2026-09-24 - Oklahoma City Planning Commission Meeting

00:17Good afternoon everyone and welcome to

00:19the September 24th meeting of the

00:20Oklahoma City Planning Commission. I'd

00:22like to call us to order and go over a

00:24few housekeeping items. If you have a

00:26cell phone with you, please silence or

00:28turn it off. Um, if you've never been to

00:31one of our meetings before, here's what

00:32you can expect. So, we'll start with

00:34some simple administrative items, uh,

00:37such as minutes and continuences, and

00:38then we move on to cases that are on the

00:41consent docket. And these are pretty

00:42straightforward cases that can be all

00:44heard and, uh, motioned on as a group.

00:48Uh, so then after that, we will move to

00:49cases to be heard individually. uh we'll

00:52hear them discuss and determine if a

00:54recommendation decision could be made

00:55today or if more time and a continuence

00:58is necessary. Uh there are certain cases

01:01this body makes the final decision but

01:03most most of the applications we are

01:05providing a recommendation to city

01:06council and we are not the final

01:08decision for those no matter what the

01:11decision you'll have another opportunity

01:12to share your concerns again when those

01:14are heard at city council in

01:15approximately six to eight weeks if they

01:17move forward. Uh there are certain items

01:19such as homeowners association CCRs that

01:22are not factors in our considerations

01:25um and are outside our purview. So uh

01:28for the sake of time, please refrain

01:29from using those as justification in

01:31your case. Uh if you're here to be uh

01:33speak on an item and are not the

01:35applicant, please fill out one of the

01:36forms available outside and give them to

01:39Elena or Thaad down here below. Uh when

01:43that item is heard, you'll be called to

01:45the podium. Please come up and give your

01:47name and address for the record and

01:48you'll have up to five minutes to speak.

01:51If you're here to speak on an item with

01:52a large group of people, we encourage

01:54you to elect a representative to share

01:55your group's concerns and in those

01:57instances, some additional time will be

01:59given to that representative.

02:01Uh we're several speakers are going to

02:03be heard on the same item. We just ask

02:05that you do your best to limit comments

02:06to concerns that we haven't heard yet.

02:09Um, we're just trying to limit extensive

02:11and repetitious comments for the sake of

02:13uh keeping the moving meeting the

02:15meeting moving. Uh, please direct all of

02:18your comments or questions to us up here

02:21on the commission. Uh, if needed, we'll

02:23ask for staff or the applicant to

02:25respond. Um, finally, we just want to

02:27let you know we appreciate your presence

02:29here today and the time that you took

02:30away from your other obligations. and

02:32then we ask for your cooperation

02:34upholding the decorum of the meeting and

02:36that you don't speak from the audience.

02:39Um, thank you for your attendance, your

02:41attention, and your assistance. With

02:43that, we'll take our first item, which

02:46is the receipt of the minutes from the

02:48September 10th meeting.

02:50>> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to

02:51receive the minutes of September 10th,

02:532026. Have

02:55>> a motion from Commissioner Noble to

02:56receive the minutes.

03:05We're giving our system a minute to get

03:08going.

03:18>> We need a voice vote.

03:20>> No.

03:21>> Okay.

03:24>> I I can't Okay. It was second by

03:26Commissioner Meek. Okay.

03:38Just in case I may say I

03:40>> mine says waiting. So if mine didn't

03:44Okay, there it goes.

03:45>> Okay. And the minutes are received. All

03:47right. Um, next item is continuence

03:50requests and we'll start with

03:51uncontested requests.

03:53>> Item 20 is KC1 1167 requested defer to

03:57October 8th. Item 21, SPUD1 1849, defer

04:00to October 8th. Item 22, PUD 2148, defer

04:05to October 8th. Item 23, PUD 2150, defer

04:08to October 8th. Item 24, KC7761

04:12to def uh defer to October 22nd. Item

04:1525, KCE 1156, defer to October 22nd.

04:19Item 26, KCE 1166, defer to October

04:2322nd. Item 27, case CPA 2611, defer to

04:27October 22nd. Item 28, case PUD 2152,

04:32defer to October 22nd. Item 29, case

04:35SPUD1 1861, defer to October 22nd. Item

04:3930, case 1158, defer to December 10th.

04:43And item 31, case SPUD1 1854, defer to

04:47December 10th.

04:48>> Okay, I'll confirm there's no one here

04:50to be heard on any of those items. All

04:52right. Seeing none, we're ready for a

04:53motion.

04:54>> I will make a motion to approve the

04:56uncontested continuous request as read.

04:59>> A motion to approve the uncontested

05:01requests, seconded by Commissioner

05:03Harrison. Please cast your votes.

05:16>> We waiting on

05:18>> Commissioner Newman.

05:21He's voice voted I. All right. And those

05:24new uh uncontested requests are read. So

05:27new requests.

05:28>> Item number six, KC7834, request to

05:31defer to December 10th. Item 11, PUD

05:342157, defer to October 8th. Item 13,

05:37case PUD 2162, defer to November 12th.

05:41And item 19, SPUD 1858, defer to

05:44November 12th.

05:45>> Okay.

05:48>> Sure. Yeah. number 6, 11, 13, and 19.

05:53>> Okay. Is there anyone here to be heard

05:55heard on any of those items? All right.

05:58Seeing none, I'm ready for a motion.

06:00>> I will make a motion to approve the con

06:02the new continuence request as read.

06:05>> A motion from Commissioner Noble to

06:07approve the new request as read,

06:08seconded by Commissioner Privet. Please

06:10cast your votes.

06:17And those new requests are granted. All

06:19right. Uh, now we move to the consent

06:21docket.

06:23>> Item number one is KC7838, final plat of

06:26Santa Fe Industrial, located south of

06:29East Memorial Road and east of North

06:31Santa Fe Avenue. Item two is KC7839,

06:34final plat of Cypress Plains, phase 4,

06:37located south of northwest 164th Street

06:40and east of North Council Road. And

06:43finally, item three, KC C7837, final

06:46plat of Anthem Phase 2, located north of

06:49Northwest 178th Street and west of North

06:51Portland Avenue.

06:53>> Okay. Is there anyone here to be heard

06:55on those items? All right. We're ready

06:57for a motion for the consent docket.

06:59>> I will make a motion to approve the

07:00consent docket.

07:01>> A motion from Commissioner Noble to

07:03approve the consent docket,

07:05seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please

07:06cast your votes.

07:11and consent docket is approved. Right.

07:15Now we are on to items we heard

07:18individually and we start with item

07:19four.

07:20>> This is case number DA19PH.

07:23Application for consideration of lots

07:25split deed approval on property located

07:27at 1141 Old River Trail.

07:32>> Good afternoon.

07:32>> Good afternoon.

07:35>> I'm Todd McKinnus on behalf of the

07:37applicant. Derek Turner is here

07:38representing the party as well. It's

07:40just a simple lot split that the HOA

07:41would like to do with some common area

07:43in the River Oaks neighborhood. So, I'll

07:45be happy to answer any questions if you

07:46have any for it.

07:47>> Okay. Um, Commissioner Harrison, this is

07:50your ward. I do not have anyone signed

07:52up to speak.

07:53>> Okay. No one signed up to speak. Does

07:54any other commissioners have any

07:56comments?

07:56>> Not. I'll make a motion for approval.

07:59All right.

08:01>> Thank you.

08:01>> We have a motion uh from

08:05Commissioner Harrison to recommend the

08:06item for approval.

08:17It's been second by Commissioner Meek.

08:18Please cast your votes.

08:24That item is approved.

08:26>> Thank you.

08:29>> Item five.

08:31Uh item five is KC7840 final plat of

08:35Flying Hawk Ranch located south of

08:37Southwest 119th Street and west of South

08:39Meridian Avenue and a variance to the

08:42subi subdivision regulations.

08:46>> We have an applicant present.

08:55>> David Jones with the Orion Group. I'm uh

08:57here representing the uh developer and

08:59the developer manager on the project.

09:02This is a project that's been ongoing

09:04for an extended period of time. Um

09:07there's been uh work completed to date

09:09on it at this point. I know we have four

09:11tees. Um a couple of them I'd like to

09:14visit with the uh commission about the

09:17first is the navigation easement

09:19comment. We do have in place a executed

09:22navigation easement with the airport

09:24trust authority and uh we have that I

09:27sent that to Sarah again earlier this

09:30morning. It's just uh been a bit of time

09:32so uh wanted to get that back in the

09:35file. The latter is the TE as it relates

09:38to the private drive. Um part of this

09:43project had a interconnectivity with the

09:46development to our east. um that

09:49interconnectivity has now been

09:51eliminated. Um we will not be making

09:54that connection. So a secondary access

09:58street has been designed extending north

10:02to southwest 119th Street. Also we have

10:06the uh plan submitted and approved on

10:09those uh as of today. The plans are

10:12designed actually as a private street to

10:15the private street standards as far as

10:18width and completion and paving section.

10:21So as a part

10:23apart from needing a variance for that,

10:26we're not referencing that the rest of

10:27the streets within the subdivision are

10:29also private streets and this will be a

10:32private street also. So we don't

10:34anticipate needing that variance to um

10:38be able to allowed to address or name

10:40that street. So those are the two items

10:44just from the TE standpoint that I

10:45wanted to uh get clarification on.

10:49>> So we would be deleting TE2 which is the

10:52request for the variance.

10:54>> We would like to request the deletion of

10:56that because we are actually and have

10:58designed that as a private street and

11:00not a private drive.

11:08Okay. Um, Commissioner Meek, this is

11:11your ward if you want to lead the

11:13discussion. I do not have anyone signed

11:14up to speak.

11:16>> Thank you, Chairman. Um, [clears throat]

11:19real quick, we're not, for those that in

11:23the audience that don't know, we're not

11:24supposed to talk about plats. We're not

11:26allowed to. Um, so this is the first

11:28time I can speak to my fellow

11:30commissioners regarding this. Um, I'm

11:32not saying the developer did anything

11:34wrong, but this ended up being a big

11:36mess. Yes.

11:37>> Um, I was contacted in the evening with

11:40a homeowners ready to fight, uh, police

11:43on the way and a and a a jo a a joining

11:47development trying to take down a fence

11:49to put a stub street into a private

11:52gated addition that has a whole lot of

11:54amenities. And these people were mad.

11:56Um, and we don't get paid for that kind

11:59of stuff either. Um, so this is a lesson

12:03in stub street requirements for us, I

12:06believe. Um, because on the private

12:09edition, which is Williamson Farms, they

12:13if it's going to be a private gated

12:15edition, I don't believe they should

12:16have stub streets to end up at a fence

12:18where this even could have happened.

12:20Correct.

12:21>> I believe so. Yeah.

12:22>> Okay. And then you're trying to do a

12:23private edition, correct? Are you going

12:25to are you planning on gating this

12:27edition?

12:28>> We are not.

12:28>> Okay. Just private streets. Why then?

12:31Correct. Why would Why are you wanting

12:32to do private streets if it's not gated?

12:34It's a storm sewer consideration. We've

12:37got storm sewer that runs

12:39alongitudinally down one of the center

12:41lines of one of the streets.

12:42>> Okay.

12:43>> And that's not an accepted practice of

12:46the engineering department.

12:47>> Well, and that's not part of my purview

12:50really. I I just was wondering if it was

12:52gated. The second lesson that this um

12:56this case should teach us that I'm

12:59requesting of my fellow commissioners is

13:01that when a putt is heard a putt of this

13:05size especially followed on the same

13:07agenda with the preliminary plat there's

13:10a whole lot of changes that happen up

13:13here during hearing the putt PUD we put

13:16a bunch of tees on it and then the the

13:20preliminary plat falls behind it and you

13:22approve it. And then what happens in

13:26this case can happen. They go out there,

13:27they got work orders for streets,

13:29drainage, you know, put in the streets,

13:31the curbs, the utilities, and then all

13:33of a sudden we realize that we're taking

13:35a stub street in. um an example and and

13:40like I said, I'm not I'm not saying you

13:42guys did it wrong, but when this PUB had

13:45so many requirements uh that were put on

13:49at the time of this hearing, especially

13:52the secondary access to 119th, I believe

13:55the preliminary plat should have been

13:56deferred. Um and the preliminary plat

14:00should have came back to us showing

14:01those changes and then uh because what

14:05happened between the planning commission

14:08meeting whenever this happened which I

14:10was not a part of uh

14:13the requirements of the TE were never

14:16instituted out in the field and so it's

14:19a little bit of the city that they

14:21shouldn't have given the work orders

14:23without that and that's being addressed

14:24but I also believe we can address it

14:26when a putt is heard and it has major

14:28changes, we don't need to be doing

14:30preliminary plats following it. With all

14:32that said, I'm good with the changes.

14:35Um, I believe that this is cuz we had to

14:38go back and listen to the PUD that was

14:42recorded.

14:43>> We did

14:44>> figure out all the things that were

14:45required. They have now been shown as

14:48required and and now this now this final

14:51plat does meet. Um, I understand you

14:54want to delete T2 because it's private.

14:56So you can name private streets however

14:58you want and that's what that TE was

15:00about and you said um on number three

15:03with the airport requirements um you're

15:07you're agreeable to that anyway and

15:08you've already done it so can we just

15:10leave it in there?

15:10>> Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.

15:12>> All right. Um any commissioners have any

15:14other comments regarding this case?

15:17>> Okay.

15:20>> I guess I do. I when I look at this and

15:23this issue with respect to the

15:24connectivity and so forth, what it tells

15:26me is that we should stop allowing these

15:28giant gated communities. I mean, it's

15:30like why shouldn't there be connectivity

15:32here? It's not any different than, you

15:34know, any other couple of neighborhoods

15:36in Oklahoma City. It's it's the fact

15:39that the one is gated and that makes it

15:41problematic to connect. I get that. But

15:44we should stop doing that. These

15:46neighborhoods need to be connected. If

15:48we're if we are believers in

15:50connectivity, we shouldn't just, you

15:52know, piece it out here and there. This

15:54one's good, this one's not, they need to

15:56we need to stop allowing that.

15:59That's a possibility. But when it is

16:01allowed, I don't think they need to have

16:03stubs to a dead-end fence because

16:07especially this edition, Williamson

16:09Farms, and I've worked hand inand with

16:10the with the HOA team there because this

16:14is 750 homes, 100% built out. They have

16:18multiple swimming pools, multiple

16:19clubouses, multiple ponds, and they and

16:22they pay very, you know, very high dues,

16:26and the last thing they want is hundreds

16:28of other houses coming through their

16:30neighborhood and could go use any of

16:31their amenities, but they don't pay

16:33dues.

16:33>> So, it goes and it goes two ways with

16:35private streets. You you the HOA owns

16:38those streets and you don't need

16:40additional traffic.

16:41>> Additional traffic, right? Okay.

16:42>> The the opportunity to maybe purchase

16:45that property to the to the west,

16:47>> right? and extend the neighborhood, then

16:49you would have needed to stop. I mean,

16:50>> right,

16:51>> I don't know what they were thinking.

16:52>> Clarification is is that this was not an

16:55open access driveway. There was a

16:57physical crash gate set up. So, there

17:00would not be any traffic other than fire

17:03safety traffic from the Flying Hawk

17:06edition into the private edition on

17:10>> I do. So, it was not an open access. I I

17:13do understand that, but in

17:15>> streets of nowhere are not good anyway,

17:16>> right? Streets of nowhere are not good

17:18and a crash gate um is usually a bar

17:23that pedestrians can just walk right

17:25through. And this private 750 home

17:28development next door did not want that

17:29fence taken down. And I agree with them.

17:33So, I just believe that uh and I believe

17:36the planning commission uh that heard

17:40this putt originally, they agreed with

17:42it and some of you were on the that and

17:44they said you need another access to

17:46119th. It just didn't get passed through

17:48out to the field. That's what happened

17:50and today we're correcting all that. So,

17:52with that being said, um I'll quit

17:55preaching and I'll recommend this for uh

17:57approval. I'll recommend

18:00>> or no, we're approving. It's approval.

18:01>> Yes, we're approving. See, I recommend

18:04uh that we approve 7840 for strike or

18:07striking

18:08>> striking T number two and one three and

18:12four will stand.

18:15So we have a motion from Commissioner

18:17Meek to recommend or to approve the item

18:20striking TE2.

18:37Yeah, I'm refreshing. Um,

18:41looks like it's been seconded by

18:43Commissioner Peaver.

18:46Please cast your votes.

18:51>> That is unanimously approved.

18:53>> Thank you.

18:54>> All right. Item six.

18:57>> Oh, that's been deferred. Uh that is yes

18:58correct.

19:00>> Item seven.

19:01>> Item seven is a resolution recommending

19:03to the city council uh the following

19:05subdivision plats to remove racially

19:07restrictive language. Uh I'll allow the

19:11applicant to articulate the the plats

19:13themselves. There are many of them.

19:17>> Good afternoon.

19:18>> Hello. Hi. I'm William Wilson. Um I am

19:21Do I have to say my address right?

19:23>> No. No present. Um, but I'm here

19:25representing the Human Rights Commission

19:27um, as we move to try to get a

19:29resolution through to amend these

19:31documents to remove racially restrictive

19:33language. Um, this isn't our first time

19:35in front of the council and it won't be

19:36our last. So, this is just one of the

19:38big groups of um, plats that we're

19:40moving through and I'll just be here to

19:42answer any questions that you guys may

19:43have.

19:46>> So, again, I went and did this. It's so

19:48much fun. You guys should come down the

19:50next time we do it.

19:56I think

19:58>> it's a very worthy cause, but at at the

20:00same time, it was actually quite

20:02enjoyable way to spend a Saturday

20:03morning.

20:06>> Okay. Any

20:07>> we just need a motion to

20:09>> Yeah, we just need a motion to

20:11>> approve the resolution. There's

20:12>> adopt it

20:13>> number. So, I'll make a motion to

20:15approve case number seven or item number

20:18seven and the resolution recommending to

20:20the city of Oklahoma City Council to

20:22amend the subdivision plat.

20:27I have a motion from Commissioner Noble.

20:28It's been second by Commissioner Pever.

20:30Please cast your votes.

20:35>> That item is approved.

20:36>> Thank you so much.

20:38>> Oh, you know what? I'm so sorry. I had

20:42someone signed up to speak on that.

20:44>> Okay.

20:52>> If you could if you could come up to the

20:53podium, please.

20:59>> We was just We was just inquiring what

21:02exactly is the discriminary restriction?

21:05What what what is this about? because

21:09we're one of the properties, a church

21:11over in that district and we were just

21:13wondering what it was about.

21:15>> You could you could probably get with

21:16staff and they could explain the

21:17process.

21:17>> Explain to me what it actually meant.

21:19Yeah, we was trying to figure out what

21:20it actually meant because it didn't say

21:22anything what that means. Okay.

21:27>> All right. Thank you.

21:32>> Okay. Item eight. Item eight is

21:34consideration of a resolution

21:36recommending city council adoption of

21:38the South Oklahoma City Economic

21:39Development Project Plan, which is

21:41generally bound by South Walker uh

21:43Avenue, Southeast 59th Street, South

21:45Bryant Avenue, and Southeast 89th

21:47Street.

21:49>> Good afternoon. I'm back. [laughter]

21:51Um I was able to talk with a few of the

21:53commissioners over the last couple of

21:55weeks. I'd be happy to answer any

21:56questions. Um, we did include a staff

21:59report in your packet which um gives you

22:01a little bit more information about the

22:02alignment between the comp plan and then

22:04the project plan. So happy to answer any

22:07questions.

22:09>> I'm I have no questions now after I've

22:12had time to discuss and

22:14>> come up with any.

22:15>> Yeah. No, I didn't actually

22:18thing if any I'm sure someone else

22:20might. So go ahead, Lindsay.

22:21>> I'd be glad to move approval if there

22:23are no other questions.

22:26>> Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. All right, we have

22:27a motion from Commissioner Pever to

22:30approve the item.

22:36>> Second by Commissioner Noble.

22:38>> Please cast your votes.

22:40>> Refresh.

22:50>> I'm a I'm a yay if it doesn't come up

22:54anytime.

23:00While we're waiting, I'd like to thank

23:03for her efforts to meet and discuss and

23:06explain. And um I was able also to have

23:09all of my questions and concerns

23:11addressed. So

23:14>> very good.

23:16We're still waiting on Commissioner

23:18Privet.

23:18>> He always voted I.

23:20>> I'm an I. So

23:22I don't know.

23:23>> All right.

23:23>> It's been working fine. That item is

23:25approved.

23:26Item nine.

23:28>> This is case PC 111017, application to

23:31reszone 1317 Westwood Boulevard from R1

23:34and SROD Scenic River Overlay to R2 and

23:39SODD.

23:43>> Hello. Um, so my name is Jason

23:46Herertado. I'm here because of the uh

23:48property in question um and its history.

23:51It operated as a duplex

23:54at one point in time and then was

23:55converted to R1. So, it already has

23:58pretty much everything built into it,

24:00the infrastructure for it to operate as

24:02R2. It appears from just the work that's

24:06been done on it that uh the electrical

24:09panels were at one point just combined.

24:11Uh there's a single conduit running to

24:13the second story which could easily be

24:15separated and routed to a new electrical

24:18panel for separate utility usage.

24:22I'm here to answer any questions that

24:23you guys may have about this.

24:26>> Commissioner Milner, this is W six. I do

24:28not have anyone signed up to speak.

24:30>> Okay. And I didn't have any questions on

24:32this. This is pretty straightforward. It

24:34was once a duplex combined into a single

24:36family going back to a duplex. And I

24:39believe it was recommended approval

24:41yesterday at Urban Design Commission,

24:44I think.

24:45>> Yes.

24:45>> Okay. So, unless we have commissioners

24:48that have any questions on this,

24:50I'd like to recommend approval of PC

24:53111017.

24:56>> A motion to recommend approval to city

24:58council

25:00from Commissioner Milner, seconded by

25:02Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your

25:04votes.

25:09And that item is recommended for

25:10approval. Good luck.

25:13Item 10.

25:15Item 10 is KCE 1168. Application to

25:18close a portion of the East West Alley

25:20in phase edition east of North Robinson

25:22Avenue and north of Northwest 14th

25:24Street.

25:25>> Hello, Jessica Voy with Johnson

25:27Associates representing the applicant.

25:29So, this application is to close a

25:30portion of the platted alley. Uh we will

25:33be maintaining those utility easements

25:35that are within that alley. Uh we did

25:37receive a few letters from AT&T and then

25:39a neighboring property owner with

25:41concerns about the utility easement, but

25:43we have reached out to uh both and uh do

25:46not seem to have any uh concern about

25:48closing the alley just on those

25:50easements which will be maintained. And

25:52I am happy to answer any questions.

25:55Staff has recommended approval and this

25:56also went to the historic preservation

25:58commission which they recommended

25:59approval as well. All right.

26:03Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Milner, back

26:05to you. I don't have anyone signed up.

26:07>> Okay. And I don't have any additional

26:08questions. Thank you for talking to both

26:11of the, uh, individuals that wrote in,

26:13um, with concern. So, I do appreciate

26:14that. So, commissioners, any questions

26:16on this one?

26:19If not, I'm going to recommend approval.

26:22>> Motion from Commissioner Milner to

26:24recommend the item for approval to city

26:25council.

26:27Seconded by Commissioner Harrison.

26:28Please cast your votes.

26:33That item is recommended for approval.

26:34>> Thank you.

26:36>> Item 11 was continued. Item 12, this is

26:39PUD 2161, application to reszone 10301

26:43Southwest 44th Street from R1 NA.

26:47>> There you go. Uh, good afternoon. David

26:49Box, 525 Northwest 11th Street here on

26:51behalf of the applicant. Uh, this is a

26:53PUD that is similar to the PUD that we

26:56just came through on just north of this

26:58site. Uh if you'll recall, this was a

27:00site that my client had master plan many

27:02years ago. The turnpike authority came

27:04through, biseected the property in half,

27:06and I think this maybe the last piece of

27:09uh reszoning to to get it back to where

27:11we thought we were. So, we've carried

27:12those provisions from the PUD to the

27:14north over to this. So, the track to the

27:16west, which is track two, allows for

27:18duplex. Uh track one allows for uh

27:21single family residential. the uh

27:24discussion on the beauty to the north

27:27centered around the um arterial fencing.

27:30We've carried th those requirements over

27:31so it'll be cedar cap with brick

27:33columns. Um there are no TEES. However,

27:36in talking to Commissioner Miki to ask

27:38that we add a TE that the arterial

27:40fencing shall be uh maintained by the

27:42HOA which we are agreeable to.

27:47>> Happy to answer any questions.

27:50Okay, Commissioner Meek, if you want to

27:52lead the discussion. I do not have

27:53anyone signed up to speak.

27:56>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, as uh Mr.

27:58Box said, this is matching the one we

28:01just approved to the north and with the

28:03TE's we put on it previously. He they

28:05included them other than the HOA and

28:08he's accepted that. So, any other

28:10commissioners have any comments

28:13regarding this? If not, I was uh I'm

28:16going to move to recommend approval of

28:18PUD 2161 with TE number one being added

28:22that the uh fence on 44th Street will be

28:26taken care of by the HOA.

28:28>> Yes.

28:28>> Okay. All right.

28:30>> Well, let's be clear. Just the arterial

28:33fencing shall be maintained by the HOA.

28:35>> That's what I meant. Thank you.

28:38>> I don't want taken care of to become a

28:41problem later.

28:42All right, we have a motion from

28:44Commissioner Meek to recommend the item

28:46for approval subject to the TE, second

28:48by Commissioner Milner. Please cast your

28:50votes.

28:56That item is recommended for approval.

28:58>> Thank you.

29:00>> Item 13 was continued. So, we're at item

29:0314.

29:05Item 14 is PUD 2158 application to

29:08reszone 1925 North MacArthur Boulevard

29:10from R1 NC3.

29:13>> Uh David Box 525 Northwest 11th Street

29:16here on behalf of the applicant. This is

29:17an application to reszone the site in a

29:20PUD that would allow for multif family.

29:23As you can see from the screen, it's a

29:24bit of a unique track in that portion of

29:26it is already zoned R4 and then the

29:28frontage portion is zoned C3 and I

29:31believe then that northwest portion is

29:34zoned R1. And so this would bring it all

29:35into one unified um zoning designation

29:38that would allow for the multif family.

29:40We did host a neighborhood meeting um

29:42and it was perhaps the first time I've

29:45had this happen to me. It was just me

29:47and Miss Turner and Miss Powers. And um

29:52you know, we stayed for about 45

29:53minutes. No one showed up, but Miss

29:55Powers did have some questions as it

29:57relates to that north building. We had

29:59originally originally proposed that to

30:00be a three-story building. She asked if

30:02we could modify that. My client agreed.

30:03What I've just handed out is that

30:05revised site plan to reflect uh that

30:07two-story building along the north. So,

30:10there are two TEES. Uh, one of which I'm

30:15unclear what it means. Uh, TE1, delete

30:18section 9.66 drainage regulations. Uh,

30:22before I respond, I'd love a comment

30:24from staff as to what our goal is here

30:27and then I have a response.

30:30>> All right. I think uh, Mr. Lodge is is

30:33coming to the podium to provide that

30:35response.

30:41No, I didn't.

30:48>> Good afternoon, Barry Lodge Public

30:49Works. Uh, in response to M Mr. Box's

30:53question, the goal in doing this is to

30:59keep with the intent of chapter 16 of

31:03the of the municipal code that contains

31:06a statement that says that, and I'm I'm

31:10paraphrasing here. I have right in front

31:11of me. Uh that determinations and

31:14interpretations of the requirements of

31:18chapter 16, the final authority of that

31:20lies with the city engineer. We've had

31:23some cases in the past where that was

31:26taken uh away from the city engineer and

31:29went through board of adjustment. And so

31:31the idea the the whole purpose and the

31:33intent of this is just to make sure that

31:37what was written into chapter 16 remains

31:41uh intact that it doesn't get changed

31:45doesn't change any of the requirements

31:47uh that are going on uh for the for the

31:49drainage for the detention for any of

31:51that. It merely states that it it's

31:55keeping it so that when the city

31:57engineer determination is made on

31:59whatever the item happens to be that

32:01that doesn't get taken away and put

32:04before uh non-engineers to make

32:07engineering decisions. That that's

32:09that's the intent of that. So here's the

32:11issue. Um the entirety of the drainage

32:15portion of the PUD says development of

32:17this parcel will comply with chapter 16

32:19of the Oakland City Municipal Code 2020

32:21as amended. And so as described in the

32:24PUD we are doing just that. We are

32:26complying with chapter 16. The problem

32:28is under chapter 59

32:315914150

32:33subb sub 1 sub A sub12 it specifically

32:36requires a statement as to drainage to

32:39be included in a PUD. The way that we

32:42provide a statement as it relates to

32:44drainage is by saying we will comply

32:46with chapter 16. Um to take it out of

32:50the PUD would be to suggest that the PUD

32:53that gets recommended for approval or

32:56approved would be incomplete as it

32:58relates to the ordinance. I've had

33:00several lawsuits in which we were

33:01arguing about provision after provision

33:04under Chapter 59 as to what is allowed

33:07and what isn't allowed and what is

33:08required. So much so that the lack of an

33:11email address of my client on the front

33:14page became a huge problem for an

33:16opposing council. And so the ordinance

33:19specifically requires a statement as it

33:20relates to drainage. I don't know how we

33:22can be more clear than say we have to

33:24comply with chapter 16. So we object and

33:27would ask that you strike and not be in

33:29a position where this body or city

33:31council is approving things that

33:34blatantly violates its own ordinance.

33:39Okay.

33:41Um, Commissioner Powers, this is W two

33:44if you want to lead our discussion. I

33:45have two folks signed up to speak.

33:47>> Well, so with respect to that particular

33:50TE, I I do not think it's appropriate

33:52for us to delete that language. We're

33:54going to have to find a better way to

33:55solve this problem than just, you know,

33:57randomly doing things like that. So,

34:00>> and then real quick on TE2, uh, we can't

34:04agree to that as as well. um when we get

34:07to permitting we'll you know we'll have

34:10to work with staff as to separation

34:12location those things. So um we would we

34:16would move to strike both of those.

34:19>> I have sort of a separate issue with

34:20respect to the access but I'll get to

34:22that. Um the first thing I want to

34:24comment on is your your uh conceptual

34:26plan. Um it looks to me like the trash

34:29enclosure has moved closer to the

34:31neighbors. So I don't like that.

34:33Um I I think when we were talking you

34:36had indicated that you'd gotten some

34:38feedback from staff that was causing you

34:40to reconsider the placement of it.

34:42>> Um well if the image before it's moved

34:45to the south.

34:46>> Oh so well there's one up here too.

34:49>> Here and here.

34:50>> Can we delete the north one?

34:53>> Well let me we comply with that 50 ft.

34:57>> There's two of them.

35:0050 feet is really not enough of them to

35:02start with, but it's all we've got. So,

35:04I just before it was kind of placed

35:07closer to the back,

35:09>> right,

35:10>> uh property line.

35:12>> Can we just move it back there?

35:14>> And at least there's not anybody that's

35:16supposed to be sleeping in the park at

35:185:00 in the morning when these things

35:19come around. So, I would rather have it

35:22back there if there's some issue with

35:24that.

35:25Um,

35:27>> I'll be glad to consider it, but I I

35:29don't want it moved closer to the

35:30neighbors to the north.

35:32>> Make it 50. What Why don't we hear from

35:34the neighbor and then let me see what I

35:36can get there.

35:37>> Okay.

35:38>> And then I have some other things I want

35:40to talk about.

35:41>> Okay. Okay. We'll start with Chad

35:43Simmons.

35:47>> Sure. Is this Woodro Walker?

35:50>> Okay.

35:55The reason why there was nobody at that

35:57meeting, it's my fault.

35:59>> If you could, if you could start off

36:00with your name and add.

36:01>> Oh, my name is Woodro Walker. I live at

36:03601 Northwest 19th Street. Uh the mixup

36:07on why there is nobody at that meeting

36:09as they're going to be there tonight at

36:115:30. I had two emails. One of them said

36:1416th and one of them 24th. And as I was

36:16putting out the information, I wrote

36:18down 24th as being the meeting at the

36:20library. So that's why there was nobody

36:22there on the 16th. So that was my poll.

36:26Um [clears throat] I had several

36:28petition petitions here from around the

36:31neighborhood of opposal to the

36:33apartments. One of which was partly

36:35discussed when she said the northern

36:38boundary uh next to the homes that are

36:41up there. Two, threetory buildings.

36:43You're able to look down into these

36:45neighbors homes, look into their living

36:47rooms. There is no privacy for the

36:49homeowners there at all. Uh in addition

36:53to that, we have a plethora of

36:55apartments around that area, well over a

36:57dozen. Some of them are vacant. As a

36:59matter of fact, right across the street

37:01from where this is proposed, off right

37:03across MacArthur is a vacant uh got just

37:08to the east of MacArthur Boulevard is a

37:11vacant apartment. Uh there are

37:13apartments all down 16th and there's a

37:18plethora of apartments uh there off

37:20Purdue which I don't know if you can see

37:23from there or not. Uh I've been on uh

37:27I'm third generation of living in this

37:29home that I'm in. Uh my grandfather

37:31built it. I was married in that home by

37:34my grandfather and I've seen the changes

37:36that have come and go. I'm not opposed

37:39to uh changes. I feel though apartments

37:44would be detrimental to that area. A lot

37:46of the land around that area is still

37:49acreages. People have acres and large

37:51lots. Uh my lot's fairly large. Uh I

37:55feel that there should be more uh

37:58investigation put into this. Uh I don't

38:02think when I got this notice, it was

38:04about a week before the September 4th

38:07notice of any uh emails coming before

38:10the board. So, this is all being rushed

38:13to me. I don't think there's been enough

38:15in uh investigation into the impact that

38:18this is going to have on our community.

38:20Uh one of the businesses that is uh off

38:2416 actually backs up to the U proposed

38:28site, the zone, and they are considering

38:32moving uh because of where the proximity

38:36of the apartments being right there. As

38:38a matter of fact, the business owner at

38:40one time tried to purchase that property

38:42and for some reason or another it got

38:44sidetracked somewhere somehow. Owner the

38:47owner quit calling him or something. Uh

38:51he was supposed to be up here. I believe

38:53his sister-in-law uh is up here. Um but

38:57we only have two schools in this area.

38:59They are both overcrowded. They're below

39:02the 50% of the state average in schools.

39:06Uh we have an elementary and a middle

39:09school and they are definitely

39:10overcrowded. This is putting 155 unit

39:14complex in this little area that's

39:17introducing another 300 people at least

39:20into an area that is not equipped to

39:23handle it. The job availability is not

39:26there. The uh uh other resources are not

39:30there for to incorporate another 300

39:33people. Uh I feel that as alternate to

39:37this, the single family housing units

39:40would be better equipped and other

39:44things like adult daycare and child care

39:46centers would be something that would be

39:48more acceptable and useful to the

39:50neighborhood than putting another

39:53apartment up there when ones are already

39:55a vacant and when there's over a dozen

39:58within a square mile of this area. I

40:01feel that uh just trying to crowd more

40:03people in there is going to create its

40:06own problems with stray animals, the uh

40:10refues. There's only one entrance and

40:13exit onto MacArthur. MacArthur is

40:15already heavily burdened. Uh it's going

40:19to create a I don't know if any of you

40:21have been at I40 and Reno and MacArthur

40:24during rush hour, but it's practically

40:26at a standstill. This is creating

40:28another such traffic

40:31uh clutter there. And we and the rest of

40:36is uh zone three for businesses, but it

40:39doesn't say uh what business is going to

40:43be in there. The problem the main

40:45problem with apartments is people that

40:47rent apartments are not vested in

40:49apartments. They they break something,

40:52the management's going to take care of

40:54it. something happened, the management's

40:56going to take care of it. Well, the

40:57management doesn't always take care of

40:59it. It's a great get-rich scheme to me

41:02because the developer makes the money,

41:04the contractors come in and build and

41:06they make the money, and then they're

41:08gone. And what's left is the

41:09neighborhood's left with dealing with

41:12the apartments. The crime rate in

41:14apartments, I looked it up, is 85%

41:17higher around apartments than it is in

41:19residential areas. I was just looking

41:21that up on the email. Um, so it's a

41:25safety as well as a health concern for

41:28our neighborhood. Uh, we don't have a

41:30homeowners association, which is just

41:33fine with us because we don't want

41:35somebody going around saying your grass

41:36is too tall or the weeds are this or

41:39whatever. So, I'm just a resident

41:41speaking out against it. Um, I like my

41:44neighborhood. I've lived on and off of

41:46that street for most of my 60 plus years

41:50and I've seen many changes come. There's

41:52a Walmart that was put in on the 23rd at

41:55MacArthur. It had to go out of business

41:57because of the shoplifting, because of

41:59the sheer number of apartments around

42:00there. There's apartments that are

42:02behind where that Walmart was. You go

42:05and knock on that door and the people,

42:07residents come to the door armed. I can

42:10walk across the street and almost every

42:12day there's an emergency vehicle over

42:15there of some sort, some kind of rescue

42:19uh for uh the police, uh fire rescue,

42:22something almost daily. There's

42:24shootings down on 10th and MacArthur

42:26almost daily. The crime rates in these

42:29areas are tremendous and it

42:32>> 30 seconds remaining

42:33>> and it bringing that into that

42:35environment into our environment

42:38um I feel is a safety hazard for the

42:40whole neighborhood when further looking

42:43into it uh such other facilities like

42:46medical services and single family homes

42:49and things like that would be better

42:51adapted

42:52for that area. So our opposition is

42:56zoning that for apartments. We are

42:59totally against the apartment complex

43:01idea and feel that that will be

43:04detrimental. It'll bring business uh

43:06bring uh land values down. As I said, a

43:09couple of businesses plan to move if the

43:11apartments do go up there. That's tax

43:13revenue that's moving out of the

43:15district. Okay.

43:16>> That you're losing.

43:17>> That's your time, Mr. Walker.

43:19>> Thank you.

43:20>> Thank you.

43:21do have a couple I don't know if anybody

43:23else wants to speak, but there were a

43:25couple other people that did come.

43:27>> Yep. I have Mr. Chad Simmons.

43:38>> Oh, have Excuse me. I'm nervous. I've

43:40never spoke publicly. Um,

43:44>> Mr. Woodro,

43:44>> start with your name and address for the

43:46record. Chad Simmons, uh 6009, uh 19th

43:50Street.

43:50>> Okay. Thank you.

43:51>> Uh we just bought our house a couple

43:52months ago. Uh you know, we've been

43:55doing some light remodeling on it and

43:56stuff like that. We wouldn't have bought

43:58a house there if we knew an apartment

44:00complex is going to be built across the

44:02street in my neighbor's backyard. Um uh

44:05Woodro is my neighbor. Uh he talked to

44:08me about it. uh you guys or the city has

44:10sent out letters uh notifying the

44:14neighborhood anybody that lives within

44:15like 330 ft. So, well, an apartment

44:19complex affects way more than people

44:22that live within 300 ft of it. So, um I

44:26did buy a house in this neighborhood 22

44:28years ago and it's it's a different

44:31neighborhood than it was then. It's it's

44:32a lot different. Um he already talked

44:36about crime rates going up. that that

44:38would probably be the biggest issue that

44:41I would have. Um I walked and went door

44:45to door getting signatures of all the

44:48houses surrounding Leila Park and um

44:51down that road about half of them

44:54answered the door. You show up with a

44:55clipboard, they don't want to talk to

44:56you. They think you're trying to sell

44:58something. So um but the people that I

45:01did talk to, the majority of them were

45:04older. They've been living there for

45:05years and everybody that I spoke to was

45:08strongly opposed to having an apartment

45:11complex built there. There is I counted

45:1315 apartment complexes within a little

45:17over half a mile of where I live. Why do

45:20we need another one? It just it doesn't

45:23make sense to me. Uh Mr. Woodro said

45:26there's one already boarded up, closed

45:27down. Uh the one to the north of us

45:29through the wooded area, I heard they

45:31were fixing to shut down. Um, I had a

45:34friend that lived there last year. She

45:35left because she was scared because the

45:38crime was so bad. So, um, that's that's

45:42kind of how that's [clears throat]

45:44sorry. That's about all I have to really

45:47say. So, I did I talked to all the

45:50people in the neighborhood that answered

45:51their doors to me and nobody wants this

45:53apartment complex there. So, thank you.

45:55>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Simmons.

45:59>> Okay, Commissioner Powers.

46:02Anybody else has signed up?

46:03>> And that's that's all I have to speak.

46:06>> Um

46:08I guess I I guess I want to say

46:09something first to the people who who

46:11came down. I I've had a number of

46:13conversations with Mr. Walker and I so

46:16very much appreciate your interest in

46:18this and the time that you have spent on

46:20it and your efforts

46:23um and your participation in the

46:25process.

46:28It's not really our function as a

46:30planning commission to decide sort of um

46:33you know

46:36on a big on a a large scale. It's like

46:38we're going to put this here and we're

46:39going to put that here and we're going

46:40to put this here. People come to us

46:43owning or about to purchase a piece of

46:46property and they want to give it a

46:48specific use. So it is our job to decide

46:53whether that use is appropriate for that

46:56piece of property. Um I can easily

47:00understand why not only these two

47:02gentlemen but anybody else who lives in

47:04that area would think that they don't

47:06need another apartment anywhere in their

47:08life. Um the ones in the area uh that I

47:11toured were scary and um you know some

47:16of them full-on dilapidated

47:19and um you know whether they could even

47:22be reclaimed at this point is

47:25questionable. Uh but that is not a basis

47:30for I'll speak for myself me to make a

47:33decision that this piece of property is

47:36not an appropriate place for an

47:38apartment complex.

47:40Um, I actually

47:44harbor some hope and have talked to a

47:46number of other people who have not

47:47dissuaded me from thinking that it is

47:50possible that this project uh if it gets

47:55approved uh will be not only an upgrade

47:59to the area but will encourage other

48:04uh reinvestment in the area. The area is

48:06pretty sad. Um, this part of Oklahoma

48:09City is pretty sad. Um, and I would like

48:12to see it doing better and looking

48:16better. Um,

48:18having said all that, coming back to

48:20this particular application, this is a

48:23piece of property that is already zoned

48:26for commercial and multifamily

48:29development. So the back half of it at

48:33least they could go put apartments on

48:36today without having to come here and

48:38talk to us and ask us for anything. Um

48:43the fact that they are here

48:48generally we consider any kind of

48:50residential development to be less

48:54intense

48:55less intrusive than commercial

48:57development. MacArthur is definitely a

49:00commercial street and so if they wanted

49:01to develop it in accordance with the

49:04zoning it already has which is C3 they

49:07would be entitled to do that today and

49:10there are a lot of much worse much more

49:12intense uses than multifamily

49:15residential development that could go on

49:17that piece of property without any of us

49:20having anything to say about it.

49:23They've brought this application as um

49:26an SPD, [clears throat] a simplified

49:28planned unit development that allows us

49:32to impose certain conditions,

49:36restrictions, limitations, whatever word

49:38you want to plug in there on the

49:40development on the way it's laid out, on

49:42the way it's landscaped. Um, I did

49:45request and they have agreed to bring

49:49the apartments on the north side of the

49:52property, the ones that will be directly

49:54across the fence from the single family

49:57neighbors to the north, down to two

49:59stories. So any R1 single family lot in

50:05Oklahoma City, including those across

50:06the fence to the north, could be

50:10developed with a twostory, 2 and 1/2

50:12story um 35 foot

50:17structure.

50:18So

50:20in my opinion, having done that is one

50:23way to ameliate whatever impact there

50:26might be. There's also a 30-foot buffer

50:30between that property and the property

50:33line to the north and a 15t landscape

50:38buffer. We're going to argue a little

50:40bit here about

50:42about the um trash the dumpster

50:46enclosure because I I don't want that

50:48there. I it's it's got to be someplace

50:50else. Um,

50:53I also would like for the for the MDS to

50:56commit to the access on MacArthur being

50:59a divided driveway since that's what

51:02we're showing and that's what we're

51:03talking about. I would like that to be

51:07um specified in writing. I I would like

51:11for it to also say something rather than

51:15per code about the signage. There

51:17doesn't need to be any signage on here

51:18other than a kind of neighborhood

51:20entryway sort of sign and maybe some

51:23lettering on the building which is what

51:25we discussed.

51:27Um

51:33I note that there will be a specific

51:34plan required. That's a good thing which

51:37means that we'll have another look at it

51:39before we're done.

51:41Um, and I are we bringing the unit count

51:45down from 170 to 155

51:49by lowering that building on the north

51:51to one to two stories.

51:56If so, I'd like for the MDS to reflect

51:59that.

52:04>> Let's talk about the enclosures first.

52:06>> Okay.

52:07>> Actually, let's talk about signs first.

52:08>> Okay.

52:09>> Sarah's not here. I'd love to, you know,

52:11have her come up and explain what R4

52:13allows because we fixed the sign code,

52:15which is why we now just say per code.

52:17With that said, my client is willing to

52:19say no pole signs. Um, I don't know the

52:22specific height that would be allowed on

52:24uh MacArthur, but I think prohibiting

52:26pole signs gets you to where you want to

52:29be,

52:29>> but residential, I mean, I think kind of

52:31neighborhood entryway sign is really all

52:33you need on any kind of residential.

52:35>> Yeah. And I assume that's what R4 would

52:38allow. Again, here we are quandry

52:40>> because there's a major artery. I who

52:43knows.

52:43>> Uh 8 foot monument.

52:45>> That would I I would agree with that.

52:47Eight foot monument. I think you could

52:48go to 15 by code. So I'd rather see an 8

52:51foot monument.

52:53>> That's fine. Eight foot monument. No

52:54pole signs allowed

52:55>> per code unattached.

52:58>> What?

52:59>> I have like six feet on a nice rock

53:01wall, but okay. All right. per code

53:03unattached, no pull signs, and 8 foot

53:07monument is the max. We can So, let's

53:10just make that TE3.

53:13We can commit that the access onto

53:14MacArthur shall be required to be a

53:17divided boulevard entry. Uh we can

53:20commit that the trash enclosure shall be

53:22at least 50 ft from the north property

53:24line. Any trash enclosure at least 50

53:26feet because we do have one on the

53:27south. You don't want one just on the

53:29south and then all the residents having

53:31to come there. 50 feet is what we can

53:34do. Um,

53:36>> that's really the best you can do. What

53:38was wrong with where it was before?

53:44>> I think what's shown is pro probably

53:46about I mean just over 50 feet, but when

53:49we reduced the height, we had to move

53:50some things around.

53:53>> I mean, we're putting dumpsters in

53:56commercial next to residential 50t away.

53:59So I don't know why why now 50 feet is

54:02not good enough when we've been down

54:03this path for so long as to 50 feet was

54:05the standard.

54:08>> So where it was before was on this kind

54:10of little diagonal bumpout across this

54:14the uh west property line back there

54:16where you're going to put

54:17>> Yeah. What's on the screen?

54:19>> You're saying what's on the screen?

54:21>> I'm not looking at the screen.

54:25>> Can we not put it back there?

54:26>> Yes. Put it back there.

54:32Hi everyone. I'm Sydney. Um and I work

54:34on the developer team. But um so we did

54:37in the last site plan that was

54:38circulated um around to y'all change

54:41those dumpsters just a little bit. And

54:42the primary reason for that was just

54:44circulation. Um we were kind of thinking

54:47through this and just realized that the

54:49way it's designed now, it's not ideal

54:51for a garbage truck to get in there and

54:53you know fully have to back out around

54:55some turns and corners and such. And so

54:57the site plan that y'all were looking

54:59at, the concept plan, um has that as a

55:02straight entry, but again, as David

55:03said, we can definitely agree to um keep

55:06those dumpsters 50 feet off the property

55:08line. But our goal in designing this is

55:10definitely um circulation and safety for

55:14the residents and you know, the people

55:16who drive the big trucks

55:20and happy to answer any other questions

55:21that y'all may have as well.

55:26Does anybody else have any ideas about

55:28this? Because I really don't like it um

55:30on that north and

55:33>> well I mean the question I would have is

55:35like what about this is different? I

55:38mean what about this is different than

55:40any other application we have where 50

55:42ft I mean forever and ever 25 ft was

55:46what we did.

55:46>> I think 100 would be better. And

55:48>> I think so too. And

55:49>> I think what's different about this is

55:52that you have a lot of property and you

55:54have the ability to put it over there.

55:56>> So what's unique here though, there's

55:57only two homes on that north. Like all

55:59those other structures are

56:00>> Well, those are two people that you're

56:01going to bother.

56:02>> Those are the only houses

56:03>> that don't need to be.

56:03>> There's got to be some consistency that

56:05exists for developers in this community

56:08as it relates to these things. 25 ft, I

56:11think, is what was always code. 50 feet

56:13was a jump that was made, and that's

56:14fine. But on a case-by case basis, that

56:17just doesn't feel like the way to do

56:18this. Um,

56:20>> that's why we have PUDS and SPDs, David,

56:22for case by case basis.

56:25>> Um,

56:26>> I I have some thoughts. Um, I certainly

56:29understand as you know, my experience in

56:31multif family design. Um, you know, the

56:35access to these units to the dumpsters

56:38are important. Um, as well as, you know,

56:41prolonging the pavement. So, if these if

56:43these trash trucks have to make a lot of

56:44turning movements within the

56:46development, it tears up the pavement.

56:48Um,

56:50that's where on this as the exhibit

56:52that's up right now, that one all the

56:54way in the back while it works well for

56:56being away from neighbors. Um, that's

56:59going to that's very hard to get to. And

57:01that trash truck is going to have to

57:02back up and around a corner and into

57:05another street to be able to pull out.

57:07And that's just going to be as far as

57:09neighbor or residents circulating and

57:11all that. They're gonna have to wait for

57:12that. It's gonna create a lot of wear

57:15and tear on the pavement. What I would

57:19think might be a better solution

57:22is to locate one near the entry exit on

57:27Lee.

57:29So to put some kind of island there that

57:32would allow that to occur right there on

57:35the north side. So quick access there.

57:39And then on the north side in order to

57:41get one on the north uh the island

57:44that's at the southwest corner that

57:46northernmost building

57:50Jared if you could or I'm sorry Thad.

57:52Yeah right there. if there could be one

57:54located there. That way they could

57:56approach it from the south, grab it, and

57:59then go out the the entrance. That that

58:01works well for circulation and it gets

58:04some more interior. Um

58:08>> we can't do the one off Lee. So Lee is

58:10an emergency access only.

58:12>> Okay.

58:14>> That one.

58:20Are you good with that?

58:23>> Where it is having it having it there on

58:25that little corner where they

58:26>> I don't know how to describe that for

58:28purposes of a TE.

58:30>> You can draw it on this perk.

58:33>> You want to take a screenshot of where

58:34THAAD has the cursor.

58:36>> The dumpster shall be placed in the

58:38landscape terminal island at the end at

58:40the southwest corner of whatever

58:43building that is. Building two. The two

58:44building. Yeah, building two

58:46>> coming back for specific plan. Yeah,

58:49>> that's right.

58:50>> Okay.

58:52So, that'll be a TE4.

59:02So, we would ask to strike TE 1 and two.

59:05TE3 the signage as I stated in TE4 would

59:09be the dumpster the northernmost

59:11dumpster enclosure as stated by

59:15Commissioner Claire. Put it on the site

59:17plan at specific plan.

59:19>> Sure.

59:19>> Sidewalk.

59:21>> Oh, they have to do sidewalks.

59:28>> They have to do sidewalk.

59:28>> Do we have a

59:31>> Commissioner Powers? Can we put a

59:33>> do we have a

59:33>> footage on distance from

59:36>> Yeah. Why don't we do a distance instead

59:38of trying to guess at the location and

59:42then you'll have the ability at specific

59:43plan to determine the actual location of

59:45the dumpsters?

59:46>> Well, if those if those uh parking

59:49spaces are at least 10 ft wide, can't we

59:51just guess what it is?

59:52>> Yeah, but I don't want to guess because

59:54>> I mean it can we say 100 ft?

59:56>> No. Why don't we say the northernmost

59:59dumpster location shall be determined by

1:00:01the planning commission at the specific

1:00:03plan?

1:00:06>> That would be okay with me.

1:00:07>> That works.

1:00:11>> Caitlin looks mad.

1:00:13>> You're not okay with that.

1:00:16>> I'm fine with it. I mean,

1:00:17>> we're not doing 100 feet. Let's just be

1:00:18clear.

1:00:19>> No, I mean I think you heard I think 100

1:00:21foot is a pretty good idea. So

1:00:22>> that's what we're requiring this the

1:00:24plan for. So,

1:00:25>> so those are your two choices. Either

1:00:26we'll decide later it's going to be 100

1:00:28feet

1:00:28>> that well it's not 100 ft. We're not

1:00:30agreeing to that ever. I think that that

1:00:33island's probably at least 100 foot.

1:00:34>> It looks about too if this is the scale

1:00:36it's about 100 ft for sure. So the

1:00:39northernmost dumpster shall be location

1:00:42shall be determined at specific plan

1:00:44stage which will be TE4

1:00:47strike one and two TE3 was the sign TE4

1:00:52the dumpster location

1:00:53>> and pole sign look like 11 ft according

1:00:57to the sign calculator

1:00:58>> any if the frontage was 360t 11t would

1:01:02be to code on the pole sign

1:01:05>> but we're not allowing pull sign

1:01:06>> right but I'm just saying if only

1:01:09monument if David was curious.

1:01:10>> Sarah's going to be sad she didn't get

1:01:12to come up here and walk us through the

1:01:13sign. [clears throat]

1:01:15>> No, she's not.

1:01:17>> Okay. Are we good? Does anybody else

1:01:19have anything they'd like to add or ask?

1:01:23>> Are where did we land on TE1 and two

1:01:26that they want to strike both? Yeah, I

1:01:29think first of all, I don't think they

1:01:30can meet the driveway um arterial street

1:01:33spacing and I I do think we should

1:01:36delete TE1

1:01:40>> and TE2 would be taken care of in

1:01:42traffic

1:01:45>> because we have to put it in somewhere.

1:01:47>> We have to put it somewhere. That's

1:01:48right.

1:01:49>> Oh, we needed the fifth TE, sorry, is uh

1:01:52the requirement that the access on

1:01:54MacArthur is divided Boulevard.

1:01:56>> Oh, that's right.

1:02:00And are you good with the

1:02:01architecturals?

1:02:03>> Um, they seem pretty standard.

1:02:07>> Is there something in there you don't

1:02:08like?

1:02:10>> Just checking.

1:02:12>> Things I don't like, but just

1:02:20>> I wanted to tell the gentleman who came

1:02:22there won't be any balconies on the

1:02:24north side of those buildings either.

1:02:27window.

1:02:28>> They do.

1:02:42>> If you're gonna speak, you've got

1:02:43>> Yeah, we're going to need you to come up

1:02:45to the microphone so that we can get

1:02:46this on the record.

1:02:47>> I'll repeat.

1:02:56Many of these res

1:02:59many of these residents have just bought

1:03:01homes as Mr. Simmons had said. Uh they

1:03:04are willing to sell their homes without

1:03:06any equity because of the fact that

1:03:07these apartments back up to their

1:03:09residents. The stench from the garbage

1:03:11has been brought up and that was one of

1:03:13the things that I wanted to talk about

1:03:15as well. I had a I had a whole notebook

1:03:17of things against it. the uh the stray

1:03:20animals and other things. Uh I don't see

1:03:23as this being a positive impact on the

1:03:26community because it doesn't offer

1:03:28anything to the community. It doesn't

1:03:30offer uh any better schooling. It

1:03:33doesn't offer any kind of b other than

1:03:35the zones that are zone three uh for the

1:03:38businesses. There's no uh labor

1:03:42available in that area for that many

1:03:44people for an influx of that many

1:03:46people. And again, the benefit to the

1:03:49neighborhood, and I left it on my

1:03:50notebook. I I took this from um right

1:03:55off the web page from your own city

1:03:57council about what a planning commission

1:04:00does, and it's in my notebook, but I

1:04:02left it back there.

1:04:03>> So, I I

1:04:04>> if I can go grab it real quick.

1:04:05>> I know. I don't want to and it the time

1:04:07has passed for us to do this back and

1:04:09forth. I don't want to argue with you

1:04:10about this, and I I don't believe I'm

1:04:13ever going to convince you about this,

1:04:15but from our point of view, this

1:04:18property sitting vacant for as long as

1:04:21it has, and before that, it had very

1:04:23very deteriorated commercial space on

1:04:26it. It is not a net plus or net benefit

1:04:29to the neighbor.

1:04:30>> I understand that. And it used to be a a

1:04:31wheat field back when back when I was

1:04:34younger. And that's not going to happen

1:04:36[laughter]

1:04:36through the chain, but we're objecting

1:04:39to the apartments. Like I said, uh

1:04:41single family units or uh uh adult

1:04:46daycare, an alternative to that land

1:04:49other than apartments.

1:04:51>> I understand.

1:04:51>> Would be much more helpful for the

1:04:55community and for the residents.

1:04:57>> I understand that. We are not in a

1:04:59position to require that property to

1:05:01become that

1:05:02>> that's been zoned. I have a paper that's

1:05:05been zoned since it was heighten called

1:05:07Holman Steiner Gardens Night and King

1:05:09and was called Holman Steiner's Garden.

1:05:12It's been zoned since before and Bethany

1:05:15has been there. So, nobody's taken a

1:05:18vote on any of the zoning around there

1:05:21whatsoever. Uh, nobody knows what the

1:05:24zoning was. We had farmhouses out there

1:05:27and wheat fields

1:05:30and that was it. and people came in and

1:05:32zoned whatever they wanted to zone for

1:05:34whatever reason at whatever time.

1:05:37>> Well, so what we're dealing with is the

1:05:39zoning it has now and the zoning that's

1:05:41being proposed. So,

1:05:42>> right. And the zoning can be changed and

1:05:45what we're what

1:05:46>> through this process

1:05:47>> and that's what we're trying to do is

1:05:50get that so an alternative that would be

1:05:53beneficial to the community.

1:05:55>> We can't decide who buys the property

1:05:57and develops it though. Well, I

1:06:00understand that and and one of the

1:06:01business owners has tried to buy that

1:06:03property. One of them that's going to be

1:06:06moving has tried to buy that property

1:06:08and the person that owned it

1:06:12changed their number and didn't go

1:06:14through with it, but he has offered to

1:06:17buy it because he wanted to build his

1:06:19home on it.

1:06:21But he's one of the tax revenues that's

1:06:23going to be leaving the area and thereby

1:06:26depressing the area even further.

1:06:29I do thank you for coming down today and

1:06:31giving us your input. And David, there's

1:06:34also a TE6, which is the number of

1:06:36units. Are we taking them down to 155?

1:06:52>> 160.

1:06:53>> Your site plan says 153.

1:06:55>> I understand.

1:06:57Just throw that out there to you.

1:06:59>> Yeah.

1:07:00>> I mean

1:07:02>> 160.

1:07:03>> I'm not trying to dictate what it is. I

1:07:04just want it to be

1:07:05>> Sure. Understood.

1:07:06>> Okay. Okay. Anybody else?

1:07:09>> There was a note about uh landscaping in

1:07:12lie of the fence. Were you okay with

1:07:14that? Under screening.

1:07:15>> Um you know what? I would direct you to

1:07:18Marilyn Allen who just gave us a great

1:07:20presentation about screening at

1:07:22landscaping screening. It was wonderful.

1:07:25So,

1:07:25>> an option B,

1:07:26>> you should consult with her if if you're

1:07:27going to take that choice.

1:07:28>> Type B.

1:07:29>> Yeah, type B. Probably a little more

1:07:31like C or D, but [laughter]

1:07:35>> um Okay. Okay. Well, if that's where we

1:07:37are, then I'm going to move approval for

1:07:39item number 14, PUD 2158

1:07:43with uh the deletion of TE's one and

1:07:46two, but the addition of TE3

1:07:50uh that the signage shall be restricted

1:07:53to an 8oot monument sign and what's the

1:07:56lettering on the building?

1:07:57>> Attached signs per code.

1:07:58>> Attached signs per code. Uh

1:08:01>> pole signs prohibited.

1:08:02>> Pole signs and EMD prohibited.

1:08:06Um,

1:08:07>> we'll be the Never mind.

1:08:09>> Should we just go ahead and say no

1:08:10billboards while we're at it?

1:08:12>> Not allowed under our four, but

1:08:14>> um,

1:08:16TE number four dumpster location, the

1:08:18northern dumpster location shall be

1:08:20determined. Let's just say both of them

1:08:21will be determined as specific plan

1:08:24stage because you might want to move

1:08:25them around. So, um, TE5 access on north

1:08:30on MacArthur shall be divided. entry is

1:08:33>> I think boulevard is the term

1:08:35>> boulevard. Okay. Um and T6

1:08:39160 unit

1:08:41uh max.

1:08:46>> Okay. We have a motion from commissioner

1:08:49P recommend the item city council for

1:08:51approval subject to the uh amended and

1:08:56additional tees.

1:09:05Back me up. Okay.

1:09:17Uh, I don't have

1:09:19uh the second. Who seconded that?

1:09:22>> Miss Harrison.

1:09:23>> Okay. Commissioner Harrison. Second by

1:09:25Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your

1:09:26votes.

1:09:34That item is recommended for approval.

1:09:37>> Take your word for it. We can't see it.

1:09:47>> Item 15.

1:09:50Item 15, excuse [clears throat] me, is

1:09:52case SPUD 1862. Application to reszone

1:09:562228 Southwest 104th Street from SPUD

1:09:591325.

1:10:01>> Uh once again, David Box, 525 Northwest

1:10:0411th Street here on behalf of the

1:10:05applicant. Um Dad, would you go back

1:10:08one?

1:10:09So this is an SPUD for a site that has

1:10:13been previously developed. The current

1:10:15SPD on the site limits it to a single

1:10:17use. that use being a a child care

1:10:20center. Um the childcare center has gone

1:10:23out of business and so my client is

1:10:24acquiring the property in hopes to uh

1:10:27add some uses that would be more

1:10:29marketable than um a single use as a

1:10:31childcare center. So 104 major artarial

1:10:33fourlane uh pin and 104th is fully

1:10:36signalized carries a lot of traffic. So,

1:10:39our goal was to allow for uses that we

1:10:42believe to be appropriate for 104th

1:10:44given the traffic counts, but also

1:10:45understanding that the neighborhood to

1:10:47the south is sensitive to, uh, the

1:10:49commercialization of 104th Street. So,

1:10:51um, what we've done is added a handful

1:10:54of uses, but we still think it's pretty

1:10:55limited when you consider what is across

1:10:57the street being straight C3, uh, to the

1:11:00east. Actually, all three of the other

1:11:02four three of the four intersection uh,

1:11:05corners are developed with significant

1:11:07commercial. So when you look at ours, we

1:11:09have about 10 uses. We did have a

1:11:11neighborhood meeting last night and from

1:11:12that we have a few changes. So there's

1:11:14no tees in the staff report, but we have

1:11:16six we'd like to add. Uh one, we would

1:11:19seek to remove convenience sales and

1:11:21personal services. Two, prohibit vape

1:11:24shops and tobacco shops. Three, prohibit

1:11:28drive-through uses of any kind. Four,

1:11:31delete the second sentence of section

1:11:33six. Uh section six deals with sight

1:11:36proof screening. Uh TE5 screening and

1:11:39landscaping shall be maintained by the

1:11:41property owner and TE6 maximum building

1:11:44size shall be 10,072

1:11:46square ft. It's worth noting that the

1:11:48existing building is what's there and we

1:11:50intend to reuse that. That is a 140 foot

1:11:53set off from our south property line. So

1:11:56it's a significant distance probably the

1:11:58the biggest setback in a commercial

1:12:00development that I've seen adjacent to

1:12:02residential. So you you have that

1:12:04already in place as a as a buffer. You

1:12:06also have um prohibitions in our SPD

1:12:10that would prohibit any sort of patio

1:12:11outside on the rear. If it was a

1:12:13restaurant, anything would have to be,

1:12:15you know, north facing. So, we think

1:12:16that there is adequate protections in

1:12:18this SPD to allow for what we think will

1:12:20be meaningful commercial development, uh

1:12:22but also provide the necessary

1:12:23protections for the neighborhood. So,

1:12:25happy to answer any questions.

1:12:26>> What was number four? Uh number four was

1:12:28delete the second sentence of section

1:12:30six

1:12:34>> which says

1:12:35>> site it's a contradictory statement

1:12:37within the site proof screening. So we

1:12:39say at the beginning no less than an 8ft

1:12:41high sight proof cedar cap fence shall

1:12:43be required along the south boundary.

1:12:45Second sentence says said sight proof

1:12:46screen may be constructed of stucco

1:12:48brick wood excuse me stucco brick stone

1:12:50wood steel iron or any combination

1:12:52thereof shall be solid solid and or

1:12:54opaque. So, what we want to do is just

1:12:56keep that first sentence.

1:13:008 foot cedar cap.

1:13:07>> Hey. Uh,

1:13:07>> are you are you concerned at all about

1:13:09the east and the west sides, the

1:13:11existing fence that's already there?

1:13:14>> I mean,

1:13:14>> no.

1:13:15>> Okay. So, you're just going to leave it

1:13:16out of the because I'm just don't want

1:13:19you have to build new fence all the way

1:13:20around it.

1:13:26the existing this vinyl fence on the

1:13:29east and the west.

1:13:31>> Yeah. So that that's what kind of

1:13:33encased that um the play area for the

1:13:36daycare.

1:13:37>> Yeah. And I'm fine with it. I just want

1:13:38you to be able to leave it.

1:13:40>> Yeah, we we can leave it. This is spec

1:13:42the section six is specific to the south

1:13:44boundary of the the PUD. Our intent at

1:13:47least in the short term is to keep that

1:13:49there.

1:13:53Okay. Uh, Commissioner Newman, this is

1:13:56your ward. Uh, I do not have anyone

1:13:58signed up to speak.

1:14:00>> Um, we did have a community meeting.

1:14:02Thanks for having that. Um, I think that

1:14:05you pretty much addressed the concerns

1:14:07that were brought up uh with the TEES

1:14:09today. Um,

1:14:12I knew I was going to do that. Um,

1:14:17with that being said, does any of the

1:14:18other commissioners have any other

1:14:20comments, thoughts?

1:14:28>> Well, then I'm going to make a motion to

1:14:30uh

1:14:32move to make a motion to recommend

1:14:34approval uh with the tees as read into

1:14:37the record. A motion from Commissioner

1:14:40Newman to recommend the item city

1:14:41council for approval subject to the sex

1:14:43sixTE is read in.

1:14:48[snorts]

1:14:49>> It's been second by Commissioner Privet.

1:14:50>> Yes.

1:14:51>> You come to the mic, please.

1:14:55[clears throat]

1:14:56>> Tracy Robbins, 2113 Tington. I back

1:14:59right up to it in my backyard.

1:15:02I was under the impression that this is

1:15:05this a vote to change this to a C1 right

1:15:08now.

1:15:09>> It's not.

1:15:10>> No, this is a vote to make a

1:15:12recommendant recommendation to the city

1:15:15council. This does not actually change

1:15:16it. It has to go before the city council

1:15:18makes the final decision upon it.

1:15:21>> Okay. So, it's right now it's going to

1:15:22remain the spud until

1:15:25>> it it will stay what it is currently

1:15:27until it is heard before city council.

1:15:29And at that point in time, if the city

1:15:31council approves this spud, then this

1:15:33will take uh precedence over what it

1:15:36what it's zoned right now.

1:15:38>> Okay.

1:15:38>> So,

1:15:39>> but it's not going to straight zoning.

1:15:42>> No,

1:15:43>> it's going to remain in an SPUD.

1:15:45>> Correct.

1:15:47>> Right. My concern is the remaining four

1:15:49and a half, five acres to the east of

1:15:51it. I feel once this goes even close to

1:15:54a C1, the rest of that will be very

1:15:57>> that property is separate and has

1:15:58nothing to do with this case,

1:16:01>> right?

1:16:01>> That if that case if someone wants to

1:16:03reszone that, that would be a completely

1:16:05separate case be renoticed and there

1:16:08would be a separate hearing on that

1:16:09case.

1:16:09>> But wouldn't wouldn't it have opened the

1:16:11door already for whoever wants to come

1:16:13in on the remaining acreage?

1:16:15>> Anyone that purchases any piece of

1:16:16property in Oklahoma City can request

1:16:18reszoning.

1:16:19>> I get that. I understand that. I just I

1:16:22think with the memory care as a spud,

1:16:25the preschool as a spud, and Mr. Box had

1:16:29said at our meeting at the neighborhood

1:16:31that nobody's interested in a preschool

1:16:33anymore. And it's like I talked to young

1:16:35mothers, yes, they are, but not at

1:16:38$1,000 a week, which is what that

1:16:41preschool was. But yes, there's a big

1:16:43demand for preschools, and it's it's a

1:16:45planned unit development for three

1:16:47school. there is a need, but not at that

1:16:51kind of money. That's probably why it

1:16:53went out of business.

1:16:55>> Well, we're just here to address the

1:16:57zoning portion of it, not the financial

1:17:01portion of it. So,

1:17:02>> okay.

1:17:03>> But to answer your question, the

1:17:05property next door is a separate issue.

1:17:07If someone would purchase that property,

1:17:08they could choose to do a a spud on it

1:17:11or they could choose to change it to

1:17:12straight zoning if they wanted to or

1:17:14they could use leave the zoning as it

1:17:16is.

1:17:16>> Okay. But there is a notice requirement.

1:17:19So if that were to if we receive a

1:17:21application on that that'll get noticed

1:17:23to the neighbors with everyone within

1:17:27>> specified distance.

1:17:30>> All right. Thank you.

1:17:30>> Thank you.

1:17:32Okay. So we had a motion from

1:17:34Commissioner Newman. It was second by

1:17:35Commissioner Privet.

1:17:38Please cast your votes.

1:17:46And that is recommended to city council.

1:17:52Item 16.

1:17:54>> This is case SPUD1 1870, application to

1:17:57reszone 7600 North Bryant Avenue from

1:18:00I1.

1:18:01>> Good afternoon, Commission Lacy Kelly

1:18:04for the applicant. Penske is pursuing

1:18:06redevelopment of this site uh there at

1:18:09North Bryant along uh I35. And during

1:18:13their diligence and their development of

1:18:15this site, it was discovered that about

1:18:16the north acre of the site, which you

1:18:19can kind of see up there, all that that

1:18:23uh outline north acre the entire south

1:18:26of that site is zone pud 972, which

1:18:29accommodates Penskey's proposed use.

1:18:32When we found out that this about one

1:18:33acre subject tract was in fact uh not

1:18:37not in the pud, we pursued this spud to

1:18:42uh get development regulations in place

1:18:44that would allow Penske to redevelop the

1:18:46entire site. And I have Paul Hurley here

1:18:48from Penske Real Estate to give the

1:18:50commission some maps and graphics and

1:18:52information.

1:19:05Um we went through this with councelor

1:19:08Harrison back in commission sorry

1:19:10commissioner back in uh June. Um Pensky

1:19:14is looking to reconvert this site. We go

1:19:16to the next slide. Um currently it is

1:19:20pretty it's was a gas station uh truck

1:19:23depot. Uh it's been vacant or unu

1:19:27underutilized for some time now. Uh and

1:19:29it's obviously in pretty rough shape. Um

1:19:32we as as was mentioned most of the uh

1:19:35most of the site is zoned properly for

1:19:37uh truck maintenance and leasing. The

1:19:40one section is not. That's what we're

1:19:42asking for change on the um the size of

1:19:45site is ideal for us. Without that extra

1:19:47acre and a half, it probably wouldn't

1:19:49work for us. So that's why we're looking

1:19:51to get the top end of the site zone. Um

1:19:55the going to the next slide.

1:19:58Um this was what Lacy was pointing out

1:20:01before. Um the like I said it's just the

1:20:05yellow area that's currently has not

1:20:07subject to the earlier PUD 972.

1:20:10We're looking for to change that um to

1:20:13allow uh heavy truck leasing,

1:20:15maintenance, and rental to match the

1:20:17rest of the site. Um, moving to the next

1:20:19slide, just to give you guys, uh, folks

1:20:22an indication. Um, yeah, that that's

1:20:24what it looked like today. Uh, we've

1:20:27looked at these improvements. Um, we're

1:20:29likely to take them all out and replace

1:20:31them. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, this

1:20:35is a this is a a visual from another one

1:20:38of our locations, but this is more or

1:20:39less the the look and feel what we're

1:20:41trying to do with the site. Uh we'd be

1:20:43removing all existing improvements,

1:20:45resurface and construct a 23,000 foot uh

1:20:49truck maintenance facility. Um we have

1:20:51two other locations currently in

1:20:53Oklahoma City. Um and uh the last note

1:20:57on there. Yeah, we're looking Sorry,

1:21:01I thought I heard somebody say uh and we

1:21:03anticipate hiring 30 employees once

1:21:05fully operational.

1:21:07On the next slide, um gives you this.

1:21:10This is what we are looking to do.

1:21:12um conceptually with the site the that

1:21:15main building's right in the middle. Uh

1:21:17we'll be maintaining all the current

1:21:19landscaping.

1:21:20Uh I believe there's some sidewalk

1:21:22requirements that we'll be addressing.

1:21:24Uh but you know that that last piece to

1:21:27the to the left on this is the is the

1:21:30part that uh we're looking to reszone.

1:21:32Um and it represents a substantial

1:21:35amount of parking and and utility space

1:21:38for us. Uh so that's why we're looking

1:21:40for the change on the zoning to that. Uh

1:21:43it will I think it will remain under the

1:21:45is it the I1 it remain I1. It just we're

1:21:48just looking to extend basically extend

1:21:50the pud from the main part to this this

1:21:53one remaining part. Um I'm not quite

1:21:56sure why it wasn't done because this is

1:21:58all one property but uh that's kind of

1:22:00where we're at. If uh the next slide

1:22:04uh this is just a another visual of

1:22:06another site we have um in North

1:22:08Charleston. This again be very much what

1:22:11we're looking to do at the site. We we

1:22:12anticipate it being a big improvement to

1:22:15what's there. I drove by it again on the

1:22:17way in today. It's not hard to improve

1:22:19on that. So we're uh um but we're we're

1:22:22excited for it. Um there were a couple

1:22:25more uh I believe additions with respect

1:22:28to drainage in that that were added to

1:22:30the uh our application. Our people

1:22:32reviewed it. There's not going to be any

1:22:34problems with those additional um

1:22:36requirements. Uh the next slide

1:22:40um if this was after we met with uh Mr.

1:22:43Harrison, this is some information I

1:22:45think that you had asked for about

1:22:46community engagement. Uh we just kind of

1:22:49added that in there. U we do try to hire

1:22:52uh locally. We have um a number of

1:22:55programs and and if you want more

1:22:57details on our uh local commitments um

1:23:01we can get that again more information

1:23:03this uh Penske is very publicly and and

1:23:06civically engaged group around here and

1:23:09well everywhere we operate. Uh the next

1:23:13slide um this just as a so an

1:23:16understanding for all the commission is

1:23:18is what we're looking to do here. It's

1:23:21truck rentals about 35%,

1:23:24full service leasing is about 60%.

1:23:27And then contract maintenance which is a

1:23:29small chunk of it. Uh for customers that

1:23:32are we have some customers and we just

1:23:34maintain their trucks. We don't actually

1:23:35own them or lease them. But um that's

1:23:38not a drive-in business. That's not a a

1:23:40public business. This is the business on

1:23:42this site will be concentrated on our

1:23:44our customers as opposed to folks coming

1:23:47in. Uh the next three slides go over

1:23:51what these uses are in detail. Um I

1:23:53don't know if anyone wants to sit

1:23:55through that. [laughter]

1:23:57Uh it's you know it's a you know I said

1:24:00there's three three or sorry two

1:24:02existing Penske operations in town. This

1:24:04will look very similar to them. Um the

1:24:08uh we other than we will I do believe we

1:24:10have a commitment not to have any

1:24:13collision damage vehicles here. uh there

1:24:15won't be especially with the highway

1:24:17view and all that that won't be an

1:24:18issue. We we have another operation

1:24:20where we do the uh in Oklahoma City

1:24:23where we do a repairs um you know truck

1:24:27rental is the part of Penske that most

1:24:29people see the yellow trucks uh a lot of

1:24:32it is actually commercial not just

1:24:33residential. So this will primarily be a

1:24:35commercial focused site. Uh limited

1:24:38retail and limited um consumer rental

1:24:41here. Um next slide please.

1:24:45the uh this this just talks about our

1:24:47leasing which is actually the bulk of

1:24:48our business. Um uh it's we've got yeah

1:24:51300,000 plus vehicles out there we lease

1:24:54to our customers. Um this is again will

1:24:57make up kind of the majority of the work

1:24:59at the site is just our customers

1:25:00bringing in the trucks that they lease

1:25:02from us. We put them through the garage,

1:25:04maintain them and uh put them back out

1:25:06on the road. Uh so that's just um and

1:25:10then the final slide I think oh

1:25:14yeah this is what I was mentioning

1:25:16before the contract maintenance which

1:25:17will be a small thing here um you know

1:25:20just trying to make the message this

1:25:22isn't going to be a retail truck center

1:25:24this is like I said it's focused it's a

1:25:25commercial operation focused on our

1:25:27customers trucks as opposed to you know

1:25:30like a loves one where truckers just

1:25:32drive in off the highway and can do

1:25:34random service. Uh uh that's kind of our

1:25:37description and um what we're trying to

1:25:39do here. And again, we are, you know,

1:25:41we're already zoned properly for about,

1:25:43you know, 40, sorry, 80% of the site.

1:25:46We're just looking for that one extra

1:25:48piece.

1:25:49Um get that uh to match the zoning and

1:25:53so we can move ahead with our project.

1:25:56Any questions from

1:25:58>> Yeah. I just want to make So are you

1:26:00you're using the existing structure as

1:26:02>> No, sorry. Okay. So you you'll be

1:26:05demolish

1:26:06>> Yeah.

1:26:06>> Okay.

1:26:07>> Yeah. We looked at them and they they

1:26:09were kind of dilapitated to the point of

1:26:12>> they cost more to reuse them that would

1:26:15to come new. And there's there's also

1:26:17some environmental issues on a couple of

1:26:18them that we'd like to get off the

1:26:20sites.

1:26:20>> Okay.

1:26:23>> Um

1:26:24this is W seven if you want to lead our

1:26:26discussion. I don't have anyone signed

1:26:27up to speak.

1:26:28>> Okay. Yeah. He he made a wonderful

1:26:30presentation of myself as well as

1:26:31Councilman Pennington. So, if no one has

1:26:34anything else, I recommend approval.

1:26:35>> Hold on.

1:26:37>> Want to discuss some new parking ideas

1:26:39here?

1:26:40>> Um, I I have some thoughts. So, I I

1:26:43drive by this area often and and

1:26:45absolutely without a doubt, I think it's

1:26:47one of the as it is one of the biggest

1:26:49eyes on I35 as you approach our city.

1:26:53And there's currently a lot of stuff

1:26:56going in place. It's going to start to

1:26:57beautify that corridor. Um, and I think

1:27:01the redevelopment of this will no doubt

1:27:04drastically improve this. I would like

1:27:07to see a landscape buffer with some

1:27:10shade trees on the on the highway side

1:27:13basically on your

1:27:15on your property line as the highway as

1:27:18it's shown right now. You've got a lot

1:27:20of parking and paving. And so what I

1:27:23want to ask is do you feel that that's

1:27:25something that you'd be able to

1:27:26accommodate would be a landscape buffer

1:27:30at the at the rightway that would allow

1:27:32some canopy trees to go in?

1:27:34>> Well, there there's there's the public

1:27:36embankment beyond that which is the

1:27:37highway embankment. Um the area that we

1:27:40are showing paved here is paved today.

1:27:42>> That is currently all paved right now.

1:27:44There's then the grass beyond that.

1:27:46>> That's ODOT right away. And so there's

1:27:48nothing that's going in there.

1:27:49>> Okay. No. Yeah. We're not we're not

1:27:51looking to um I mean how much buffer are

1:27:53you talking about? What kind of

1:27:55>> um

1:27:57I would love 20 ft.

1:27:58>> What would be required now?

1:28:00>> Anything? Nothing.

1:28:02>> None.

1:28:02>> Yeah, that's not all right.

1:28:04>> Well, I and I don't I mean I don't think

1:28:07you should have to have a buffer all the

1:28:08way across. I'd rather see some planted

1:28:10islands and stuff like that.

1:28:11>> We that that would be if if

1:28:13>> you know what we're looking for some

1:28:15campy trees, something to calm the

1:28:16parking lot between that and the

1:28:17highway. But that's why I just don't

1:28:20think you should have to take up the

1:28:21property to accomplish that. You can

1:28:23accomplish it without just a complete

1:28:25landscape buffer buffer. There's going

1:28:28to be a specific plan on this also,

1:28:30right? Wouldn't there be

1:28:35>> Yeah, there's going to be a specific

1:28:36plan unless they I don't think they

1:28:39exempted themselves.

1:28:44>> So, it is or it will.

1:28:47>> Okay. So we will not have a specific

1:28:48plan.

1:28:49>> Okay.

1:28:49>> Okay.

1:28:51>> So would you be willing to provide a

1:28:53specific plan?

1:28:54>> We can take a look at it. I mean I have

1:28:56to

1:28:57>> Well, I think where we are is you either

1:28:59you can agree to provide a specific plan

1:29:01today and we can provide the

1:29:03recommendation or if if that's something

1:29:05that you can't agree to, I think we're

1:29:07going to probably want to put some some

1:29:09other things in here. Um

1:29:11so I think it's going to affect our our

1:29:14recommendation.

1:29:1620 foot buffer along the whole north.

1:29:18>> Well, I'm not saying that we have to do

1:29:19that. I think Commissioner Noble's, you

1:29:21know, um idea of, you know, it doesn't

1:29:24have to be a consistent 20 foot buffer,

1:29:26but we're going to want to see some

1:29:27areas provided along that par that side

1:29:30of the property that allow for some

1:29:32shade tree, some canopy tree planting.

1:29:34So, I mean, we could go something like

1:29:36one shade tree or canopy shall be

1:29:38provided, you know, every 30 feet along

1:29:41that boundary or or 50 feet. Can Can we

1:29:46ask them to do that off of this SPD?

1:29:50Like because obviously this is only the

1:29:54>> northern

1:29:55couple of feet.

1:29:56>> Oh yeah, you're right. This isn't

1:30:00I missed that.

1:30:07Yeah, I believe our in our MDS we agree

1:30:09to comply with whatever the landscape

1:30:12requirements are for um you know

1:30:14development in I1

1:30:20>> but it's on the parcel that's not

1:30:22actually part of the application

1:30:23>> but when they get the

1:30:24>> Oh, I see what you're saying. We're

1:30:26we're just applying for that one parcel.

1:30:29Yep. Mhm.

1:30:30>> Appears to be room there.

1:30:31>> But they're going to build a new

1:30:31building.

1:30:33allowed to require.

1:30:34>> Yeah, they'll have to conform on the

1:30:35entire new property to

1:30:37>> demolish

1:30:38>> current landscape. It's just it's not

1:30:40going to dictate

1:30:42>> trees along that side for sure.

1:30:43>> I thought there was a requirement for

1:30:44frontage trees on

1:30:47>> Yeah, but the the frontage is on Bryant.

1:30:50>> The timing

1:30:51existing trees and some existing grass

1:30:54the grass islands that are shown on the

1:30:55on the Bryant side, those all exist

1:30:57today.

1:30:58>> They're there now.

1:30:59>> The timing of this is just the same day

1:31:01as the study. looking at the new

1:31:04escaping um requirements. So that's why

1:31:07this might seem

1:31:08>> a little bit out of context,

1:31:10>> out of the blue. Yeah.

1:31:17If we don't have specific landscape

1:31:20guidelines for these scenic corridors,

1:31:25which the highways are supposed to be,

1:31:28um, then we should have and maybe that's

1:31:31something we should be thinking about as

1:31:33part of our landscape ordinance update.

1:31:38>> All right. Well,

1:31:39>> something else for you, Jeff.

1:31:42>> Yeah, we don't have the ability here. I

1:31:44now I know like what you guys are going

1:31:45to do. It's going to be a huge

1:31:47improvement. I I do understand that. Um

1:31:51but

1:31:53had to ask

1:31:57>> and I wouldn't have even if we hadn't

1:31:59had talked about trees today, I would

1:32:00have asked for it.

1:32:00>> I held off asking because I knew you

1:32:02would. [laughter]

1:32:04>> You put it on a tea for me. All right.

1:32:08Okay. That that was my two cents.

1:32:11>> I don't think we need to do anything

1:32:13else. These these kinds of cases are

1:32:16always a little bit more challenging

1:32:18just because you know that whatever they

1:32:19do to this property, it's going to be an

1:32:21upgrade, right? I mean, if they just

1:32:24tore down what was there, it would be

1:32:25better than it is now. So,

1:32:30>> well, at this time,

1:32:33>> okay. All right. Seeing no other

1:32:35discussion or hearing any discussion,

1:32:37uh, we'll make a motion for approval of

1:32:39SP1870.

1:32:42>> We

1:32:43Uh, are are we deleting or what are we

1:32:45doing with the TE? There's a TE.

1:32:47>> Oh, yeah. If if you don't want to change

1:32:50anything on that, then you don't have

1:32:52to.

1:32:53>> I believe it's the same issue that we

1:32:55had earlier with the drainage

1:32:56requirements. And for consistency, I

1:32:59would ask that it would be deleted.

1:33:01>> Okay.

1:33:02>> With the deletion of TE1.

1:33:04>> All right. So, we have a motion from

1:33:06Commissioner Harrison to recommend the

1:33:07item to city council uh deleting TE1.

1:33:24It's been seconded by Commissioner

1:33:25Noble. Please cast your votes.

1:33:31That is unanimously recommended for

1:33:32approval. Good luck.

1:33:33>> Thank you.

1:33:34>> Thank you.

1:33:40Item 17,

1:33:43>> this is SPD 1864, application to reszone

1:33:46940 Southwest 59th Street from R1 and

1:33:48C3.

1:33:55>> Good afternoon, Rob Elliot, 900

1:33:57Northwest 6th Street for the applicant.

1:34:00our our owner is our tenant in the space

1:34:02is a pool hall that found themselves uh

1:34:06when they were rellicensing uh with ABC

1:34:09their use was non- congruent with the

1:34:11zoning existing

1:34:14uh so most of the the building is R1 we

1:34:18find it a little difficult to put

1:34:19bedrooms in the pool hall so we're

1:34:22trying to uh align the zoning with its

1:34:24current use and it has been a pool hall

1:34:26for a number of years in in more

1:34:29discussion about the neighborhood

1:34:31dynamics with

1:34:33Commissioner Newman. We'd like to add

1:34:35some restrictions to the property and we

1:34:38had discussed uh adding to the to or

1:34:41subtracting from the uses. Uh there

1:34:44would not be a liquor store allowed, a

1:34:47payday loan, a bingo hall or a

1:34:50dispensary.

1:34:51And uh on the architectural side, we

1:34:54agreed that that um there would be a a

1:34:57reduction in the Ephus use to 30%. And I

1:35:02I think that we would change the numbers

1:35:04into 70%

1:35:06uh masonry materials to 30% ephus.

1:35:17>> Okay. Uh Commissioner Newman, if you

1:35:19want to lead the discussion. and I do

1:35:20not have anyone signed up to speak.

1:35:22>> Okay. Um, we have done a couple other

1:35:25cases along this strip here. I don't

1:35:27know quite what the deal is, but most of

1:35:28these buildings were built in the 50s

1:35:30and they were all built on R1 back in

1:35:32the day. So, it's kind of this place has

1:35:35been there I don't know how long, but I

1:35:36know it's been there significant amount

1:35:38of time. So, um, with the changes we

1:35:42discussed, I didn't really have any

1:35:45additional concerns about this. Does

1:35:46anyone else have any concerns or

1:35:48questions? Just the one with the church

1:35:51being within 300 feet.

1:35:53>> They need to get some kind of a

1:35:55>> you'll have to get

1:35:57>> a letter of approval from the church to

1:36:00go forward. You still have to get that.

1:36:02>> Correct.

1:36:05>> We need a special permit.

1:36:07>> Is that?

1:36:07>> Yeah.

1:36:08>> It It's not a special permit though,

1:36:10right? It's it's basically just that

1:36:12they're saying they're they're okay with

1:36:13the idea. So, this spud would be

1:36:16allowing drinking establishments by

1:36:17right, but they will have to conform

1:36:20with state statutes uh by obtaining a

1:36:23waiver from the church property before

1:36:25they could uh change the use to a

1:36:27full-on drinking establishment.

1:36:29>> So, do they have to do that before we

1:36:31can change the zoning?

1:36:33>> No.

1:36:34>> So, that would be an addition that

1:36:35that's outside of our

1:36:36>> purpose. That's a state application.

1:36:38>> Okay. That's what I thought. I didn't

1:36:40realize trying to figure if I had

1:36:41something to do with this I didn't know

1:36:42about. Okay. So, get that from the

1:36:44state, they have to be able to um show

1:36:47that they have appropriate zoning.

1:36:48>> Okay.

1:36:49>> So, we have to be first.

1:36:50>> Okay. I wasn't sure what the order was

1:36:52that

1:36:52>> what you were bringing.

1:36:53>> I wasn't either.

1:36:54>> If if for any reason they were not able

1:36:56to obtain the waiver from the church,

1:36:58then they wouldn't be able to get a

1:36:59license for a drinking establishment

1:37:01>> and then they'd be back here to reszone

1:37:02again.

1:37:04>> Yeah.

1:37:05>> Well, do something else maybe. Um,

1:37:09with that being said, I'd like to make a

1:37:11motion to recommend approval to city

1:37:13council. I would like to, unless you

1:37:15have an objection, I'd like to delete uh

1:37:18the TE1.

1:37:19>> It's fine.

1:37:20>> Okay. And then I would like to add

1:37:23TE's. We'll call it TE. Delete TE1. Add

1:37:27TE2

1:37:29um which deletes uh 8,300.5 alcoholic

1:37:34beverage sales and retail sales.

1:37:368,300.22 bingo parlors.

1:37:408,300.57

1:37:42payday loans. Um, TE3,

1:37:46uh, no

1:37:46>> Is there dispensary in there, too?

1:37:48>> U Well, that's what I was going to add.

1:37:50>> Oh,

1:37:51>> TE3, no no marijuana uses allowed.

1:37:54>> Okay. And then TE

1:37:574 under architectural regulations

1:38:01change uh the first 50% to 70 so that it

1:38:05says 70% of exterior wall surface shall

1:38:08be brick masonary or decorative masonry

1:38:10units and then change the second 50% to

1:38:1430. So it says 30% wood sighting, ephus,

1:38:17composite sighting of wood appearance,

1:38:20architectural metal,

1:38:22uh or ephus.

1:38:28>> Okay.

1:38:29>> Sorry. When you say again just the names

1:38:30of the of the uses you're deleting,

1:38:34>> leaving the drainage stuff

1:38:35>> the I'm sorry,

1:38:37>> the uses you're deleting. Just tell me

1:38:39the names.

1:38:40>> Uh yeah.

1:38:42Uh, alcoholic beverage retail sales,

1:38:46bingo parlors,

1:38:48payday loans, or title loan agencies.

1:38:52>> Oh, okay.

1:38:53>> We leaving the drainage stuff on this?

1:38:55>> No, that was deleted. That was TE1.

1:38:59>> Okay. So, we have a motion from

1:39:00Commissioner Newman to recommend the

1:39:02item to city council for approval

1:39:05subject to uh deleting TE1 and adding

1:39:08TE's 2, three, and four as read in.

1:39:20It's been seconded by Commissioner

1:39:21Harrison. Please cast your votes.

1:39:28That item is approved. Recommend for

1:39:30approval unanimously.

1:39:34>> All right. Item 18.

1:39:36>> This is SPUD 1869. Application to

1:39:39reszone 975 Northwest 192nd Street from

1:39:42PUD 979.

1:39:46>> There you go.

1:39:48Good afternoon. David Vox, 525 Northwest

1:39:5011 Street. here on behalf of the

1:39:51applicant. This is an SPD that would

1:39:53allow for uh an automotive use on this

1:39:56site. We did have a neighborhood meeting

1:39:57last week uh that Commissioner Noble was

1:39:59able to attend. So, this entire site,

1:40:02including the track to the west and the

1:40:04east, is zoned under an old PUD. Uh the

1:40:06track to the west is now developed with

1:40:08a bronze uh store with a drive-thru. The

1:40:12older PUD allows for pretty intense

1:40:15commercial uses, including gas stations,

1:40:17uh fast food restaurants, all of those

1:40:19things. And so what we have done is come

1:40:23in with an SPD limiting uses but adding

1:40:25the use we need. Um I'd say at the start

1:40:28of the neighborhood meeting it was a a

1:40:30bunch of people that were really

1:40:32concerned and I think the tone was was

1:40:33one of uh no. And at the end of it, I

1:40:36think we we left with an understanding

1:40:37that perhaps not all, but the majority

1:40:40of the people there were happy that our

1:40:42use was going to have limitations that

1:40:44otherwise don't exist now, including uh

1:40:46a limitation on hours of operation to

1:40:48that auto use, limited to Monday through

1:40:50Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Uh again,

1:40:53one of the comments by the neighbors

1:40:55there was, "Well, I'm glad it won't be

1:40:56the Taco Bell next to uh the Brahms.

1:40:59Fast food restaurants under the current

1:41:00PUD have no what? Oh, hours of hours of

1:41:05operation limitation. So, we think it's

1:41:07a down zone. Um, we think it's going to

1:41:09be much more compatible than I think

1:41:11some of the other end users that were

1:41:13looking at the site. Um, there are two

1:41:16TEES. I would love to launch into the

1:41:18discussion again about the drainage, but

1:41:20in the interest of time, perhaps we just

1:41:22move to delete TE2. Uh, and we would

1:41:25also add to to strike TE1. Kind of same

1:41:27reason. Brahms put their drive all the

1:41:29way to the east. We just literally can't

1:41:31meet that. Uh we'll have to deal with

1:41:32that with traffic at the permitting

1:41:34phase. And we do need to add a TE3 to

1:41:36correct one thing. The PUD says 20 feet

1:41:39in one story. Uh 20 ft. We actually need

1:41:41to be 26 feet in one story. So add a TE3

1:41:45that would allow for uh 26 feet in one

1:41:48story. And then TE4 would be hours

1:41:51Monday through Friday 7 to 6 7 to 7,

1:41:54excuse me, uh but limited to the

1:41:588300.14.

1:42:03Just want to confirm that's Monday

1:42:05through Friday, not Saturday.

1:42:06>> Monday through Friday. 7 am to 7 p.m.

1:42:08>> I thought he wanted Saturday. No,

1:42:11>> correct. Monday through Friday.

1:42:13>> Okay. All right. Um, Commissioner Noble,

1:42:16this is your ward. I have several signed

1:42:18up to speak.

1:42:19>> Well, let's hear from the public.

1:42:20>> Okay. Uh, we'll start with uh Dallas

1:42:23Milligan.

1:42:31Uh, thank you. Dallas Milligan, 1990

1:42:33Milstone Crossing Drive. Um, I have not

1:42:36presented before the commission before

1:42:38and I appreciate the opportunity to take

1:42:39part in local government. Um, I'm here

1:42:43to speak against the spec specific

1:42:46primarily given the specific application

1:42:48for the the light automotive use. I

1:42:51don't think it's in keeping with the

1:42:52current um C3 light uh commercial use of

1:42:57that property and area specifically that

1:42:59that development with the Bronms, the

1:43:01shopping to the south and the shopping

1:43:03to the east is all relatively walkable

1:43:06um from the nearby neighborhoods and

1:43:08offers commercial opportunities for

1:43:10people to shop on the weekends during

1:43:12the week um and part to participate in

1:43:16those activities that wouldn't be uh

1:43:19opportune with automotive. uses.

1:43:22Secondly, I think the use of automotive

1:43:24here um can also limit the ability I'm

1:43:28glad that they're considering a TE for

1:43:30the 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through

1:43:32Friday. However, um I know this isn't

1:43:35Edmund, but the uh automotive shops to

1:43:38the south of here on Santa Fe have

1:43:41restrictions on the number of vehicles

1:43:42that can be outside, the uses of

1:43:45diagnostic automotive use in the parking

1:43:47lot for the changing of light, things

1:43:49like oil, doing engine testing, and

1:43:51other things that could also be

1:43:52disruptive to that public use. Um, and I

1:43:55think frankly that the use of automotive

1:43:57here again is just disruptive to the

1:43:59other commercial opportunities that

1:44:00would be presented with a normal C3 use.

1:44:03And there are plenty of properties

1:44:04nearby that are I1 or C4 that could meet

1:44:08that that use. Um, so for those reasons,

1:44:11I am against the proposal for that

1:44:13specific use. I know there are another

1:44:15list of the things that um the applicant

1:44:18has listed that could be particular bit

1:44:20particular businesses that could go

1:44:21there that those all appeared fine but

1:44:24just the use of automotive doesn't

1:44:25really seem conducive to this area and I

1:44:28know the commission's job is not to look

1:44:29at the commercial area or what um people

1:44:34want to want to build or you know

1:44:35commercial opportunities they want to

1:44:36pursue. However, I do note for the

1:44:38record that in a 2-m radius there are 17

1:44:41light automotive shops. So, it seems

1:44:43like the municipal use has been met by

1:44:45those shops. They don't appear, having

1:44:47lived in this area for a number of

1:44:48years, that they are over capacity or

1:44:50ever, that there's too many vehicles

1:44:52there that as an end user, I would say I

1:44:54probably wouldn't be able to get my car

1:44:56repaired there. Um, so I think balancing

1:44:58the need here for light automotive and

1:45:01the general neighborhood design um is

1:45:04not met by that specific automotive

1:45:07light automotive use in the existing

1:45:08spud. the other potential uses that were

1:45:11listed do seem applicable and um I would

1:45:14approve of those uses just not the light

1:45:16automotive. Thank you.

1:45:18>> Thank you, Mr. Milligan.

1:45:20>> Ben Cunningham.

1:45:30Great.

1:45:34Yeah, my name is Ben Cunningham. I live

1:45:36at 920 Northwest 194th Terrace. And if

1:45:40you look on the plot plan and count six

1:45:43houses from from the street back there,

1:45:46mine is a sixth house

1:45:48at right on the other side of the fence.

1:45:52Uh I wrote letters or emails to each one

1:45:57of you in protest of this. I went to the

1:46:01meeting on Thursday night and met the

1:46:04proposed owner and uh I like what I

1:46:08heard from him and pretty well changed

1:46:12my mind,

1:46:15you know, being opposed to it. we know

1:46:18that there's something gonna be built

1:46:19there and uh with with his uh

1:46:24explanation of what his business was

1:46:27going to be um I didn't have an

1:46:30objection to that and so I want to my

1:46:34reason for speaking today was to change

1:46:36my my voice to to you all uh and I I

1:46:41like the hours of operation uh

1:46:44especially with no weekend operation

1:46:47and it being closed early in the

1:46:49evening. So, we're not going to be

1:46:52bombarded with with a lot of noise. We

1:46:55we have enough ice cream slloshing

1:46:57around there now. We don't need any any

1:47:01more automotive slloshing around. But,

1:47:03uh I appreciate your time and uh I hope

1:47:07you consider it. Thank you.

1:47:09>> Thank [clears throat] you,

1:47:14>> Ron Franion.

1:47:19Members of the commission, my name is

1:47:20Ron Franon. I'm here on behalf I'm a

1:47:23retired attorney, but I'm here on behalf

1:47:26of Marie Franon Jones, who lives just

1:47:29behind the subject property in uh

1:47:32Stonebrier. Um,

1:47:35I used to appear before numerous

1:47:37planning commissions and board of

1:47:39adjustments in the 80s and helped

1:47:40develop the on behalf of oil companies

1:47:43develop the oil field on out of the

1:47:46airport, Mustang, Yukon,

1:47:50uh, Tuttle, Oklahoma City, and the and

1:47:54the two words that always would come up

1:47:55when I would be trying to permit for an

1:47:58oil and gas well is the dynamic of the

1:48:01area and compatibility.

1:48:03this uh

1:48:08uh oil field or oil oil facility here

1:48:11for repair obviously if you just look at

1:48:15it from the objective point of view is

1:48:17not dynamic or compatible to the area

1:48:20because if you come out when I go visit

1:48:22my daughter when you come out on that

1:48:25street there and you look to the east

1:48:28and you look to the west you're only

1:48:30going to be able to turn to the west at

1:48:33various times and most of the time

1:48:35because of the flow of traffic. So if

1:48:38you add something that is not compatible

1:48:40to the area, I know the arguments can be

1:48:42made, well you already have commercial

1:48:44development here, but you have a

1:48:46specific objection that is listed in the

1:48:49ordinance about automotive repair shops

1:48:52that is not allowed here. That's why

1:48:54we're here on this type of application

1:48:56here today. But if you have this here,

1:48:59it's not compatible and it's not

1:49:01dynamic. You have only certain times of

1:49:03the day where you can come out of that

1:49:04addition and go with the flow of traffic

1:49:08to the west. You can't go east. As you

1:49:11come out of Edmund, which is basically

1:49:13the next addition over when you go into

1:49:16Edmund, you cannot go to the east and

1:49:19you're going to add a serious amount of

1:49:21traffic coming in and out of that

1:49:23facility. Now, if you have another

1:49:24commercial development, sure you may

1:49:27have a little different hours, but that

1:49:28type of a development will be much more

1:49:31compatible with what is going on on the

1:49:33south side of there and also over at

1:49:36Brahms. So, you have to look at what's

1:49:39compatible and what's dynamic to the

1:49:41area. So, I'm here on behalf of her as

1:49:44well as other people within the

1:49:45addition. So, look at that in the

1:49:48context of what they're trying to do

1:49:50here. What is what is the activity

1:49:52involved here? It's not anything similar

1:49:55to what we have in this area. We would

1:49:58ask that you deny the application. All

1:50:00right. Thank you,

1:50:02Elizabeth Smith.

1:50:11Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

1:50:13I'm Elizabeth Smith. I live at 908

1:50:15Northwest 194th Terrace. My house will

1:50:19be the third rooftop from uh the

1:50:23entrance there. So I am within 180 feet

1:50:26of the proposed site. My main objection

1:50:30would be the noise ordinance. I work

1:50:33from home. I have a covered patio. I

1:50:37work from my patio a lot. Uh and all I'm

1:50:40sorry I wasn't able to attend the

1:50:42hearing that uh the company set forth as

1:50:46I had a prior engagement. um work

1:50:48engagement. Um my main objection is the

1:50:52noise. My house also sits 2.9 miles from

1:50:57Santa Fe High School and on Friday

1:50:59nights you can hear the PA system on my

1:51:02covered patio. So, if I can hear a PA

1:51:05system from two almost three miles away,

1:51:08I just feel like with the pneumatic mill

1:51:11um pneumatic impact wrenches, metal

1:51:15grinding on metal, the engines being

1:51:17read for diagnostics,

1:51:19um sometimes from, you know, minutes at

1:51:21a time, hydraulic lifts and vehicles

1:51:24being dropped off. Um I just don't think

1:51:27that the noise um no matter what buffer

1:51:31that they put I know they have proposed

1:51:32a burm but these um doors for these bays

1:51:38are probably going to be 10 to 12 feet

1:51:41which I'm not sure how tall that burm's

1:51:43going to be. I don't think it can be

1:51:45that that tall because of the footprint

1:51:48of the lot, the proposed number of

1:51:51parking spaces that they have and uh the

1:51:54trees that they proposed to put a burm

1:51:56that high to deflect any noise um I

1:52:00don't think would be sufficient and also

1:52:02just the aesthetics of it to have an

1:52:04eight or 10 foot tall pile of dirt in

1:52:08what is now a level lot. You would see

1:52:11it from the entrance of Stone Brier Lane

1:52:13looking down, you would see that burm

1:52:17um and and all. Um the biggest thing is

1:52:21the pneumatic nailers when they release

1:52:24some of the um compressed air when it

1:52:26fires producing um the popping and

1:52:29hammering noises. That that noise that

1:52:32thing uh noise will bounce off of hard

1:52:35surfaces. It will bounce off our

1:52:37rooftops. It will bounce off the fences.

1:52:40it will bounce bounce off any um hard

1:52:42surfaces. And while I like the fact that

1:52:47they are Monday through Friday for 10

1:52:50and a half hours a day, you would only

1:52:52hear that noise for 10 and a half hours

1:52:54and they're not open on Saturday and

1:52:56Sunday. What happens when they cease

1:52:59operations and the next company comes

1:53:02in? Are they bound by the same work

1:53:04hours as the other firms uh and things

1:53:07like that? But um you know we will have

1:53:10to live with that noise five days a week

1:53:12as it as it's proposed for 10 and a half

1:53:15hours. And if you've ever sit outside

1:53:19Hibden Tire or Discount Tire, it's it's

1:53:24with your windows down. It's loud. It's

1:53:26going to reproate. Even though there is

1:53:29proposed screening and buffering

1:53:30immediately behind this, you know, for

1:53:33this property, it won't help us three

1:53:36houses down or um on the subdivision of

1:53:40the stone bar that's the ungated part.

1:53:42They rise up the hill. The sound will

1:53:44bounce and travel upwards. Uh so I just

1:53:47don't feel that it's compatible. I

1:53:50restaurants, they don't have the noise.

1:53:52They don't have the ongoing noise again

1:53:53and again and again uh of a tire center.

1:53:57And so that's my main objection is is

1:54:00the noise. And um I don't I'm not

1:54:03opposed to commercial development. I've

1:54:05been a realtor 37 years. I was builder

1:54:07of the year in North Carolina. I'm not

1:54:09propo I'm not opposed to commercial

1:54:11development. I'm just opposed to our

1:54:15standard of living and how we get to

1:54:18enjoy the peace and quiet of our

1:54:20neighborhood and we've had that for some

1:54:22times and even with Bronms that's not

1:54:24been disturbed or interrupted um because

1:54:28people get out of their cars they go in

1:54:30um we did have some noise from when

1:54:33Henry Hudson Pub was across the street

1:54:35which is now Bricktown Brewery uh

1:54:37because they had some outside music at

1:54:39night but they usually stopped it by

1:54:419:00.

1:54:42it and it wasn't every single night. It

1:54:44wasn't, you know, five nights a week or

1:54:46anything like that. So, but I don't

1:54:48object to that. When I bought 11 years

1:54:50ago, uh, being a realtor and I appeared

1:54:53before many planning boards in my home

1:54:55state of North Carolina, the first thing

1:54:57I checked was what was their permitted

1:54:59uses?

1:54:59>> 20 seconds remain.

1:55:01>> And, um, so I felt I could live with the

1:55:04per permitted uses that are under the

1:55:06current um, zoning. So, I would

1:55:09respectfully ask that you keep the

1:55:10zoning the same.

1:55:12>> Thank you.

1:55:12>> Thank you, Miss Smith.

1:55:18>> Giovani McKinney.

1:55:24>> Thank you. Uh, Giovanni McKenna, uh, 625

1:55:27Northwest, 196 Court. Uh, one thing that

1:55:31I think that the city has failed to

1:55:32account for in this proposal is the

1:55:35congestion that will be created. Uh, TRS

1:55:39bronze is now there. Everyone in the

1:55:40neighborhood has felt the impact of the

1:55:42traffic. However,

1:55:45um, a as one neighbor already stated

1:55:48that traffic is less is less impactful

1:55:50to the neighborhood because that

1:55:52business is in is internal inside. One

1:55:55thing I would like to call out is this

1:55:57is approximately 300 meters between

1:56:00Western and Stone Brier Lane, which is

1:56:02the main entrance into the neighborhood.

1:56:04There is a

1:56:06considerable amount of traffic and

1:56:08congestion that aggregates between those

1:56:10two streets for the neighbors and it

1:56:12creates a hazard for anybody coming into

1:56:15or out of the lane. One concern that I

1:56:18have with an industrial business going

1:56:20in is that the city is soft selling the

1:56:23idea that it is okay to create that they

1:56:25the city is okay creating an industrial

1:56:27corridor right here where with these

1:56:31these residents that live in this house.

1:56:33So, not only did do you have an increase

1:56:36of passenger traffic and going passenger

1:56:38traffic going through, you have an

1:56:40increase also of industrial traffic

1:56:43going through with heavy machinery going

1:56:45up and down the streets patronizing the

1:56:47business. Um, so and with that traffic

1:56:52and not having really an opportunity to

1:56:55relieve that traffic by having runoff

1:56:57lanes or turning lanes, it does create a

1:57:00safety issue where

1:57:03traffic going eastbound or westbound

1:57:05really has nowhere to go because now

1:57:07it's backing up into Western and backing

1:57:10up towards the east going up 192nd at

1:57:14the Stone Brier um at the Stonebrier

1:57:17entrance. One issue that I would like

1:57:19for the commission to consider is just

1:57:23east of Stone Brier, the second entrance

1:57:25into the neighborhood is Crest Ridge

1:57:27Road. There's only two entrances into

1:57:30this neighborhood. You have this main

1:57:32entrance wi which is going to be near

1:57:33the proposed site. And at Crest Ridge

1:57:36Road is the secondary entrance, which is

1:57:37a much smaller entrance. The natural

1:57:40human behavior is when there's going to

1:57:42be is when there's friction to get into

1:57:44the main entrance. The traffic in the

1:57:47neighborhood would naturally aggregate

1:57:49to the secondary entrance, which is much

1:57:50smaller. The danger with the secondary

1:57:53entrance is that it's actually a blind

1:57:55spot when you're traveling westbound on

1:57:57192nd Street. Users coming out of the

1:58:00neighborhood cannot see to the left and

1:58:03drivers coming down coming westbound on

1:58:06192 cannot see that secondary entrance.

1:58:09So by the time traffic coming over the

1:58:11top of that hill hits that secondary

1:58:14entrance, they're going at a rate of

1:58:15speed that it's m it's extremely

1:58:18difficult for users to account for what

1:58:21they're seeing and to make the

1:58:22adjustments uh safely.

1:58:26That's all I have.

1:58:27>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Okay, [snorts]

1:58:33>> Mark Mishu.

1:58:45>> Thank you. My name is Mark Basho. I live

1:58:48at uh 913 Northwest 194th Terrace.

1:58:53Um my wife and I bought our home in

1:58:552014.

1:58:57Uh I'm representing myself and uh in a

1:59:01sense Stone Brier neighborhood and that

1:59:04uh ever since I moved to uh Stone Brier,

1:59:08I've been involved in the HOA.

1:59:10Um I've been president. I'm currently

1:59:13the treasurer. So uh I have

1:59:16communication with all the neighbors

1:59:19uh quite a bit. I live within 300 feet

1:59:22of the proposed auto repair shop

1:59:25and u I've invested in our Stone Bryer

1:59:29neighborhood for the past 12 years.

1:59:32I hope that you all have read

1:59:37my letter of opposition my wife and I

1:59:39signed. And in that I talk about

1:59:45an experience that I had in another

1:59:48neighborhood in the city of Mustang

1:59:51where I lived in the city of Mustang in

1:59:53a nice neighborhood for 10 years. And I

1:59:55was the one of those people that was on

1:59:57had the fence and the construction was

2:00:01right behind my fence. I was under the

2:00:04mistake that they were going to put the

2:00:06auto repair shop up closer to the road,

2:00:09but no, it came in right behind my

2:00:11fence. I mean, we're talking less than

2:00:1410 feet.

2:00:16And uh one night I had had it. Uh the

2:00:19repair shop was going on. There was the

2:00:22loud music. They were I mean they stayed

2:00:24up till 10. They were they weren't

2:00:26supposed to, but they were working at

2:00:2810:30 at night. My daughters were trying

2:00:30to go to sleep and they had the radio

2:00:33on. They were working on the the

2:00:34machinery. I went outside and yelled

2:00:37over the fence to tell them to keep it

2:00:39down. They couldn't hear me. I went in

2:00:42and told my wife immediately that, "Hey,

2:00:45we've got to move. I can't stand this."

2:00:48So, we moved. Um,

2:00:53I know a little bit about property, real

2:00:55estate, and zoning. Just a little bit. I

2:00:57worked for 26 years in the county

2:00:59clerk's office, 18 years as the Canadian

2:01:03County Clerk, and the remaining time is

2:01:06working with the Oklahoma County Clerk.

2:01:09I was appointed to the Mustang uh the

2:01:12city of the city of Mustang's um um

2:01:16board of adjustment.

2:01:19When we decided to move to Stonebrier, I

2:01:22was comforted by the fact of the zoning

2:01:25that uh

2:01:27that our developer John Coleman uh

2:01:30prepared and this board and the city of

2:01:33Oklahoma City approved

2:01:36in this. They have 33

2:01:40uh uses that are prohibited and one of

2:01:42those is an auto repair shop. So, I put

2:01:46my trust

2:01:49in the planning document that if I moved

2:01:52there, I would never have to worry about

2:01:54an auto shop being in the neighborhood.

2:01:58Well, guess what? Here we are. Um

2:02:04basically um

2:02:07the pro the provisions well what I was

2:02:10going to say is you know being the the

2:02:13zoning document the planning document um

2:02:17those are supposed to be um what

2:02:20everyone's supposed to follow. It's

2:02:22supposed to be some type of like a a a

2:02:25blueprint a plan. It's a contract with

2:02:27the owners who are going to purchase

2:02:30there. It's I'll call it a covenant that

2:02:33whatever these restrictions are are

2:02:36going to stay for the time that you're

2:02:37going to be owning your property.

2:02:41Um the provisions,

2:02:45okay, these provisions have been in

2:02:47place since 2004

2:02:50and since then the residents have bought

2:02:54um the 423 homes in Stonebrier have been

2:02:58purchased.

2:03:00This is my estimate on the current value

2:03:02of the property in the neighborhood.

2:03:07130 132 homes are in a gated community

2:03:12that rest right next to where this

2:03:14construction is going to be held.

2:03:17And um anyway, I I really don't know

2:03:21that much about Colin Park. uh they only

2:03:24purchased the property just three months

2:03:26ago. So I don't know how much due

2:03:28diligence they had in reviewing the

2:03:31requirements of the uh PUD

2:03:35because I I can't believe they would

2:03:37purchase a property that uh they knew or

2:03:40have the have the restrictions on there.

2:03:44One of them being the property that

2:03:46we're here to discuss today. We only got

2:03:49the notice about three weeks ago of what

2:03:52was going in. You got about 20 seconds

2:03:54left.

2:03:54>> How much?

2:03:55>> 20 seconds.

2:03:56>> Okay. So, anyway, I will sum it up. I

2:03:59say let the buyer beware. I'm going to

2:04:02argue to uh oppose the uh oppose this

2:04:06SPUD and we'll be happy to work with the

2:04:10owners to come up with a solution on a

2:04:12on a use that is permitted. Thank you.

2:04:16>> Thank you.

2:04:20Next we have Linda Hadley. And after

2:04:23that, oh that'll be our last speaker.

2:04:29Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Linda

2:04:32Hadley and I live directly adjacent to

2:04:34the property at 904 Northwest 1 194th

2:04:38Terrace. I'm the second house from the

2:04:40gate. I'm asking that the existing PUD

2:04:44protections remain in place and that

2:04:46SPUD 1869 not be approved as proposed.

2:04:51I am not opposed to commercial

2:04:53development. The bronze at the adjacent

2:04:56corner is an example because of the

2:04:58location and the way it was situated at

2:05:00an angle I have been able to live

2:05:02comfortably with that development. My

2:05:05concern is the proposed sameday auto

2:05:07repair and tire pro shop directly behind

2:05:10our homes. I'm asking that the type and

2:05:13intensity of this use be considered in

2:05:17relation to the established residential

2:05:19home of 19 plus years and its indicated

2:05:23HOA community directly behind it

2:05:25immediately adjacent to our properties.

2:05:28An automotive repair business can bring

2:05:31increased vehicle activity,

2:05:33repair activity, noise, lighting, and

2:05:38other impacts that are very different

2:05:39from what we have experienced with the

2:05:42current space behind our homes. And I

2:05:45recognize that the proposed spud

2:05:47includes a 50 foot building setback, a

2:05:5115t landscape buffer, and screening

2:05:53requirements. I appreciate those

2:05:55protections, but those measures do not

2:05:57change the nature of the use itself.

2:06:01Um, there's also an existing sidewalk

2:06:04along Northwest 192 and that is

2:06:07regularly used by pedestrians, including

2:06:10students and adults, and I hope that

2:06:12connection will be preserved.

2:06:15Uh, I was also advised that none of the

2:06:18other auto repair shops in the area back

2:06:21up to a residential area.

2:06:24So, I respectfully ask the commission to

2:06:27consider the homeowners and pedestrians

2:06:29directly affected as well as natural

2:06:32environment and wildlife that have

2:06:35occupied this bill for many years and

2:06:37vote to preserve the existing

2:06:38productions we have today. Thank you for

2:06:42your time, your consideration, and for

2:06:44listening to the concerns of the home

2:06:46owners who will be most directly

2:06:48affected. Thank you.

2:06:59>> Okay.

2:07:00>> Yeah. So, a couple things. Um, you know,

2:07:03we we tried I I don't know why more more

2:07:06neighbors didn't come. I think it's

2:07:08worth pointing out that everyone that

2:07:10spoke in opposition did not appear at

2:07:13the neighborhood meeting. In fact, the

2:07:14only person that was at the neighborhood

2:07:16meeting that spoke today came to the

2:07:19podium and told you that he changed his

2:07:21mind. Um, I think the neighborhood

2:07:22meeting was very productive. As I said,

2:07:24most people kind of came in arms folded

2:07:26and we don't want most people came in

2:07:28and said what you just heard. Um but the

2:07:32existing conditions I think people get

2:07:33that confused with a field with no

2:07:36activity compared to what could be done

2:07:39now. What could be done now would be a

2:07:41gas station um fast food restaurant and

2:07:45it would be a 15t building setback. And

2:07:47what would happen between that

2:07:49restaurant or gas station and the fence

2:07:51line would be the dumpster location. It

2:07:54would be the grease traps. It would be

2:07:56all the bad things that you don't want

2:07:58to see if you are a single family

2:07:59homeowner adjacent to commercial. So,

2:08:01what we're proposing instead is a

2:08:0350-foot building setback. Um, a

2:08:06one-story building. Currently, the

2:08:09commercial development could be up to

2:08:10two stories. We're going to limit it to

2:08:1226 feet and one story. Um, there was a

2:08:15mention of the objective point of view.

2:08:17Perhaps the objective point of view

2:08:18isn't me or them, but instead staff.

2:08:20Staff of course recommends approval

2:08:22because based upon the street typology,

2:08:24based upon the area, this is a

2:08:26compatible development. I would actually

2:08:28submit that this is less traffic than

2:08:31what could be done now. What could be

2:08:32done now could create significantly more

2:08:34traffic than what we propose. And

2:08:36finally, there was a mention of that

2:08:38zoning is a contract or somehow a

2:08:40covenant. Well, that just couldn't be

2:08:41further from the truth. uh there

2:08:43wouldn't be a need for a planning

2:08:44commission or or other review board

2:08:46because once you had the zoning in

2:08:48place, I guess perhaps that would just

2:08:49remain forever. But of course, we know

2:08:50that's not true because every other

2:08:52Thursday uh you guys and every other

2:08:54Tuesday, city council views zoning cases

2:08:56because things change. What was once

2:08:58appropriate here uh perhaps is not now.

2:09:00And we understand that the use we want

2:09:02is not allowed today. However, what we

2:09:05believe we're bringing is something that

2:09:06is less impactful than what could

2:09:08otherwise be built today. And that's why

2:09:10we're willing to put in the hours of

2:09:11operation limitation. Monday through

2:09:13Friday, 7 am to 7 pm with the setback

2:09:16and all the other things. So happy to

2:09:18answer any questions, but we we view

2:09:19this frankly as a down zone uh from what

2:09:21the current zoning would allow. So happy

2:09:24to answer any questions. Would ask for

2:09:25your approval.

2:09:27>> Commissioner Noble,

2:09:29>> thanks. And I did attend that that

2:09:31meeting and and also was convinced

2:09:34somewhat that it would be a down zone

2:09:37from the potential other uses that were

2:09:41allowed in the original PUB that was

2:09:43done in 2004.

2:09:45Um I'd like to hear from everybody else

2:09:47after listening to the public.

2:09:50>> Did I did I misunderstand? I thought

2:09:53that all of the like outdoor um speaker

2:09:56uses had been eliminated. Yeah, we don't

2:09:59allow outdoor speakers.

2:10:00>> Okay. So, staff report is just out of

2:10:02date. I guess the the uses that are

2:10:06allowed that show in my staff report

2:10:08include, you know, fast food and fast

2:10:10food drive-thru windows and

2:10:12>> so we can eliminate all outdoor

2:10:15amplified sound altogether.

2:10:18>> Okay.

2:10:20Are have there been commitments about

2:10:23buffers and that sort of thing that are

2:10:24not reflected here? So what the uh SPD

2:10:28says is that a 15 foot So we have the 15

2:10:3150 foot building setback. Then we have a

2:10:3515 foot landscape buffer which is three

2:10:37times the size of landscape buffer

2:10:39required under the current pud. And

2:10:40within that landscape buffer we require

2:10:43trees on 25 foot centers.

2:10:46So it's a significantly increased

2:10:48landscape buffer from what is there now.

2:10:50And that is that is in the SPV. Yes. the

2:10:54the

2:10:56woman who came up and talked about a a

2:10:58burm.

2:10:58>> There's no she Okay.

2:11:01>> There's a there's an existing 20 I mean

2:11:02existing 8ft tall sightoot fence on the

2:11:05back side of all those properties.

2:11:08>> Is this facility airond conditioned to

2:11:11>> so that the doors would be down after a

2:11:13vehicle pulled in? That's what I thought

2:11:14I had heard. And

2:11:16>> and that was one of that was one of the

2:11:17and you know the understand the concern

2:11:20of the old guns used that were very

2:11:24loud. They don't do that anymore. Um at

2:11:26the neighborhood meeting, you know, my

2:11:27client kind of walked him through how

2:11:29now people can be working on the car

2:11:31with those guns and people are talking

2:11:33on the phone because they're all

2:11:35electric now.

2:11:44Some of the other concerns were the

2:11:45traffic.

2:11:47So, the use, the noise, and the traffic.

2:11:49That's really the only concerns that I

2:11:51that I heard.

2:11:53>> I have to think. I mean, if this were a

2:11:56a McDonald's, Taco Bell, or whatever

2:11:58with the drive-thru, you're going to

2:11:59have 100 cars coming every hour.

2:12:03>> Um whereas with this, I have to think

2:12:06that I mean, you're probably dropping

2:12:08off in the morning and picking up in the

2:12:10afternoon. I mean, I I have to think the

2:12:12coming and going traffic is

2:12:14substantially less

2:12:16>> in the 7:00. They really stop work at 6.

2:12:18The 7 p.m. is to allow a buffer if

2:12:21someone can't get off work in time to

2:12:22get there, but they stop working on the

2:12:24vehicles at 6. And so to yes, to your

2:12:26point, the the activity is really

2:12:29stopped. Whereas under the current putt,

2:12:31if you developed it, the activity really

2:12:32just getting going at in the evening

2:12:35time for dinner.

2:12:42No, I I'm not gonna you you've had your

2:12:44time. Thank you for asking.

2:12:48So in my opinion from the land use point

2:12:52of view

2:12:55maybe we need to take out some of the

2:12:57uses that are within the the application

2:13:00itself but

2:13:03the the addition of that use

2:13:07um I can see go with the property

2:13:11at that location

2:13:13>> is the 50oot buffer and the 15oot

2:13:16landscape taping buffer. Are those

2:13:18together or is the 15T inside the 50

2:13:21foot? Yeah,

2:13:22>> 15 is inside the 50.

2:13:25>> The 50 is to the building.

2:13:27>> Yeah,

2:13:27>> correct.

2:13:41I uh

2:13:44I agree with the downzoning potential,

2:13:48but I also hate the fact that the

2:13:50developer peeled off part of this

2:13:53commercial to sell all these homes and

2:13:56specifically limited that use. I I

2:13:59>> That was also one of like 50 uses.

2:14:02>> They didn't specifically, they just said

2:14:04these are the the uses prohibited. Back

2:14:06in those days, they did putts

2:14:08differently and there was a long list of

2:14:10uses that were prohibited and this was

2:14:11one of them. It wasn't like, boy, we

2:14:14think this is a bad use, take it out. It

2:14:15was all of these uses are getting taken

2:14:17out.

2:14:18>> Yeah.

2:14:20My point still stands. I've been in

2:14:22neighborhood meetings with you where you

2:14:24and before I was became a planning

2:14:26commissioner, I would have never looked

2:14:28at a pud nearby a neighborhood that I

2:14:30was talking with the realer about buying

2:14:33a house. But you brought that up that

2:14:35people should do that. You when you're

2:14:36looking at property, you should look at

2:14:38read a pud next door. Well, this was the

2:14:41developer that did this. Uh, and I just,

2:14:44you know, I just have a little bit of

2:14:45hesitation because there were limit uses

2:14:48removed.

2:14:48>> Yeah.

2:14:49>> To develop this neighborhood.

2:14:50>> Agreed. So, the question is, then you

2:14:53looked at this and you became

2:14:56comfortable with a 2:00 a.m. drive-thru

2:14:59use being right behind your home, 15 ft

2:15:02away with grease, trash, and dumpsters.

2:15:04>> Well,

2:15:06let me say this.

2:15:08This isn't in my ward and staff doesn't

2:15:12provide us the old puds or spuds in our

2:15:16case reports. So, and we already have

2:15:18enough to learn and read through, you

2:15:21know, with the packets we get. So, I

2:15:23don't know what the old pud and spud

2:15:25said.

2:15:26>> All I see is what you're asking for.

2:15:28>> Yeah. Well, we Well, we know at least, I

2:15:30guess,

2:15:31>> because of what's next door under the

2:15:33same putt is a drive-thru bronze. Okay.

2:15:36And so, drive-thru fast food is a use

2:15:39allowed. And I mean, I'll commit to you,

2:15:41gas station, all those other things also

2:15:43allowed. And so if if you did review the

2:15:45PUD and you became comfortable with the

2:15:47idea of a gas station being 15t from

2:15:49your house, a fast food restaurant open

2:15:51till 2 a.m. or perhaps 24 hours 15 ft

2:15:54behind your house. Yes, this wasn't

2:15:56allowed. But it's hard for me to

2:15:58understand how a Monday through Friday 7

2:16:00to 7, 50 ft away with three times the

2:16:03landscape buffer, significant more

2:16:04landscaping is in any way incompatible

2:16:07with the idea that you had when you

2:16:09bought that house.

2:16:10And and I'll say this, I think everyone

2:16:12that was at the meeting understood that

2:16:15part of it and kind of got on the side

2:16:18of this would be better than a potential

2:16:21alternative,

2:16:21>> right?

2:16:22>> Um there there was a

2:16:24>> person that came to the podium who was

2:16:25at the meeting came to say I retract

2:16:28>> my protest. I wish all the folks had had

2:16:31come. I I would say too I I think you

2:16:35know given the age of the PUD that's in

2:16:37place now the the reason that auto care

2:16:41would have been eliminated

2:16:43is because of noise basically and and

2:16:46maybe traffic here what's being proposed

2:16:51is it's kind of a specialized use um

2:16:54that seems to me to address those two

2:16:57issues in a way that I find acceptable

2:17:01>> by limiting the the hours

2:17:02>> by limiting the number of hours. I think

2:17:05>> you know we are pretty much ensuring

2:17:07that some other kind of auto repair use

2:17:10is not going to come to this site

2:17:12because they're not going to be willing

2:17:14to work within those hours of operation.

2:17:17>> And and I agree the air conditioned shop

2:17:19with the doors down, they're not going

2:17:20to leave them open. You're not going to

2:17:22hear as much. Um I do concur that the

2:17:25equipment is now not pneumatic. It is

2:17:27electric. It it's industrywide. Um, I uh

2:17:34I don't know. I think the buffer is an

2:17:36improvement. I mean, I think about in

2:17:38Commissioner Newman, we had a previous

2:17:40case on 104th where people turned down

2:17:43and fought and fought against something

2:17:45that was proposed and that it went away

2:17:48and now things come in and they're

2:17:50regretting what they turned down. So,

2:17:53it's a there's side both sides to it.

2:17:56>> Yeah. It's a matter of is is what is

2:17:58proposed with the limitations and

2:18:00guardrails in place compatible? Um,

2:18:03frankly, is it compatible without

2:18:05comparison to what's allowed now? I

2:18:06think the answer is yes. It's even more

2:18:08yes when you compare it to what would be

2:18:10permitted by right today.

2:18:13>> I've got a question on the the use that

2:18:17you're you're looking for that you need

2:18:19is the 8300.14,

2:18:21correct?

2:18:21>> Yeah. All the other uses that are

2:18:24listed, I'm assuming already exists in

2:18:26the current PUD.

2:18:28>> Correct.

2:18:29>> We've taken some additional out, but

2:18:31yes, there's nothing new other than that

2:18:34the auto use.

2:18:35>> So on our list, there's ones you've

2:18:37taken out that we still see.

2:18:39>> I don't know what you're looking at, but

2:18:41we removed I think dwelling units and

2:18:44perhaps some others since the

2:18:45neighborhood meeting. I'm just looking

2:18:47at the list that's report staff report

2:18:50that we were provided on this one

2:18:52>> which yeah which we're talking about

2:18:54they could have this right now but

2:18:56that's in here still we need to remove

2:18:57it if that's the case especially the

2:18:59drive-through restaurants and

2:19:01>> we we can remove

2:19:03I'll tell you what okay

2:19:05>> well let me I'm sorry I let me just I

2:19:07need a clarification on

2:19:09>> if we're limiting hours of the business

2:19:12>> and you have a are we limiting the hours

2:19:14if it's just 8300

2:19:17I just want clarity there. Right.

2:19:18>> And if this property was to change hands

2:19:22>> to another automotive user, they have to

2:19:25work within those hours. Correct.

2:19:27>> Okay.

2:19:29>> And the idea to remove the other the

2:19:31fast food or anything else. I mean,

2:19:35you're not proposing that or or are you?

2:19:37>> No. Or we wait, say it again.

2:19:39>> To remove the existing fast food uses

2:19:42with the h

2:19:44>> happy to discuss it. I mean, yeah, we we

2:19:46can um it's just I mean, I see it both

2:19:49ways.

2:19:51>> Yeah, the 8300.36

2:19:53drive-thru window with the or the

2:19:56drive-thru restaurant fast food with

2:19:59drive-thru order window.

2:20:01>> The speaker box is 150 foot away from

2:20:03residential,

2:20:04>> which is not a provision currently in

2:20:06the current PUD that was added to this

2:20:09SP.

2:20:12>> Okay, let's be clear. Are we or are we

2:20:14not prohibiting outdoor speakers?

2:20:17>> Yes. I mean,

2:20:18>> I was referring to what how it's drafted

2:20:20today. That request came today, which we

2:20:22agreed to

2:20:27>> which really solves for the issue.

2:20:32>> You know, just

2:20:35to me with the limits on this, you're

2:20:38going to have a window of noise versus

2:20:40where it's at tonight, right? where the

2:20:43[clears throat] current zoning is, you

2:20:44could have, as he pointed out, speakers

2:20:46all night long at a drive-through

2:20:47restaurant.

2:20:49So, to me, that's a downgrade on the

2:20:52sound. The traffic, I think, versus a

2:20:55drive-through restaurant is

2:20:56significantly less. Um, I I don't know.

2:21:00I just

2:21:00>> I kind of see this

2:21:03as if I had to choose one of the two

2:21:05next to me, I'd probably choose this

2:21:06one. I don't

2:21:08>> That's That's exactly where I was, too.

2:21:10So

2:21:17>> I'll make a motion.

2:21:18>> Anything else?

2:21:20>> For just for purposes of the clarity on

2:21:22the the record here. So we're asking to

2:21:24strike TE's one and two. Add a TE3 to

2:21:27have the height limited to 26 ft and one

2:21:29story. TE4 would be a prohibition of

2:21:33outdoor amplified sound. And then TE5

2:21:36would be limiting the hours of operation

2:21:38to 8,300.14

2:21:41to Monday through Friday, 7 am to 7 pm.

2:21:47>> That's all right.

2:21:48>> That's already in the spud. Huh?

2:21:50>> Yep. The tree spacing and all that.

2:21:52>> Correct.

2:21:53>> Nate, you good?

2:21:54>> Yes.

2:21:56>> Okay. And then I'll also say that this

2:21:59is a recommendation to city council. So

2:22:02there will be in eight weeks another

2:22:03opportunity to talk with the council.

2:22:06Um with that I will make a motion to

2:22:09recommend approval of SPUD1 1869 with

2:22:13the striking TE 1 and two and adding

2:22:16three, four, and five as read into the

2:22:20record.

2:22:22We have

2:22:22>> a motion from Commissioner Noble to

2:22:24recommend the item to city council

2:22:25subject to the deleted and additional

2:22:28TEES.

2:22:40All

2:22:52right. Uh, can I get a can I get a

2:22:54second via voice?

2:22:57>> I'll second.

2:22:58>> Second by Commissioner Powers.

2:23:02>> Let's do a voice vote. Oh, here it go.

2:23:08>> Bobb's on.

2:23:08>> Yes.

2:23:11Yay. Hey, there we go. We got a move.

2:23:13>> I

2:23:15>> I

2:23:15>> I

2:23:16>> I

2:23:18>> All right.

2:23:19>> It's a unanimous recommendation.

2:23:22>> It's up now.

2:23:24>> Thank you.

2:23:28>> All right.

2:23:36That was the last item on the agenda to

2:23:40be heard.

2:23:45So, we'll move on to

2:23:48additional items.

2:23:51Uh, communications report planning

2:23:53commission committees.

2:23:56I was unable to attend last week's

2:24:00>> code committee. So, is there an update

2:24:02from that?

2:24:05heard thing today. I think we'll we'll

2:24:09get you up to speed.

2:24:10>> Yeah, there were there were two

2:24:11different focus groups and I'm on the

2:24:13one with all the council people and know

2:24:15none of the planning commissioners. Um,

2:24:17ours went really good. I thought I think

2:24:19we got through everything on the list.

2:24:21Um, I don't know how the second one went

2:24:23went though.

2:24:24>> We might not have gotten through

2:24:26everything on the list. We only got

2:24:27through one thing.

2:24:28>> We talked about one and we didn't come

2:24:30to any decision. So, there you go. Well,

2:24:33it's we're moving along.

2:24:34>> All right.

2:24:37Um, anything else from committee

2:24:40standpoint, planning commission members?

2:24:44>> Anything on my right?

2:24:45>> Not I.

2:24:46>> Anything on my left?

2:24:47>> I did I know it's been a long day for

2:24:49us, but I just wanted to add that

2:24:50Commissioner Powers and I attended a a

2:24:52code update meeting for Gatewood

2:24:54Neighborhood. Um, was that Monday

2:24:56evening? This past Monday evening. um I

2:24:59think it was and uh the only thing I

2:25:02just want to say about that is

2:25:05planning staff I commend you for

2:25:08the work you're doing there and trying

2:25:10to get residents involved but I really

2:25:13hope more residents get involved um

2:25:15because I think we found out that

2:25:16evening out of 600 plus homes in

2:25:18Gatewood I think we had 34 respondents

2:25:21in the survey there so

2:25:22>> yeah that's pretty typical

2:25:24>> three of them were initially responded

2:25:27>> yeah three initially Yeah, it's just,

2:25:29you know, this code update and

2:25:31especially in the urban core is just

2:25:33it's big and and I I I don't have

2:25:36suggestions for you, but I will help in

2:25:38any way.

2:25:40>> Pretty well organized,

2:25:42>> right? It

2:25:43>> as neighborhoods go. So, it's kind of

2:25:45shocking, but

2:25:46>> right and and will be very much affected

2:25:49by some of the code updates.

2:25:50>> Yeah. Yeah.

2:25:52>> Yeah. As a

2:25:53>> it was it was a great meeting though.

2:25:55Thank you to the staff. As a HOA

2:25:57president, I feel that big time because

2:26:00we never get involvement. Just

2:26:01complaints after the fact, you know,

2:26:03it's like, well, you could have been

2:26:04there.

2:26:05>> Dennis and I talked about that a little

2:26:06bit today and we're doing everything we

2:26:08can that we do as much as we can to get

2:26:11it

2:26:11>> right

2:26:12>> in a better spot before we get the

2:26:14approval and then all the complaints.

2:26:16>> Yeah. Right.

2:26:21>> Okay. um planning department.

2:26:25>> Um just real quick on that. So um we

2:26:28sent a postcard to every single

2:26:30household in that neighborhood. U and we

2:26:32also had um we had signs up on, you

2:26:36know, kind of the side of the street. I

2:26:38didn't drive through personally, but my

2:26:39understanding is that they were up. So

2:26:41yeah, we're all always all ears when it

2:26:44comes to, you know, ways to get more

2:26:46people involved. you know, when it came

2:26:47to the zoning uh meetings earlier in the

2:26:50summer, we we we just social media like

2:26:53crazy and, you know, had like a million

2:26:55clicks and and we have 70 people show up

2:26:58and that that filled the room and it

2:27:00felt good, you know, but it's still a

2:27:02tiny fraction of of people that want to

2:27:05get involved. So [snorts] yes, uh I I I

2:27:10appreciate that and we are always

2:27:11looking for ways to get more people

2:27:13involved whether it be so yeah we we've

2:27:16we've got a PR firm that's been working

2:27:18with us for the past year or so and we

2:27:20are trying to do everything possible but

2:27:22you know when it's

2:27:24coming to you know do do I want to go to

2:27:27a meeting about zoning

2:27:29>> you know um so yeah that's that's

2:27:31difficult but yeah uh we appreciate that

2:27:35Um,

2:27:36>> let let me say before I forget it. I'm

2:27:38sorry. It's not my job to praise Mr. Box

2:27:42and his his group, but I wanted to let

2:27:44you know that they did actually send a

2:27:46letter to they didn't rely on Mr. Walker

2:27:50to tell his neighbors about the meeting

2:27:52at the at the library. They actually

2:27:54sent a letter to every person who

2:27:56addressed

2:28:02invite them to the meeting. So whatever

2:28:04confusion there was not due to their

2:28:07lack of

2:28:14>> I'm sure he goes back and watches all

2:28:15the video again.

2:28:18>> Um just real quick uh just so the

2:28:20planning commission is aware and I know

2:28:21some of you have heard of this. So that

2:28:23we have scammers out there that um are

2:28:26costing uh residents applicants money.

2:28:29We've had two cases of um wire fraud. So

2:28:33a couple that I'm aware of where they

2:28:35have represented to people that hey the

2:28:38planning commission or the planning

2:28:39director uh you know my name was on this

2:28:42one recently. Fortunately the person

2:28:43didn't pay but there have been two where

2:28:45they paid $5,000 north of $5,000.

2:28:48Um, so we just there is a release that

2:28:51the city's put out today. Just be

2:28:53careful and advise people to be careful.

2:28:56You may hear about these things, but

2:28:58it's the usual things. You know, it's

2:29:00look for email addresses. Does it look

2:29:02sketchy? Does it have a zero instead of

2:29:04an O and OKC? But even so, nowadays it's

2:29:07very difficult because of AI. It It was

2:29:10easy to spot just a couple years ago.

2:29:12Now AI makes things look very legit. Had

2:29:15the city logo and all the things. Got my

2:29:17name. then they just pull this off the

2:29:18internet. Um but I think in both cases

2:29:22it's been a wire transfer. So um you

2:29:25know if you're un if people are unsure

2:29:27they need to call the city um use a you

2:29:30go to the actual website confirm the

2:29:32contact information. Um but we're just

2:29:35concerned about it because it has been

2:29:37happening a lot and some people have

2:29:38been burned for large amounts of money

2:29:41which we hate to see. You've probably

2:29:43seen emails coming from the department

2:29:44that have disclaimers and notifying

2:29:47people like, "Hey, be careful. Watch out

2:29:49for this." So, I just wanted to put that

2:29:52out there as a PSA. And that's all I

2:29:55have. Thank you.

2:29:56>> All right.

2:29:58>> Anything from the municipal counselor's

2:30:00office?

2:30:00>> Nothing.

2:30:01>> All right. I see no citizens to be

2:30:04heard.

2:30:06We have no other business. So, we are

2:30:07adjourned. Thank you.