same traffic that Donaldson deals with too. So Any questions?

Do you have an ETA on the traffic study?

I don't know. No, I mean, it'll be within the next two months, I suspect.

Is that study based off of... What is it based off of?

We had a kickoff meeting with the engineering department and development services a month ago, probably now, to talk through it. And they'll go out. They're going to count Virginia and Perkins. They're going to look. They've got counts at Perkins and Hall of Fame already from another project that this company is working on and studies they've done in the area. They're going to look at Virginia and Stallard to the east. And possibly a verdict in Virginia and how that affects the traffic going south towards Perkins Road from Virginia.

And then are they doing the study basically saying, okay, how is adding an additional 200 units at this location going to impact that?

Yes, how that traffic is going to disperse from the site, what it does to the level of service at the various intersections. Traffic at intersections is rated on an A through F scale, or D, something, an A, B, C, D scale, and they'll look at the impact, and it's really on the delay that it causes at those intersections.

And then based off of what your results are that you get back from that, is there a point where they say it got a D where you can't allow this to happen? Or is it it got a D and it's going to be really busy traffic?

Are there recommended improvements that could be made at the intersections? Would a left turn lane be required to turn into this if you're on Virginia? It'll address those kind of things.

No, it would not shut down a project in any way. It would just make recommendations to what the city should do to accommodate the added traffic.

Not necessarily the city. The city may have to do stuff, but it's typically developer-funded improvements to the traffic system. Could it kill the project? Yes, if it says you have to... build Virginia out to a four-lane road. That could be cost prohibitive.

And saying the developer has to do that? Yes. Okay.

And the safety issues, I mean, that's really the police department, traffic operations, the city, ODOT at that intersection, hopefully are addressing some of those. Are there things that can be done from a safety standpoint at that intersection? But you got the creek on the west side. It's hard to get a full intersection there.

Thank you for clarifying that. You're welcome.

Go ahead. So the code states one car per bedroom. How many bedrooms in each unit?

So the buildings, there's 12 units per building. They're a mix of two and three bedroom units. There's three, three bedrooms per floor and one two bedroom per floor. I haven't done the math to count the bedrooms, but it's a few.

So now we're looking at a possibility of 400 or more vehicles, correct? Correct. Okay.

And a single-family house, I mean, single-family homes follow pretty much the same one-to-one requirement. And then from an affordability standpoint, by providing apartments, it provides another opportunity for housing. And so... There's a potential that could bring some of those students out of single-family homes, put them in apartments to open up those single-family homes for long-term buyers and stuff like this. And at $1.2 million for the property, Stillwater's gotten really expensive. The land is really expensive. And at $1.2 million for that 10-acre tract, the cost to build a single-family neighborhood gets really high really quick. I did some math. It was about $60,000 a lot just for the land and the road, water, and sewer. And the lots in the area are $30,000, $32,000 was the last cell that I could find adjacent to the site of an empty lot. And I mean, so you're building million dollar homes at that point.

Let me ask my question.

Okay.

Is that it for the applicant?

All right.

Yes. No. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we'll close the public hearing. Don't close it yet. One more?

I apologize. Before you close the public hearing, we did receive an email late this afternoon that we just printed off and brought down. Okay.

Okay.

Okay, if I just read it.

All right. Okay. This is from Peter Pitchford at 302 North Manning. And he says, I am reaching out to you today to ask that you please preserve the RSS zoning designation at 1202 East Virginia Avenue. I have concerns about people living at three and four stories high being able to look down onto my property while the open view beyond my property is being obstructed. I am worried about any drop in my property's value that could very likely result from the construction of an apartment complex in such close proximity. I also fear that Virginia Avenue could not handle the additional traffic as the current volume is quite high due to the number of people going into Planet Fitness, Spin City, and Walmart. And traffic is often stopped by semi trucks pulling into the Walmart parking lot that is accessible from Virginia Avenue. I would like my small, quiet neighborhood to remain as it was when I purchased my home. I would very much like the zoning to remain unchanged at 1202 East Virginia Avenue. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, Peter Pitchford. We'll now close the public hearing, and we will hear from staff findings and alternatives.

Yes, ma'am. One clarification I'll also make is there was a petition that was mentioned by one of the citizens. As a note, I'll work with that applicant. I'll work with that citizen to make sure it can be submitted if they would like. But the technicalities that go with that is if there is 50% of the property owners that are within 300 foot of the subject property that have signed that petition, 50% of the landowners. within that have signed that petition, then it increases the threshold at city council for it to be approved to a four-fifths majority instead of a three-fifths. So those are the technicalities at play if that were submitted. And there are some technicalities of how to submit that correctly, but just so you know, that's what a petition could do to a project like this.

How does that work whenever? Half of it is abutted to apartment complexes and. Like Walmart and then the other half is single family. How does that 50% work?

So it has to be 50% of the owners of 50% of the area. So if one property, for example, owns 50% of land within 300 foot, that one property owner would be very valuable to include. Thank you, yes Sir.

And then you will work with the individual who has that. Is there a time frame in which that needs to be done before the next step in the process?

Yes, ma'am. It needs to be submitted three days before the public hearing at city council. I don't remember off the top of my head what date that is.

City council date would be...

October 19th, I believe. Yes, it's October 19th. So that would need to be submitted three business days before that, which would be Friday, Thursday, Wednesday. So whatever the Wednesday is before October 19th.

Okay. So you'll confirm that with them and make sure that they've got time? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I just want to make sure it wasn't like tomorrow is the deadline to turn it in for the next opportunity.

Staff has already been working with them on this as well.

Perfect. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. So the findings tonight are that Envision Stillwater 2045 calls for neighborhood commercial at this location. Missing middle housing is appropriate in neighborhood commercial when providing a transition from commercial uses to low density residential. If the proposed development were to be developed as proposed, then it would fit within the missing middle housing type in Envision Stillwater 2045. The RTM zoning district allows for a variety of different missing middle housing types, including multifamily up to 20 dwelling units per acre. This parcel meets the minimum dimension requirements of the RTM districts, and single-family zoning districts abuts the property to the east and the north. Your alternatives tonight are to accept, table, or deny the map amendment request, or to recommend denial. Staff recommends alternative number one, which is to accept findings and recommend the City Council approve the proposed map amendment as presented.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Actually, staff, sorry.

Sorry, one more question.

Yes, sir.

Can we go back to the original Comprehensive plan and the missing, yep, those screens. Future LAM use dashboard and the next one that you had, the missing note. Can you go through this again with me? Yes, sir. Because it, yeah, I want to make sure that I'm totally understanding the, what the comprehensive plan is saying and what it's defining on each of those.

Yeah, so I'll give a little context to start with. The future land use, the comprehensive plan has in it a future land use map. That future land use map is intended to guide map amendment or rezoning requests moving forward. So this is intended as a guiding document for planning commission and city council and staff. It's a guiding document. So in this guiding document, it has future land use categories. So for example, to the east, this yellow is low density residential. This is high density residential. You have regional commercial and you have neighborhood commercial. Now, this is different than a zoning district. So to take one step back, all land in the city of Stillwater has two different designations. One is the zoning designation that says what you can do with your property. The future land use designation guides what you can rezone your property to. So we're talking about the second one specifically, which is the future land use designation. Future land use category. So this future land use category is neighborhood commercial. So there's a couple paragraphs here that kind of describe the intent of neighborhood commercial. I'll go ahead and read through those. The neighborhood commercial land use category accommodates small scale retail and personal service uses which are appropriate in proximity to residential uses. Commercial uses present within this land use category should have few to no adverse impacts extending beyond their property lines, should not require large amounts of parking, and should not generate significant vehicular traffic impacts. Drive-throughs and drive-ins are generally not appropriate here. These services should also serve nearby residents rather than relying on or attracting a customer base spanning the community or the region. So the intent of a neighborhood commercial We'll get to that in a second. So what that's saying is the neighborhood commercial land use category, this is what it is intended to accommodate. And then it gets a little more specific in the dashboard. So the dashboard introduces the ideas of development types. So this doesn't get us specific to say, you know, these specific zoning districts are appropriate at this land use category. It just has it broken into development types. And then that's up to interpretation of what zoning districts are appropriate for each land use type. But, for example, to go over this a little more, neighborhood commercial is a development type as well as a land use category, which is, again, a little confusing. As a development type, neighborhood commercial is intended to be similar to like an office zoning, which is our lowest intensity residential. It has strong buffering from neighboring residential. It's intended to be commercial that is more residential in feel, so you have more of your yard surrounding it. You have more green open space. So our office zoning district is kind of the most similar commercial district you could fit into that neighbor commercial development type. So then moving up to the top, single family homes would not be appropriate. Missing middle homes are appropriate as a transition. Now missing middle homes, when you think of the zoning category that would best fit the missing middle, you have RT, residential two family, which allows for duplexes and allows for townhomes with a specific use permit. And you think of RTM, residential two-family, multifamily, that would allow the triplexes, the quadplexes, the townhomes, as well as multifamily up to 20 dwelling units per acre. So this is our smallest zoning district that allows multifamily, all of which are intended to fit within that missing middle category. And then below that, you have multifamily. Multifamily is, again, that 13 or more. So digging into that more specifically, multifamily development types describes all multifamily dwellings with 13 or more units. These developments are generally too large in scale to be appropriate as infill or redevelopment near existing single-family neighborhoods and may include ancillary uses like parking structures and certain officer commercial uses. So this is describing multifamily, generally 13 or more units per building. That's the line they decided to draw of like what I'm picturing as a larger apartment complex versus smaller apartment buildings, which could fit into the missing middle. Missing middle again is variety of uses in between single family and the large apartment complex. So it was a lot of explaining, but did I generally answer your question? Yeah, I just... Kind of.

I mean... I don't understand how we're not defining this property as multifamily, I guess. And kind of whenever we're looking at that other screen, I'm kind of talking to all of us now as well as part of my discussion that we're having here.

So do you have any more questions?

I don't think I have any more questions at this point for you.

One point I would make to that is that...

Unless you're trying to help me understand more, right? Because I think you can probably see where I'm going with this.

I do. So a point I would make to that is if this rezoning were to be approved, they're not required to build the conceptual site plan that was shown. They're not required to build 16 buildings, each with 12 dwelling units. They could build one larger apartment complex up to 20 units per acre. So I just want to clarify that this development could easily fit within the multifamily category, especially with the number being proposed. If it were built as proposed with the smaller individual buildings, it could be considered missing middle, but it's one of those where it is up to interpretation, so I understand.

Thank you.

Yes. Yes, sir. Yes, I need a clarification. Rewind your conversation or explanation. You were saying that large-scale multifamily has allowed 13 units, apartments per unit.

It just says right here, let me see if I can turn my pointer on. The way it's defined in the comprehensive plan is described all multifamily dwellings with 13 or more units. And then in this one up here it says, and apartment buildings with 12 or fewer units. So the way we interpreted those two sentences together is that it's referring to the number of dwelling units per building. It doesn't say like a dwelling units per acre or a dwelling units per lot that would be more helpful in this conversation. It just has that distinction of dwelling units per building, if that helps. Thank you. Yes, sir.

So to answer your invitation to discuss some thoughts about the presentation, I'll just say, I'm going to start off with, generally when we have proposed projects come to us, we very rarely see things pushed to the density that's allowed. And what we're looking at here is within two units of the density that's allowable. So we're way up at the high end of density. Thank you. And I think that's a really good conversation for us to have because a lot of times when we look at zoning changes, we're looking at the project in front of us and not what the actual could be. So I think this is really eye-opening for us to think about the number of people that would be there, the number of cars that would be there. And I think the presentation, what stood out to me, Henry, as you were going through kind of the missing middle and what is neighborhood commercial, so for me what i heard what i heard out of the presentation and the words that i picked out out of the paragraphs are neighborhood commercial was defined as small scale development three stories doesn't feel small scale to me in still water um particularly in in this kind of more um i'll say on the east side of perkins road it feels like we're moving further out from kind of the the core of the city as as we move further out The other thing to think about, and we're talking about neighborhood commercial, and you're talking about offices, the hours that it's occupied tend to be weekdays from 9 to 5, 8 to 5, 10 to 6, something like that. Whereas we're looking at residential use, which is kind of 24-7. So those people are always there in concentration, which gives me pause to really feel that the description of neighborhood commercial fits for the density that we're talking about. So those are just kind of some of my initial considerations. As far as I'll say utility infrastructure, there are ways that development can happen that would address that. We talked a little bit this evening about the streets and the safety. There are studies that can be made and things can definitely be improved. But one of the things I did hear repeatedly this evening besides traffic and infrastructure is I heard a lot of character. And this is something that we've dealt with, with other things, is neighborhood character. We've also been talking about the missing metal in affordable homes. And I believe one of, I forgot which one of you said it tonight, one of the gentlemen that came forward said, This is affordable housing. Where you're living is affordable housing. And if we were to change the character of that neighborhood, I don't know that it would stay affordable housing. So development on the periphery of what is affordable housing could impact that, which is something that I think could be an unintended consequence of this density in this area. I'm gonna be quiet now and let the other commissioners state their comments and their observations.

I tend to agree with a lot of what you just said. I feel like looking at those charts and the definitions, this was really trying to squeeze in 192 units into the comprehensive plan in the only way they possibly could. Multifamily, to me, 190 units, that feels like multifamily to me. It might not be by definition, but it sure does feel like it. That's a lot. And that was a zero out of five on the comprehensive plan, and the missing middle was a two. So it doesn't feel very compatible with what was intended there. I would like to see a, if we were to entertain this, I would like to see a traffic study completed prior to because I don't want that to have, I don't want to rezone it and then it already be done and the traffic study coming later. I would like to know if that area is going to be able to handle the amount of traffic that this zoning is going to add to the area before we rezone it. I also think that, like you said, three stories abutting a neighborhood is a lot.

Well, I guess we have to go in order, but I'll go.

No, we do. Yeah. That's what we're doing.

OK. So Commissioner Phillips, I think you made some good points and some things I haven't thought of, especially about the hours relative to commercial versus what's being proposed. And so I had five thoughts. The traffic on Virginia, I think that's a legitimate concern at that intersection a lot. I don't go to 7 Bruce. I'm not contributing to that problem. And really, it's just such a sharp transition from what it is today to the almost near the max density that's allowed. And I actually appreciate the clarification that you made, because you're right, it's easier to consider it what's proposed versus what could be. And now we see that what it's proposed is actually about near the max that it is allowed. I didn't know the stat about the dangerous intersection, but I mean, it's easy to see how that would likely get worse. When I did the math, if I did the math correctly, there would be 396 parking spaces there. So that's a lot. And I think what spoke to me, too, is just the strong neighborhood presence here. So I think I have to give weight to people getting out of their house, coming down here, sitting in here, getting up and talking when I know a lot of people aren't comfortable doing that. So there's a strong emotional tug that causes people to do that. And so that has to have some weight to me. And it does.

Well, I concur with all the comments made by the other three commissioners. And I think the neighborhood has articulated very valid concerns based on their experience living in the area. I have several problems with this proposal, but certainly the one that was articulated that this is totally out of scale to the neighborhood. Now if you're talking about a more reasonable transition, we could look at two family duplexes. As a possible compromise, but a three-story 192 unit is is not a transition really I think one problem. We're dealing with here is We've adopted we the city 2045 envision the new comp plan, but we do not have a a land development code yet based on that. So it would be very good to have that proposed and passed by the city before we consider something of this scale. Now, in terms of the traffic, I have a weekly meeting in the northeast part of town, and I've noticed, and this is anecdotal of course, I have no firm numbers, but the traffic on Virginia has increased substantially the past 20 years. Now, I didn't know this proposal was going to be presented to Planning Commission when I was driving those times, but the last time I did drive it, I knew this proposal was coming before us and it really struck me how this would have a serious impact on traffic. There's already a lot of traffic in that area. And yes, Virginia's narrow, and not only that, the line of sight due to the hilly terrain in the area is a problem, correct? So I just don't see this as a really viable proposal right now.

So I think the city behooved them to look at Virginia already and begin an analysis of what's going on with the traffic flow along Virginia, both not just cars, but pedestrians, bicycles, whatever, both east and west of Perkins Road. I WAS HOPING THIS WAS GOING TO BE A BETTER TRANSITION FROM THE COMMERCE THAT'S IN PERKINS, ON PERKINS ROAD, TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LIKE ALONG DONALDSON. AND AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS 96 UNITS, BUT THEN WHEN IT DOUBLED, I THOUGHT, WELL, THAT TAKES IT OUT OF MY PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD TRANSITION. I don't think this is the answer for that transition from commercial to this residential area.

Real quick. I think I did the math wrong, actually, because I only counted 12 buildings. There's 16, correct? Is that what he said? 16 buildings? That's correct. So it's 528 parking spaces. Because there's 33 bedrooms per building.

Now I can't find the page where I had my math, but I will yield to your math. Anyone formulating a motion?

I move that we find the map amendment is not needed and do not recommend that the city council approve this request.

Second. Second the motion.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. The next item on the agenda is the meeting summary for review and possible action for the July 21st meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes?

Motion to approve in minutes as presented. Second the motion.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes with three yes and two abstain. The next item on the agenda is miscellaneous items from staff, planning commissioners, or the city attorney for discussion and possible action.

There is them.

OK. We do have the one item is that our next regular meeting is scheduled for October the 6th. And the last item is adjournment. Do I hear a motion to adjourn?

So moved. Second.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-1. We now stand adjourned.