2026-10-08 - Oklahoma City Planning Commission Meeting

01:12Good afternoon everyone and welcome to

01:15the October 8th meeting of the Oklahoma

01:17City Planning Commission. Like to call

01:19us to order and go over a few

01:21housekeeping items. If you have a cell

01:23phone with you, please silence or turn

01:25it to off. Uh if you haven't been with

01:27us before, here's what you can expect.

01:30Uh we'll start with some simple

01:31administrative tasks that include

01:33minutes and continuences. Then we move

01:35to cases on the consent docket, which

01:37are straightforward cases that can be

01:39approved as a group. After that, we'll

01:42hear cases individually uh discuss and

01:44determine if recommendation or decision

01:46could be made today or if more time and

01:49a continuence is necessary. Uh there are

01:52certain cases where this body makes the

01:53final decision. Uh but in most instances

01:58uh we are a recommending body to the

02:00city council and do not make that only

02:02make a recommendation. Uh no matter the

02:05outcome of the item today uh you will uh

02:08have an opportunity to uh be heard again

02:11at city council in 68 weeks. Uh there

02:14are certain items such as uh homeowner

02:16association CCRs and agreements between

02:18private entities uh that are outside the

02:21purview of this commission and are not

02:23factors in our consideration and

02:24discussion and we ask for the sake of

02:26time that you refrain from using those

02:28as justification in your cases. If

02:31you're here to speak on an item and are

02:33not the applicant, please fill out one

02:34of the forms available outside and

02:35provide it to Elena or Jared here below

02:38us. Um, when the item is called, you'll

02:41be asked to come to the podium, give

02:43your name and address for the record,

02:45and you'll have up to five minutes to

02:46speak. If you're here to speak on an

02:48item with a large group of people, we

02:50encourage you to elect a representative

02:51to share your group's concerns. And in

02:54those instances, some additional time

02:55may be given to that person. Uh, where

02:58several speakers are heard on the same

03:00item, we just ask that you do your best

03:02to limit your comments to concerns that

03:03we haven't heard yet. Uh we're just

03:05trying to limit extensive and

03:07repetitious comments. Uh please direct

03:09all your comments and questions to uh

03:11the commission and if needed we'll ask

03:13the applicant or uh staff to respond.

03:17Finally, we appreciate everyone's

03:18presence here today and the time that

03:20you took away from your other

03:21obligations.

03:22Um and we ask for your cooperation

03:24upholding the decorum of the meeting and

03:26specifically that you don't speak from

03:28the audience. Uh thank you for your

03:30attention, your attendance, and your

03:32assistance. With that, we'll go to the

03:35first item uh or the next item on the

03:37agenda, which is the receipt of the

03:39minutes from the September 24th meeting.

03:47>> I just need a motion. Sorry.

03:49>> Uh I'll make a motion to receive the

03:51minutes of September 24, 2026.

03:53>> Have a motion to receive the minutes

03:55from Commissioner Noble. It's been

03:56seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please

03:58cast your votes.

04:04minutes are received.

04:07Uh item three, continuous requests.

04:09We'll start with uncontested requests.

04:12Item 23, case uh PUD 2160, request to

04:15defer to October 22nd. Item 24, case

04:18SPUD 1849, defer to October 22nd. And

04:22item 25, SPUD1 1872, defer to October

04:2622nd.

04:27>> I'll just check there's no one here to

04:29be heard on any of those items. All

04:31right. Seeing none, just need a motion.

04:35>> I will make a motion to approve the

04:37uncontested request as read.

04:39>> Motion from Commissioner Noble to

04:41approve the uncontested requests as

04:42read.

04:44It's been second by Commissioner Meek.

04:46Please cast your votes.

04:51And those new requests are approved or

04:55uncontested requests are approved. Uh,

04:57next item is new requests.

05:00I have no new requests.

05:01>> There are no new requests. Okay.

05:08>> Um, item number 15

05:12I think has to be continued

05:15the HP commission before it's heard by

05:16us. If that's right, if I got the right

05:19one.

05:20[clears throat]

05:25>> Uh, item 15. Yeah. did require a uh

05:28recommendation

05:30uh from the HP commission and their

05:32meeting was cancelled. So, we do not

05:34have that recommendation. So, um is the

05:37applicant present for that item? We can

05:39ask them if they're

05:40>> she she may not be here yet, but she has

05:43something on the agenda later. So, I'm

05:44guessing she will be.

05:46>> Okay.

05:46>> But I I spoke to her about it last night

05:48and she saying that it would need to be

05:50continued. So,

05:52>> Okay. So, you're So, you're requesting

05:54it be added to the new request? Yes,

05:56please.

05:56>> Okay.

06:00>> Okay. Did you have something?

06:02>> Yes. Uh Braden Schaefer, 300point

06:04Parkway Boulevard. Uh we had two that we

06:07would like to add to the new requests.

06:08Okay. We emailed staff at I don't think

06:10it made it on here. Uh we'd like to move

06:13for item six and item seven to be added

06:16to the new requests.

06:27Okay.

06:29>> Yes. Just two two weeks is fine. Two

06:31>> Okay.

06:37So, that's the 22nd.

06:40Uh, Commissioner Powers on item 15. Were

06:44you saying that's two weeks as well?

06:45>> No, she was she it has to be heard by

06:47the HP. They only meet once a month. Is

06:49that right? She was saying it would be

06:51>> but they have a special meeting. I

06:53>> November she was saying

06:54>> okayvember

06:57>> first meeting in November

07:03>> that's the 12th.

07:07Okay. So I have new requests. Item 15

07:10deferred to the November 12th meeting.

07:12Item six deferred to the October 22nd

07:15meeting. Item seven deferred to the

07:16October 22nd meeting.

07:22All right, I think we're ready for a

07:23motion.

07:25>> I will make a motion for the new

07:28continuence requests as read.

07:32>> Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner

07:34Noble to approve the new continuence

07:35requests as read, seconded by

07:37Commissioner Milner. Please cast your

07:38votes.

07:46and the new requests are approved.

07:50All right. Uh item four is a public

07:54hearing and we'll start with the consent

07:55docket. Item one is KC7841,

07:59final plat of cottages at the Grove.

08:02This is located north of Northwest 178th

08:04Street and east of North Portland

08:06Avenue.

08:07>> [clears throat]

08:07>> Item two, KC7844, final plat of Villas

08:11at Buffalo Farms, located south of

08:13Southwest 29th Street and east of South

08:15County Line Road.

08:18Item three is KC7846,

08:21final plat of Nantucket Edition, located

08:24west of North May Avenue and south of

08:26West Britain Road. And item four,

08:28KC7848, final plat of Willow Trails,

08:31phase 2, located north of Southwest 29th

08:34Street and west of South Sarah Road. All

08:36right. Uh, is there anyone here to be

08:38heard on any of those items?

08:41All right. Seeing none, I just need a

08:43motion.

08:47>> I will make a motion to approve the

08:48consent docket.

08:50>> Motion to approve the consent docket

08:52from Commissioner Noble, seconded by

08:54Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your

08:55votes.

09:02And the consent dock is approved. All

09:04right. Now items to be heard

09:06individually. We start with item five.

09:08>> Item five is KC7847

09:11final plat of the peak located south of

09:14Northwest 63rd Street and west of

09:16Northwestern Avenue along with variance

09:18to the subdivision regulations.

09:22>> Good afternoon Mark Zitsau Johnson and

09:24Associates one Sheridan Avenue. This is

09:26the final plat of the peak which is a

09:28portion of the former Chesapeake campus.

09:30It's I think it's worth noting this is

09:32the piece of the campus that is entirely

09:34built out. Uh structurally there are no

09:36changes. This is allowing individual

09:38buildings and their footprints to be

09:40sold. Um we as we talked about last time

09:43the common area will be maintained by

09:45the property owner. All of the buildings

09:47are subject to uh the CCNRs to ensure

09:50that it is maintained to the standard

09:52that uh it is done. So today we do have

09:55one TE. It's a bit of a I think an odd

09:58request and it's because of what's out

10:00there today. We are requesting that

10:01Chesapeake Drive be named. If you were

10:04to go out there, there is a street sign

10:07at the traffic signal that says

10:08Chesapeake Drive. And so, in order to

10:10maintain that, we're seeking to have

10:12that area that's denoted in the dashed

10:14line uh be platted as Chesapeake Drive.

10:17So, uh staff has recommended approval.

10:20We agree with the other TEES that are in

10:21there. Uh with that, I'm happy to answer

10:23any questions.

10:24>> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Powers, this is

10:26your ward. If you'd like to lead to the

10:28lead the discussion. I do not have

10:30anyone signed up to speak

10:34>> preliminary. So, there haven't been any

10:36changes since we did since we approved

10:38the preliminary.

10:39>> No, ma'am.

10:40>> So, I I don't really have any concerns

10:42or questions about this. Um, I'm more

10:45than happy to have them name it

10:47Chesapeake Drive.

10:49>> Um, is there is there anybody No one

10:51signed up to speak?

10:52>> No. Anybody else have anything they want

10:54to add? If not, I'm going to move

10:56approval.

10:57>> We need to take the variance first.

10:59>> I'm sorry.

11:02>> The variance. I'll move approval of the

11:04variance in section 5.4.2

11:07E.5.

11:10>> Motion from Commissioner Powers to

11:12approve the variance. Seconded by

11:13Commissioner Meek. Please cast your

11:15votes.

11:21The variance is approved.

11:23>> And then I'll move approval of item

11:26number 5 C7847

11:29>> subject to the technical evaluations.

11:31>> Subject to the technical evaluations

11:33including an additional

11:35uh

11:38an additional TE for the naming of the

11:40drive.

11:40>> Uh the variance ticket.

11:41>> The variance ticket.

11:43>> All right. So we have a motion from

11:45Commissioner Powers to approve the item

11:47subject to the technical evaluation.

11:48Seconded by Commissioner Newman. Please

11:50cast your votes.

11:57And that item is approved. Thank you. Uh

12:01now we go to item eight. Item eight is

12:06excuse me [clears throat] CPA 2613,

12:08consideration of a map amendment to the

12:09conference of plan on property located

12:12north of Southwest 15th Street and east

12:15of South Frisco Road.

12:18Here

12:30you go. Gortis for the planning

12:32department. Um, this is CPA 2603.

12:38Um, the I think it's okay. I sent a new

12:43one.

12:49No, it's okay. Um is [clears throat] an

12:53amendment to the comprehensive plan. Um

12:56is removing the urban future LUDA

12:59um from the urban lowbased designation.

13:03Um this case is a little special because

13:06um the puty 21109

13:09uh was approved in February. The reason

13:12why the PUD was approved in February and

13:14it was not required CPA at the moment is

13:17because um at that moment there was a

13:21restriction with the PD that no

13:23development was going to happen until

13:25they extend the water and sewer. Um so

13:28it was going to remain as urban future

13:30at the moment. So that's why they we

13:32didn't require the CPA. Now the

13:34applicant is ready to actually extend

13:37water and sewer and actually start

13:39developing and that's why we require the

13:41CPA to be done uh in this moment.

13:46Okay. Um there you can see where the CPA

13:49is located.

13:53Um the land use right now is

13:55undeveloped. Uh like you can see here

13:58there's some uh residential development

14:00to the north and to the east. Um the

14:03west and south of the site is not

14:06develop is undeveloped.

14:09In terms of zoning um there is the

14:12beauty like we mentioned before um the

14:16surrounded area is agricultural with

14:18some residential but even when the

14:20zoning still aa there's some residential

14:23already develop in some of those areas.

14:27In terms of the LUDA, um the CPA, uh the

14:31Luda is urban future, uh with some urban

14:34future to the north, to the west, and to

14:37the south of it. At one point, we

14:40thought about uh the possibility of

14:43cleaning up more of the urban future. Um

14:46but there is another environmental um

14:48issues in some of the other plats and

14:50that's why we decided um not to go any

14:54any or extend or expand anything else um

14:58and just to keep it within the um the

15:01site itself.

15:04Um in terms of water right now it's

15:07close to service and the applicant is

15:10going to extend the water services

15:13in terms of sewer is between fully serve

15:17and open sewer shed. The applicant is

15:19going to extend the sewer.

15:22Um part of the site is within the urban

15:26response time for fire services. Um we

15:30are assuming that after the connection

15:32uh the connectivity within the the area

15:36uh gets better then the urban response

15:38is going to be within the whole site.

15:42In terms of the findings the applicant

15:44is proposing to extend city water and

15:46sewer services. The southeastern part of

15:48the site is located with the urban

15:49response time for emergency and fire

15:51services. The site proximity to mayor

15:54and minor mayor and minor arterial

15:56street supports the appropriateness of

15:58an urban load. designation and that's

16:00why based on those findings we are

16:02recommending approval of this uh CPA.

16:05>> I don't know if you have any other

16:07questions.

16:08>> Thank you. Uh Commissioner Meek, this is

16:10Ward three. I do not have anyone signed

16:12up to speak.

16:13>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um yeah,

16:16this is one of the rare CPAs where staff

16:19recommends approval and basically

16:21cleanup item following a HUD that it

16:25needs to continue. Any other

16:27commissioners have any questions or

16:29comments?

16:31Okay. If not, then I would like to uh

16:34move to approve CPA 26-000013.

16:41>> A motion uh from Commissioner Meek to

16:44recommend the approval of CPA 2613,

16:48second by Commissioner Privet. Please

16:50cast your votes.

16:58That item is approved.

17:02Item nine, this is KC7845,

17:05final plat of Villas at Frisco Ridge.

17:08This is located north of Southwest 15th

17:10Street and east of South Frisco Road.

17:13>> Good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest

17:1511th Street. On behalf of the applicant,

17:17this is the final plat on the property

17:19that was just discussed. complies with

17:21the preliminary plan, two tees, both of

17:23which we agree to.

17:26>> All right. Uh, Commissioner Meek, this

17:28is W three. Again, I do not have anyone

17:30signed up to speak.

17:32>> Okay. I, uh, like I said, this is also

17:35following the CPA we just approved. Um,

17:39staff believes the final PL is matches

17:41the PUD. And so, do we have anyone

17:44signed up to speak? Okay, with that, I'd

17:46like to uh recommend move to approve

17:49C7845

17:51with the uh 2TE.

17:54All right, have a motion from

17:56Commissioner Me to approve the item

17:58subject to Tees. Second by Commissioner

18:00Newman. Please cast your votes.

18:06That item is approved.

18:09Item 10. Item 10 is case SP 616,

18:13application for a special permit to

18:15operate use unit 8250.15 moderate impact

18:18institutional at 2401 Northwest 23rd

18:21Street.

18:22>> Good afternoon, David Box, 52 525

18:25Northwest 11th Street here on behalf of

18:26the applicant. Uh this is a special

18:28permit in the northern portion of what

18:30was Shepard Mall years ago. Um Shepard

18:33Mall has been redeveloped over the

18:34course of I don't know maybe 20 plus

18:36years. There's been various governmental

18:38offices in I think there's previously

18:40been a school, I think it was Aztec

18:42Charter School, uh that I believe is now

18:44now gone. And so our client is a UTI.

18:46They are a skilled vocational school um

18:50specializing in HVAC type of work as

18:53well as some aircraft um engine repair

18:56work. So I think it's a great reuse of

18:58an existing structure. Everything will

18:59be contained within that building. Um

19:02there are no technical evaluations.

19:04Happy to answer any questions.

19:07>> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Powers, this is W

19:09two if you want to lead our discussion.

19:11I have one signed up to speak.

19:14>> Okay. Is it Samuel Pedton?

19:24>> Oh,

19:26good afternoon. Uh, my name is Samuel

19:28Pedon and I reside in the uh Cleveland

19:32area. It's right across the street from

19:35uh the uh center there. And

19:39[clears throat]

19:39I would like to uh

19:43well first of all uh the uh president of

19:45our uh community asked me to speak today

19:49and the [clears throat]

19:51we would like uh to support the center

19:55in any way we can and we would like to

19:59have some additional feedback into the

20:03center. Uh we [clears throat]

20:06we're in a a area that it has 6% higher

20:12income than the national average and and

20:17we don't really feel we have enough

20:20retail

20:22areas uh nearby that would serve our

20:26community as well. and some of the uh

20:30input from my neighbors. Uh you know, we

20:33would like a library and also uh uh some

20:39of the retail areas that we would

20:42support would be a Trader Joe's, a Ross

20:45Dress for Less, a DW DSW shoe store, a

20:50Nordstrom's rack, a movie theater, and a

20:54post office. and the cleaners back and a

20:58credit union and uh oh, also the post

21:01office back and uh we really do need

21:05retail. Um and as far as the uh the uh

21:13vocational

21:14uh goes, the only impact I see uh

21:18there's scads of parking. It's the

21:22infrastructure is great and the

21:24management of the uh facility is

21:28wonderful. They've done a lot of

21:30improvements uh both cosmetically and

21:34the in to the infrastructure and they

21:36should be supported. Um and anyway,

21:40thank you very much. Goodbye.

21:42>> Thank you, Mr. Peyton.

21:48He's my He's the favorite person I've

21:50ever had speak on one of my cases.

21:54>> I need to keep him around.

21:56>> All my cases.

21:57>> Okay. Anything else from commissioners?

22:02>> Anybody else have anything they want to

22:04say about this? I I did visit with the

22:06applicant about uh delivery times and so

22:09forth just to make sure that there's not

22:11going to be any impact on

22:13more Shepherd probably than Cleveland,

22:15the the neighborhood that butts up

22:17against it. But I was satisfied by the

22:18responses I got on that. So

22:21[clears throat] if nobody else has

22:22anything they want to say, I'll move

22:24approval of item number 10, SP616.

22:28>> A motion from Commissioner Powers to

22:30approve SP 616.

22:41It's been second by Commissioner Meek.

22:42Please cast your votes.

22:47[clears throat]

22:47>> That item is approved.

22:49>> Thank you.

22:50>> Item 11. Item 11 is PC 111018,

22:54application to reszone 4141 Northwest

22:5623rd Street from R1 to C1.

23:00Uh, Donna Burns, my mother. She's kind

23:03of hard of hearing. So,

23:05>> I'm a little hard of hearing, so I

23:06brought my hearing aid.

23:09I'm just here to answer any questions

23:11that you might have, Commissioners.

23:15>> Okay. Commissioner Powers, this is your

23:17ward if you want to lead the discussion.

23:20>> So, what what we have not visited prior

23:24to today. What use is it that you're

23:26contemplating for this property? What

23:29use are you contemplating for the

23:31>> C1

23:31>> property?

23:32>> No, but I mean the

23:33>> we had we don't have any advanced

23:35planning at this time.

23:37>> I want to keep my options open. That's

23:39the reason I want C1 because it gives me

23:41better options.

23:44>> So, I'm a little reluctant, I guess, to

23:46to do straight zoning on this property.

23:48I'm not a huge fan of residential

23:50conversions on um arterials. 23rd Street

23:55is a poster child for them and and

23:58everything that can go wrong with them.

24:00I don't necessarily have a problem with

24:03um a C1 base although office might be

24:07more likely but I I would if you are

24:11willing like to continue this matter two

24:13weeks so that we can visit and um

24:16perhaps come up with um a better way to

24:19approach this process.

24:22>> Did you get that? So continuence in two

24:24weeks. So she you can talk to her.

24:27>> Talk to who?

24:28>> Talk to you.

24:29>> Talk to me. Talk to me

24:31>> and your hearing aid powers. [laughter]

24:33Okay.

24:34>> Uh contain us for two weeks. Sure.

24:37>> Okay. Let's let's do that.

24:38>> Okay.

24:41>> So that would be the October 22nd

24:43meeting.

24:46>> October 22nd.

24:48>> Okay. So I'll move continuous to the

24:50October 22nd meeting.

24:52>> Okay. A motion from Commissioner Powers

24:54to continue the item to the October 22nd

24:56meeting.

25:02>> Second by Commissioner Milner. Please

25:03cast your votes.

25:07>> Thank you.

25:08>> All right, we'll see you again in two

25:09weeks.

25:14Item 12.

25:16Item 12 is case PC 111019

25:19[clears throat]

25:20application to reszone 11411 North Kelly

25:23Avenue from AA R1 and PUD 389 to R1ZL.

25:29Good afternoon. David Box, 525 Northwest

25:3211th Street here on behalf of the

25:33applicant uh who's also here with us. So

25:36this is an application for R1ZL. Um it's

25:40at I don't Can you can you go out show

25:41the aerial?

25:43That's okay. So Hefner and Kelly on the

25:46south side of Hefner and Kelly is u I

25:48think that whole quarter is now

25:49developing. I believe those are 40 foot

25:52lots. If you were to look east of Kelly

25:55um fairly significant density under

25:57development that um Khaledi did to the

26:00north of us are apartments zoned R4.

26:02It's the links one of the links

26:03projects. And then to the west it's all

26:06zoned uh straight R4 and is developed as

26:09duplexes. Uh so we're coming in with

26:11R1ZL which is less dense than to our

26:14north and to our west. Um it's

26:16compatible with the conference of plan.

26:17We would ask for your approval.

26:22>> Okay. Uh Commissioner Harrison, this is

26:25your ward. I do not have anyone signed

26:27up to speak. If you would like to start

26:29our discussion.

26:30>> Sure. Without anyone uh signed up to

26:32speak, I'm going to allow the

26:33commissioners kind of weigh in on this

26:34one.

26:40I'll start if that's good. Um,

26:44this is one parcel of a large parcel

26:47owned by one single entity. It's it is

26:52extremely large part of it to be

26:55straight zoned for from in my opinion to

26:58be straight zoned R1L.

27:00Um,

27:02I for one would like to see

27:06more of what it's going to look like

27:09platted prior to just approving the

27:12straight zoning.

27:15So, if we think about the questions

27:17being asked in a zoning case and that of

27:19a platting case, they're very different

27:20questions. The question of zoning is

27:22compatibility. And the way that we

27:24answer compatibility is we look at the

27:25world that exists around us. And to our

27:28west is straight R4. It's all developed

27:30now as duplexes. To the north is a very

27:33old PUB with multif family uh buildings

27:36that border our north. To the south and

27:38PUB 1801 are all I believe 40 foot lots.

27:42PUD 1841 has a component of multif

27:44family and to the east of Kelly has

27:46significant density via duplex. And so

27:48from a compatibility standpoint, I

27:51believe that the R1ZL represents the

27:54least dense product that's out there uh

27:56in recent developments. And so it is

27:59compatible.

28:00>> Is is R1ZL actually less dense than just

28:02a 40 foot lot

28:05>> what I'm saying is it's less dense than

28:06R4 duplex which

28:08>> and it is and I'm just

28:09>> less dense than R4 multif family on the

28:11north.

28:12>> And for me, this was an old golf course.

28:16uh tremendous number of trees, couple of

28:19creeks running through it.

28:21I just need to see what this is going to

28:23look like

28:25for me on the ground platted with the

28:28roads, the sheer density of the homes,

28:31and what we're looking at rather than

28:33just for me to just say R1ZL and this

28:36many acres, 455 homes.

28:42>> And and I

28:43>> So the question is if we if we as a city

28:46want to get away from PUDS like like Oh,

28:51this speaking for staff. I mean, the

28:53whole point of the code update is to get

28:55away. So, it's like, well, then just

28:56require PDS for everything, but if R1ZL,

28:59which is less dense than what touches us

29:01to the west and touches us to the north,

29:03isn't appropriate here, I guess I'd ask,

29:05what is

29:06>> R1?

29:06>> Okay. Well, we believe that the step

29:09down in density to R1L is absolutely

29:11appropriate and frankly more in line

29:12with what was approved in PUD 1801 to

29:15the south.

29:16>> Less dense than what's east of Kelly.

29:21So is your response actually that you'd

29:23rather take a denial than than

29:26>> I mean no we don't want it denied but I

29:28mean I I just if are we going to start

29:32requiring every straight zoning

29:33application to have a companion plat

29:35because it doesn't always work like that

29:36from a contract standpoint and the

29:38timing standpoint and the money needed

29:40to spend on engineering to to bring a

29:41plat together. There's certainly not a

29:43requirement in the municipal code to

29:45bring a plat within a reasonzoning

29:46application. No, it was just a

29:48suggestion from me. I would have liked

29:49to see that. Um, I would say that this

29:52is a unique piece of property. Like I

29:54said, it's it's more than twice as big

29:56as what's being zoned right now under

29:58the same ownership. So, I just wanted to

30:01see how it would be compatible with the

30:03entire development.

30:06H

30:06>> happy to take two weeks, I guess. I I

30:08just again, they're different questions.

30:11>> Well, you can go down the road and see

30:13where we stand, but

30:14>> I don't really need to see a show of

30:15hands, but The zoning is either

30:17appropriate or it's not. The plate

30:18either complies with zoning or it

30:20doesn't. They're they're [clears throat]

30:20independent of each other.

30:22>> It's an awful lot of R1CL.

30:24>> I think that the scale is

30:26>> it's way less than what's to the west.

30:28It's all duplex. All duplex to the west.

30:32>> Yeah. But and that's up border in

30:33Broadway extension. Not that you know it

30:36is what it is, but

30:39just like to see the big plan for what

30:41this used to be as a golf course.

30:44Anything [clears throat]

30:49any other commissioners agree, disagree?

30:53>> I totally agree.

30:56>> I agree.

30:59>> Okay.

31:02>> So, if he's uh two weeks,

31:05>> I guess we'll take two weeks. We'll

31:06bring a pretty picture.

31:09All

31:11right, Commissioner Harris, I think

31:12we're ready for a motion then.

31:14>> Move that we defer uh PC 111019 for two

31:18weeks, which will put us on the

31:21>> 22nd.

31:22>> Yep. So, we have a motion from

31:24Commissioner Harrison to defer the item

31:26to the October 22nd meeting, second by

31:29Commissioner Powers. Please cast your

31:31votes.

31:38That item is deferred.

31:41Item 13.

31:43This is SPUD 1871. Application to

31:46reszone 237 Southwest 43rd Street from

31:49R1.

31:52>> Good afternoon. Mark Zitzau Johnson and

31:54Associates 1 Sheridan Avenue. Uh Jared,

31:57if you could go to the site plan. Uh

31:59this is a bit of a unique lot. It's a

32:02corner lot. We're asking to allow for

32:04two dwelling units on it, which uh I

32:06think is less dense than some of the

32:07standard practices in the core for

32:09single family. The uniqueness here is

32:11there's actually an existing house on

32:13the back portion of the lot uh that is

32:16being looked at to be sold. Uh and they

32:18want to leave the front portion of the

32:20lot to build back a new single family

32:23home. So that's the reason uh for the

32:25split. A lot split was filed and it was

32:27caught at that uh point and that's when

32:29we were engaged to file a resoning

32:30application. So staff has recommended

32:32approval. There are no tees and we would

32:34ask for your approval.

32:36>> Okay.

32:37>> Commissioner Privet, this is your ward

32:39if you want to lead the discussion.

32:40>> No,

32:41>> no one signed up to speak.

32:42>> Okay. I was going to ask why it wasn't

32:44just a lot split, but answer that

32:46question. So, um I'm fine with it and

32:48nobody signed up to speak. If anybody

32:50else has anything, let me know. But if

32:52not, I'll recommend approval. I I just

32:54want to say that the just two things

32:56that were in there and just question

32:57why, but why did you strike the site

32:59first fencing and then the other was on

33:03the sidewalks.

33:04>> I assume the sight proof thing was to

33:06get away from not having a backyard

33:08fence.

33:08>> Yeah. So, uh I mean we struck sight

33:10proof fencing because it's still single

33:12family next to single family and so

33:16whatever somebody chooses to put up as

33:18their fence, they would be allowed to.

33:20It'd be the same as the adjacent owners

33:22and the sidewalks. I mean, we're just

33:25per

33:27uh

33:28>> Oh, so if you go back to the aerial,

33:30>> there is no there is no sidewalks in

33:32there.

33:33>> Yeah. So, if you look at this entire

33:36neighborhood, there are no sidewalks.

33:39And so, we know that one home is going

33:41to go in. So, you would end up with like

33:42a 100 total feet of sidewalk on just the

33:45corner. That existing homes still

33:46wouldn't be required to put in

33:48sidewalks. The existing home's still in

33:49the application, so it wouldn't need to

33:52unless it got rebuilt, it wouldn't have

33:54to have a new sidewalk.

33:55>> Correct.

33:55>> I just This neighborhood,

33:59good spot to start sidewalk.

34:02>> Well, staff recommended approval. They

34:04didn't think so.

34:05>> I think they think so.

34:08>> I guess they could have asked us, but

34:09they didn't.

34:10>> Some say always sidewalks no matter

34:12what. But, you know, I'm I'm one of

34:15those that, you know, there's none of

34:17them in there. I why start now? But I

34:20also live in a neighborhood that's all

34:21sidewalks, but there some houses that

34:23don't have sidewalk, which blows me

34:25away. Like

34:26>> I think it's going to be a prime

34:28location and I don't know if it's on the

34:30radar to get

34:31>> it is kind of a walkable area. Yeah.

34:33>> Yep.

34:34>> I mean, this is a place that should have

34:36sidewalks. I'll give you that for sure,

34:39>> but 100 foot of sidewalk, I don't know

34:41if it's going to do anything, but you

34:42know,

34:43>> got to start somewhere.

34:44>> Got to start somewhere, obviously. Yeah.

34:54I'm not going to die on that horse, but

34:56whatever. So,

34:59>> I'll that all said, I'll recommend

35:02approval of SPD 1871.

35:06>> A motion from Commissioner Privet to

35:09recommend the item city council for

35:12approval.

35:16Seconded by Commissioner Meek.

35:18Please cast your votes.

35:24Item is recommended for approval.

35:25>> Thank you.

35:28>> Item 14.

35:30Item 14 is uh case SPD 1835, application

35:35to reszone 901 Northwest 31st Street

35:37from R1.

35:43>> Hello. uh Fallon Brooks Magnus Jolly

35:45Design 11 Northeast 11th representing

35:47the applicant. Um we have a single

35:49family home. We're adding a accessory

35:52dwelling unit to the rear. Uh we don't

35:55have any technical evaluations. We've

35:57worked with the neighborhood. We've

35:58talked with Commissioner Powers. Um and

36:01I think we've made a lot of concessions.

36:04So we are ready to hear what the

36:06commission has to say.

36:09>> Okay. Um,

36:11Commissioner Powers. Um, this is Ward.

36:14>> I have someone signed up to speak.

36:16>> I do. I do have two signed up to speak.

36:18>> Let's hear from them.

36:19>> Okay, we'll start with Frank Titus.

36:30>> I'm Frank Titus. I uh live a half block

36:33uh east of this place and I just really

36:37want to make a statement because I can't

36:39hear too well in this hard room. Uh if

36:43you all decide to pass it uh at least

36:47make the Francis Street, no parking on

36:49the east side of the street. It's a

36:52hightraic street for Harding uh Fine

36:56Arts Academy going to 30th Street. Thank

37:00you.

37:00>> I'll just I'll just respond to that.

37:02That would be outside our purview, but

37:04that request can be you can submit a

37:06request to the traffic commission and

37:08they could review that. So,

37:13okay. Uh

37:17Jennifer AOK.

37:24>> Hi, my name is Jennifer AOK. We live

37:26directly east across Francis Street from

37:30this uh proposal. Uh we are opposed to

37:35this application. Uh the lot simply

37:38isn't big enough. It's not even big

37:40enough for an ADU, much less uh a second

37:44income producing unit. The parking

37:47provided for does not address parking

37:49for the existing unit. It provides

37:52parking spaces only for the new unit

37:55which putting in the new unit is what

37:57eliminates the parking for the existing

37:59unit. We are or the character of the

38:03neighborhood is pedestrian and walkable.

38:05We're two blocks from PO and the entire

38:08area is R1. Everyone around it is R1.

38:12There's been no attempt to accept any

38:14real written liability for the future

38:17maintenance of the alley which they are

38:19opening up to accommodate their parking.

38:23Um just a yeah promise I'll take care of

38:25it which we feel like there's got to be

38:27some kind of ability

38:31to maintain that alleyway. And there's

38:35also some talk I guess about the

38:36neighbor directly to the west. So, it's

38:39unclear to us how far this alley is

38:41going to go and who is going to be

38:44responsible for

38:46constructing it and for maintaining it.

38:49And this has gone on for like six months

38:51with very little progress. Um, we did

38:55have a meeting, but there was nothing

38:57prepared for us at that time despite a

39:00pretty long extension. Um, this second

39:03unit simply doesn't fit. It doesn't fit

39:06on that parcel. It doesn't fit in with

39:08our neighborhood and we would ask that

39:10you deny this spud and preserve the

39:12character of what we consider our very

39:14special neighborhood.

39:17>> Thank you.

39:23>> Is that all?

39:24>> That's all.

39:25>> Okay.

39:31>> Okay.

39:34Um so we have met um on this

39:38um

39:40twice I think but at least once since

39:43the last meeting. We've met once since

39:45the last meeting. Um

39:48I I

39:50guess I don't agree that there's been

39:53very little change to it. I think that

39:56the concerns that were raised have been

39:58addressed.

40:00Um

40:04the um controls that are in place seem

40:07to me to be adequate for what is being

40:09proposed here. It's a very tight lot.

40:12It's small. It's tight. There's no

40:15question about that. But um for what is

40:19being proposed, I think they have

40:21addressed parking. Their access will be

40:25not off the street but off the alleyway.

40:29um which will have to be improved at

40:30least to the width of this lot. Whether

40:33other neighbors to the west join and and

40:36the uh improvements are

40:40uh continued further west remains to be

40:42seen. I guess um the maintenance of

40:45alleys is what it is. You know, it falls

40:48to uh the property owners that adjoin it

40:52unless the city chooses to step in and

40:54take control, which thus far they have

40:56not. Um there is one thing about the um

41:01application that I would like to ask the

41:04applicant about and that is

41:06um language in the MDS that the dwelling

41:10units can be attached or detached. I

41:13mean we've solved that question, haven't

41:15we? We know that they will be detached.

41:17>> That that may be a question for staff.

41:20That was something they started having

41:21me do a while ago. But I'm asking you

41:24>> you

41:24>> the reason to have them attached versus

41:26detached. Well, this is a detached

41:28accessory dwelling

41:28>> and I'm saying we know it's going to be

41:30detached.

41:31>> Yes. I I think this keeps it from being

41:34attached to the back of the house which

41:36>> I don't see any

41:39>> Okay. You actually Sarah Welch Planning

41:41Department, you actually um just found

41:42something that's related to something we

41:44are going to ask for as a TE. Um we

41:46realized after the staff report was

41:48printed that it still requested the two

41:50family residential use. So we were going

41:52to we were going to say probably just to

41:53go ahead and strike that use and then um

41:56instead of u and just say that it's an

41:58R1 base. So the TE we think that is

42:01needed would be to modify the base

42:04zoning district to the R1 single family

42:06residential district and strike the two

42:09family residential use unit. And then I

42:12think we would also need to add what you

42:14just said, including strike the um to

42:18strike the

42:21trying to think how we'd say it in our

42:22TE to strike the ability for the

42:24dwellings to be attached.

42:29>> Okay,

42:29>> that the number of dwelling units is

42:32limited in item seven to two dwelling

42:34units. So, I think that gets us there

42:36with the the home plus an ADU.

42:41>> And just just to clarify to the

42:43commission, the this would actually be

42:45allowed under the new ADU ADU ordinance.

42:47We're not going over that square

42:48footage. The reason we're asking for a

42:50spud is primarily lot coverage and kind

42:53of height as well. Um

42:56lot coverage because of the pool and the

42:58patio area that's really bringing us up

43:00higher. That's why we can't keep it

43:01under we had a real hard time getting it

43:03to 60%. So that's another caveat. I'm

43:06perfectly amendable to all of those uh

43:08tees.

43:12>> As am I.

43:14>> Miss Powers.

43:15>> I I'm Josh Farmer. I'm Jennifer's

43:17husband. I I have a couple of questions

43:18after that if you don't mind.

43:20>> Sure. Um,

43:22and I would, Miss Powers, we did meet

43:25once during this time frame. And but I

43:29would point out that that was first

43:32asked by the the

43:35commission to be done starting back in

43:37May. We didn't hear from anybody until

43:40August. And in August, there was no new

43:43plan. We showed up to this meeting at uh

43:47the neighborhood association. She

43:49appeared by video which was fine. No new

43:52plan, no new discussions. All we did was

43:54discuss the same things we argued about

43:55here last time. So I would say that

43:58there was nothing new presented there.

44:00What was new was what we got a week

44:02before this.

44:04So after giving three continuences,

44:08we got like a week to look at this thing

44:10before we got to even get a chance to

44:13reply.

44:14with that.

44:19The alley is a big concern.

44:22She um says she's that, you know,

44:25they're going to take responsibility for

44:26it, but who else is going to take

44:28responsibility for it? They're asking

44:30for the spud, but the responsibility in

44:33this uh from the city planners says that

44:36it's everybody in that that's adjacent

44:39to her.

44:41So, and I already know that the the one

44:43directly north of her does not agree to

44:45that. The one to the west says she likes

44:48the idea, but they haven't said that

44:50they're willing to put in the money to

44:51help maintain that alley. And I would

44:54give you an example would be Plaza

44:57right there behind it. I have a friend

44:59of mine that lives in those duplexes. If

45:01you come off of uh McKinley,

45:0416th of McKinley, you turn right,

45:06there's an alleyway right there. You go

45:08down that alleyway, they've got four or

45:10five brand new construction. That

45:12alleyway is a disaster. I don't even

45:14want to drive my car down it. So, I

45:17would like to see some kind of agreement

45:19as to who's going to maintain the alley

45:21as it's directly across from my house.

45:24And I read the uh information about the

45:27flood and drainage requirements.

45:31I guess my question is uh on the flood

45:33and drainage study required, when is

45:35that due? Is that before we start

45:37breaking everything up? Uh because that

45:40is where that hole my property is higher

45:42than hers. So everything is going down

45:44that way. If it if that the way it is

45:47now, it goes down to the left

45:50south and then down 30 uh 30th. It's

45:53kind of the way that water flows.

45:56When we start tearing that all up, what

45:58is that going to do? Um

46:01I do have a question about the lot size

46:02itself. The record itself is uh has

46:06different numbers. If you go to the

46:09county assessor's website, it says the

46:12lot size is 0.189,

46:15which if you did the math on that would

46:17be 5172 square feet, which would be even

46:21smaller than what she's already

46:23proposing and I think would throw it out

46:25of all kinds of requirements.

46:28Um,

46:29the

46:32map that she put up there, I don't know

46:33where that came from, but it was uh 140

46:37by 37.5,

46:39which comes out to the number that was

46:40listed as 5250 square ft. Again, tiny

46:44compared to the other uh

46:47that lot is so small.

46:50If you look at all the uh houses around

46:52it, there's nothing anywhere near that

46:54size trying to squeeze onto that thin

46:56lot like that. So, it's definitely going

46:59to change the consistency of that corner

47:01for sure. And as my wife pointed out,

47:04we're three two and a half blocks from

47:06PO. We had uh two weeks ago, I can't

47:10remember what it was, but again, every

47:12time there's an event in PO, all of the

47:15traffic comes on our streets. That's why

47:17our side of the street on 30th is no

47:19parking because that all the way down

47:21our street all the way to Francis almost

47:23to Western is parking. Everybody's

47:25parking from PO on our streets

47:28and we're just trying to add more

47:30density where there's already not enough

47:31room.

47:38So, I guess I just think that there's

47:39some questions as to the actual lot size

47:43that maintenance of the alley. Um, I

47:46would like to see the flood report and

47:48then there was another report that was

47:50requested. Um, I just don't know when

47:52those are due. Um,

47:55so again, we didn't have a lot of time

47:56to prepare for this. We'd been against

47:57it from the beginning uh based off of

47:59the size of it and that lot size. Um, so

48:03with that, I would just ask you to vote

48:04no.

48:05>> Okay.

48:05>> Thank you.

48:06>> We'll we'll see if we can get a couple

48:07of those questions answered. As far as

48:09the lot size, I mean, I

48:13>> go off the deep.

48:14>> What what's on the assessor's website is

48:16>> just a number. We don't know how

48:18accurate that is.

48:20>> Hardly ever.

48:21>> Um, but I am going to ask Mr. Lodge to

48:24come up and as he comes up here,

48:27>> Barry, if you could talk to

48:30on alley improvements and post post

48:33construction, who's responsible for

48:35those? and then also talk about what

48:39uh drainage studies and reports are

48:42required for uh a development like this.

48:48>> Good afternoon, Barry Lodge Public

48:50Works. Pardon [clears throat] me. As far

48:53as the alley is concerned, uh, as we've

48:56discussed numerous times, uh, at at at

48:59these meetings, alleys are kind of odd

49:01animals where they when when they're

49:03constructed, they do have to be

49:05constructed in accordance with the the

49:07city standards.

49:09Maintenance when it's done the way

49:11specified is adjacent property owners.

49:15That would be there's probably is

49:17something that needs to be worked out

49:18between the the property owners. Uh

49:22it'll be the ones that construct it

49:24would be this project would be

49:26responsible for all of the construction.

49:29They would then

49:30>> within their tract,

49:32>> excuse me,

49:33>> to their tract

49:33>> within their tract or adjacent their

49:35track.

49:35>> They don't have to construct past their

49:37property line. It would be from uh from

49:40the the city street to their uh property

49:44line would be all that they are

49:45responsible for. So there's there's not

49:47going to be any requirement that it go

49:49beyond that. Uh and then the maintenance

49:52would at that point is going to be uh on

49:56the private property owners as well.

49:59As far as the drainage study, the the

50:01the note that's in the staff report is

50:04kind of our boilerplate

50:06uh comment that that stays in on every

50:09staff report. There wouldn't be a

50:11specific flood study for this, but in

50:14accordance with the drainage ordinance,

50:17we would require that they come in with

50:19calculations. I I am presuming on one

50:22this size that they would submit

50:24calculations to support a waiver of the

50:27detention requirement based on chapter

50:2916.

50:31Because of what's being added on here,

50:33any new construction would require uh

50:36detention. So, they would have to go one

50:38one way or the other. They'd either have

50:40to provide all of the drainage

50:41calculations and on-site detention for

50:44the additional impervious area or

50:46provide the calculations that would

50:48support a waiver of that detention

50:51requirement. That study would be done by

50:54uh registered engineer would show where

50:56the runoff is going to go from that

50:59site, what the impact to to the public

51:02street or public storm sewer system

51:03would be

51:05>> and then city engineering staff would

51:08review those calculations and determine

51:10if a waiver was appropriate or if they

51:13did need to uh construct attention.

51:16>> That's correct. We would re our staff

51:18would review those calculations and we

51:20would determine at that point whether

51:21the uh the waiver should be granted or

51:24not.

51:25>> Okay, Miss AOK, you

51:26>> good question. So, are they are we using

51:29the existing driveway that was built by

51:31the neighbor to the north? Is that the

51:33alley? Is that the entrance ramp now or

51:35is it going to be demolished and

51:37reconstructed?

51:39I am not familiar with the driveway that

51:41is there now. So I can't comment on

51:43whether it's constructed to the city

51:45standards

51:46>> and

51:46>> but by our stud have to be constructed

51:49to the city standards. So if it doesn't

51:50meet essentially a 6-in concrete uh

51:54section then it would be it would have

51:56to be demolished and reconstructed

51:57>> and it's not in line with the alley

51:59easement.

52:00>> It's not where it's

52:01>> it's going to go north of there.

52:03>> Okay.

52:04>> It's like partially overlapping a little

52:06bit or no. [snorts]

52:08I don't think so.

52:12>> I was trying. Do you know

52:15>> it is as it is shown on the side. It's

52:19in the alley but it's not taking up all

52:21of it.

52:22>> So would that drive is adjacent to what

52:24that current driveway?

52:28>> It would go in place of it because that

52:29current driveway is not

52:30>> Miss Brooks. Could you come to the

52:31microphone please?

52:33>> So it's it's not built to city street

52:35standards currently. the owner of that

52:37property built a driveway with a part a

52:40permit drawing that was really not

52:43representative of what the actual

52:44condition is in real life and so it kind

52:48of sailed through permitting and they

52:50got to build it but it is it is in the

52:53alley it is in the public rideway. It

52:54does not meet city street standards. We

52:56would essentially be going in deleting

52:58that new 12-oot drive as it's shown

53:00there and we would widen it out and pave

53:03it properly to city street standards. So

53:05we would be taking what they've built,

53:07improving upon it, and giving it back to

53:10them.

53:11>> Yeah. But now it's an alleyway used for

53:14>> right

53:14>> conveyance there. Like you couldn't

53:15park. They couldn't park in it.

53:17>> They have paved that to a point where

53:19the parking is now behind that house. So

53:22that's

53:25>> okay.

53:26>> We're just essentially uh paving the

53:28approach for them.

53:30>> This is the approach. So it is in

53:33the current driveway that is there is in

53:35the place where you will be building a

53:37new

53:38>> alley improvement.

53:40>> Yes. Okay. Thanks.

53:46>> Okay. Anything else from commissioners?

53:52>> Anybody else have any comments or

53:53questions or concerns they want to

53:55voice? If not, I'm going to move

53:58approval of item number 14, SPD 1835

54:02with the TE suggested by staff um

54:07limiting the the um

54:12base zoning to R1, eliminating the two

54:15family residential use and uh clarifying

54:19that the dwelling units of which there

54:23will be only two um will be detached.

54:28>> All right. A motion from Commissioner

54:30Powers to recommend approval of the item

54:32city council subject to the technical

54:34evaluation.

54:43Second by Commissioner Milner. Please

54:45cast your votes.

54:53That item is recommended for approval.

55:03>> Item 16.

55:05>> Item 16 is SPUD 1852, application to

55:09reszone 228 Northeast 14th Street from

55:12R1 to SPUD1 1852.

55:19We have an applicant present.

55:31>> Good afternoon, uh, Clausman Phillip. I

55:33am, uh, representing Brett, uh, Brett

55:35Smith, uh, applicant on this or the

55:37owner of this property. And, uh, you've

55:41seen it before. The application is, uh,

55:43similar to the one we had at the last

55:46hearing. We had a meeting with the

55:47neighbors um on last Saturday. Uh we um

55:53Commissioner Powers and I spoke a little

55:54bit after the meeting and there are a

55:56few um provisions that we are willing to

56:00add to the uh MDS uh to maybe you know

56:05provide a little bit more assurance that

56:06the um houses that we're proposing will

56:09kind of fit the neighborhood character.

56:11um specifically um requiring porches on

56:13the front. um requiring that garages be

56:15detached

56:17um for the ADU that the ADU would um

56:22comply with the city adopted city ADU uh

56:26standards and then we're also um

56:31oh

56:35>> comply with all of them because I don't

56:36know what all of them are to with

56:38respect to yours but with respect to

56:40privacy so that there are not windows

56:42overlooking neighbors yards

56:44Yeah, I think I I reviewed the um

56:47requirements. I think the only change

56:49from the base uh ADU ordinance is that

56:53it requires 50 foot wide lot and we'd be

56:55a 35 foot lot. So yeah, but yeah, all

56:58the size uh height, you know, all those

57:04requirements.

57:06Um and then uh a landscape requirement

57:08for um

57:11to add a 1 and a half inch caliber tree

57:14in front of each um house and the tree

57:18be specified from a species that's

57:21listed in the trees and plants city

57:23list. So that's um

57:27I think those are my updates on this,

57:29but I'd love to answer any questions you

57:31may have.

57:33>> Okay.

57:35Um, Commissioner Harrison, this is Ward

57:37seven. I have I have four signed up to

57:40speak.

57:40>> Go ahead and hear from the neighbors,

57:42please.

57:42>> Okay, we'll start with Luke Harvey.

57:54>> Thanks for

57:56>> being here and doing this and and uh

57:59letting me speak today. So, um I didn't

58:03really have anything specific prepared,

58:06but uh I grew up in New York. My wife's

58:08from Dallas. We've lived in seven

58:11different US cities in four different

58:12countries in the last uh 20 years. And

58:16when we moved to Oklahoma City like

58:17eight years ago, the plan was get the

58:20bonuses from work, get out of here in

58:23two years. Okay. [laughter]

58:25Um, you know, just media doesn't do you

58:28guys any favors. Uh, you know, until we

58:31got the ring there two years ago. Um,

58:34and I just I was like, "Yeah, I'm going

58:36to get to a bigger city, whatever." And

58:37now it's been eight years. And I I

58:39couldn't picture living anywhere else. I

58:41love Oklahoma City. Um, it's great just

58:44great town. Um, and when we moved, we

58:47looked at uh Messa Park, we looked at

58:50Heritage Hills, Crown Heights, Edgemeir.

58:53Um, and we looked at class in North

58:55Highland Park where where we live on

58:57Northeast 14th. I live uh right across

58:59the street from where they're looking to

59:01develop. Uh, not right across, it's like

59:03right across

59:07like I think two houses to the left, but

59:09I can see it. I work from home. It's

59:10like I'd be looking at it every day. So,

59:12it's it's right there. Um, and we had

59:16landed on, we got down to Heritage Hills

59:18and Classen North Island Park when we

59:20chose where to buy a home. And the

59:23reasons were a lot of those

59:24neighborhoods are great. We also looked

59:25at PO and Plaza. Um, just small lots,

59:30houses really close together,

59:33um, not as close to downtown. Um, and

59:38Classen North Highland Park gave us

59:40space. Uh, we have almost an acre. We've

59:42got fruit trees planted in the city.

59:45Like I can see downtown and I almost

59:47have like a little farm, a bunch of

59:49stuff growing. Uh paw paws and apples, a

59:53few different varieties and peaches and

59:54all kinds of stuff. Um there is a a more

1:00:00like dense housing unit down on the

1:00:02corner and then they've started if you

1:00:04go all the way down into like the

1:00:06culdesac at the end of 14th they have

1:00:08put in more modern closer together town

1:00:12homes that look a lot more like some of

1:00:14the other neighborhoods that I

1:00:15mentioned. But the rest of Northeast

1:00:1714th Street and really the rest of class

1:00:20in North Highland Park is a little

1:00:21neighborhood. It's just three blocks.

1:00:23It's all big historic homes. Uh ours was

1:00:26built in 1915 and they're bu they're

1:00:29they're larger lots too. Um like our our

1:00:32lot is three it's like three lots but it

1:00:34was sold as one. Um so I don't eight

1:00:38years ago I don't think a lot of the

1:00:39developers have caught on to that. So um

1:00:42so it would it would drastically change

1:00:47the character of our street and our

1:00:50neighborhood. putting the like cramming

1:00:53the the smaller units in there. Uh I do

1:00:57appreciate they seem like good guys. We

1:00:59met with them virtually and um you know

1:01:02they changed it from apartments to the

1:01:05they're going to do like the four units.

1:01:08Um but it's I mean I still just looking

1:01:11at it and I I told you guys that on the

1:01:13phone like I was looking across the

1:01:15street at it and I'm like there's no way

1:01:17you're going to put those on there, you

1:01:18know. Um, it look it does look pretty

1:01:22and I told him that kind of it reminds

1:01:24me of Wheeler. I said, but like our

1:01:26neighborhood's not Wheeler, you know?

1:01:28It's like we got big historic homes, big

1:01:31lots. Um, and it's very different. I

1:01:33even drove and looked at some of the

1:01:34stuff they've done. Um, like classing

1:01:3710pen. It's just like it's way

1:01:40different. It's like it's like right up

1:01:41on the street. It's, you know, our

1:01:44stuff's all set back. Um, so,

1:01:48uh, do appreciate you guys changing up

1:01:52the original plan. Uh, it does look

1:01:56pretty. I just still don't think it

1:01:58belongs in the middle of Northeast 14th

1:02:01Street. You know, it's just not, it

1:02:02would look really odd, honestly. It'd

1:02:04look out of place compared to everything

1:02:06else on that street. And then like our

1:02:08neighbor that just moved in, Emma, there

1:02:10I mean it would be like like where I

1:02:13grew up. So, in Buffalo, you have uh row

1:02:16houses and it's like they're they're

1:02:19nice, you know, they're they're brick

1:02:20and they're all together, but like you

1:02:22can hear what your neighbors doing. Like

1:02:24you share a wall, you know, with their

1:02:26home and it would almost be like that.

1:02:28So, just big attraction for me, for my

1:02:32family, staying in Oklahoma City. Is

1:02:33that time?

1:02:34>> 30 seconds left.

1:02:35>> Oh. Uh uh staying in Oklahoma City all

1:02:38this time and the plan is to stay until

1:02:40at least until the kids graduate high

1:02:41school. So, another 10 years is really

1:02:43class of North Highland Park and the the

1:02:46nice big lots, uh, the historic homes,

1:02:50you know. So, yeah, it's all I got. So,

1:02:53>> thank you, Mr. Harvey.

1:02:56K. Bennett.

1:03:09K. then at 233 Northeast 15th Street,

1:03:12Oklahoma City. The picture up here is

1:03:15pretty, but that's not the reality. Um,

1:03:19these would be set back 30 feet to match

1:03:22up with the others. That's the green

1:03:24area that's in front. It's an extra wide

1:03:26strip. Looks a little different than

1:03:28what's shown here. Gives Classen North

1:03:30Highland Park its name. It's parked, not

1:03:33parked. Because of that, these actually

1:03:35would be two very small houses, barely

1:03:38any larger than a trailer house.

1:03:42I think that's a picture you need to

1:03:43have in your head. Extremely different.

1:03:45We have met in person with the applicant

1:03:49a couple of times. has been extremely

1:03:51frustrating for neighbors because rather

1:03:53than the applicant answering our

1:03:55questions and talking, the answers were

1:03:58always about that they hadn't had time

1:04:01to talk yet to think about that or at

1:04:03the most recent October 3rd meeting

1:04:06saying that they could include changes,

1:04:08which some of those were presented here

1:04:10today. However, at the conclusion of the

1:04:12October 3rd meeting with neighbors, we

1:04:14were told that they would not be making

1:04:16any changes. At the same time, those

1:04:19meetings have been attended by a

1:04:22planning commissioner who has advocated

1:04:24strongly for this applicant against

1:04:27neighbors, stating that this was going

1:04:30to happen to us pretty much regardless.

1:04:33Our commissioner Harrison

1:04:36initially told me it was fine to call

1:04:38you at work because where else would I

1:04:40reach you? That you would walk us

1:04:42through the process. It was fine. We

1:04:44didn't know it. But then after this

1:04:46August 1 meeting, attended by three of

1:04:49the planning commissioners here, my

1:04:52calls ring once and are disconnected.

1:04:55Other neighbors have called and not had

1:04:56their calls returned. Our letters did

1:04:59not show up in your packet even though

1:05:01they were sent before the Friday at noon

1:05:03deadline. These would be a frustrating

1:05:06series of coincidences if it wasn't for

1:05:09a comment made to me after the recording

1:05:12stopped at the August 1st meeting where

1:05:14Janice Powers said to me that this would

1:05:17pass through planning and Kamal would

1:05:19push it right through city council.

1:05:24>> I do not have recorded proof of that.

1:05:27So, I have not spoke out of it on it

1:05:29before, but I think it needs to be in

1:05:31the public record to know what we have

1:05:33been working with.

1:05:35Thank you for your time. Please consider

1:05:37this. I'm leaving it in your hands. I

1:05:40believe there are people serving here

1:05:42with integrity who are actually working

1:05:44to protect neighborhoods.

1:05:46Right.

1:05:47>> Thank you, Miss Bennett.

1:05:49Derek Ellis.

1:05:58Uh, good afternoon, commissioners. Derek

1:05:59Ellis, 214 Northeast 14th Street. Been

1:06:02up here a few other times. I'm strictly

1:06:05just asking you that you follow the city

1:06:06ordinance that Mayor Holt signed on May

1:06:0820th, 2025 saying ADUs need to be 50

1:06:12foot wide lots. They also are talk that

1:06:15whole study is talking about keeping

1:06:16neighborhood character. Walnut to Styles

1:06:19on our street. We have 30 30 lots.

1:06:22Twothirds are 50 foot. The rest of them

1:06:23are all above 50 foot. You're asking now

1:06:26to put two 30-foot lots in the middle of

1:06:28our street. That is again a 30% decrease

1:06:31from our current smallest lots. Just

1:06:33asking you to read the city ordinance,

1:06:35go based off the study, and just apply

1:06:37it to our neighborhood. That's all I'm

1:06:39asking for. Thank you.

1:06:42>> Uh and then last, I have Abigail

1:06:45Michelweight.

1:06:52Hello. Um, I live at 316 Northeast, uh,

1:06:5616th Street across from Horn Homestead.

1:06:59Um, I wasn't here at the last meeting,

1:07:01but I heard it was tied. And the meeting

1:07:04before, we were all like, "Yay, you guys

1:07:06listen to us. You're not going to pass

1:07:08it." And we were all, you know, it was

1:07:10like a movie. We're all really excited

1:07:11and we wanted to celebrate. And then I

1:07:14heard it was tied last time. So, I'm

1:07:17going to appeal to try to get it untied.

1:07:20Um, one thing I just really want to ask

1:07:23is

1:07:25this is an R1 lot and I can understand.

1:07:31So, they come in, they buy an R1 lot,

1:07:34they don't think the neighborhood's

1:07:36going to care, they come to you guys and

1:07:38you guys say, "Okay, change it to a

1:07:41different lot. Put multiple units on

1:07:42it." My question is

1:07:46what's going to happen if you guys pass

1:07:48this? We have other lots that are R1. So

1:07:52in a month now somebody else is going to

1:07:54come in and say hey you know look at

1:07:56this picture look at this change it to

1:07:59this to that to that. When will it stop?

1:08:03My question is what I have not seen

1:08:07anything extraordinary to make a change

1:08:11like if there was an extraordinary

1:08:12reason well and and I I'm sure the

1:08:15neighborhood would then even get behind

1:08:17it and be like well you know let's

1:08:19change the R1 to something else and

1:08:23there would be a reason for it but for I

1:08:26have not seen the applicant show us a

1:08:29reason other than a monetary reason cuz

1:08:33you guys came and said, "Hey, why don't

1:08:36you just do a single house with a with a

1:08:40garage?" Well, the problem is that's

1:08:44probably not going to make money for

1:08:45their investors or whatever they have.

1:08:46And I get that and I'm I'm sorry, but

1:08:49that's not an extraordinary reason. And

1:08:52so

1:08:54I'm just saying you you guys have in

1:08:56your hands Oklahoma City and there's so

1:08:58many of us who have neighborhoods with

1:09:01R1 ones, R2's or this. There has to be

1:09:03reasons to change. It can't just be

1:09:07we're going to change it so we can kind

1:09:09of make more money here and there. And

1:09:11especially when you have a community

1:09:13that has really come together. I mean,

1:09:15you should see our group boards. I mean,

1:09:16it's we're we're doing everything we

1:09:19can. Um, like I said, I I I remember

1:09:22last the first time I was here, there

1:09:23was somebody who came up and complained

1:09:26about a big structure and you guys said,

1:09:28"Hey guys, too late. You should have

1:09:30come when the zoning was done." And

1:09:33we're here. We're here and we care so

1:09:37much about our neighborhood. And so I

1:09:40understand it was tied last time, but

1:09:43this neighborhood is a very special

1:09:46neighborhood. And you do not have many

1:09:48of those left here. As I said before,

1:09:51it's right on the Horn Homestead. Um,

1:09:54which is really the the the cornerstone

1:09:57to all of Oklahoma. Sit. [clears throat]

1:10:00And you walk through the neighborhood

1:10:02and it's just like

1:10:05it it's just a it just

1:10:08it just shouldn't be changed. And what

1:10:11Luke was saying, if you can see up

1:10:13there, they do have those row houses on

1:10:15the edge. And it's like, okay, that kind

1:10:17of sucked that they did that, but at

1:10:18least it's a little bit on the edge.

1:10:20You're gonna put it right there in the

1:10:21middle of 14th Street. Uhuh. That's

1:10:24horrible. You're you're literally will

1:10:26change our neighborhood. And then

1:10:28somebody's going to come next month and

1:10:30they'll have a nice suit, nice tie.

1:10:32They'll say all the nice thing. They'll

1:10:33give you pretty pictures.

1:10:35You got to have a reason

1:10:38to deny the next person or it's just

1:10:40going to keep going, going, going, and

1:10:42this neighborhood's gone.

1:10:45So anyways, I implore you.

1:10:49We are really a really tight-knit

1:10:50neighborhood with lots of kids and it's

1:10:53it's very uncommon and we don't want row

1:10:56houses. We just don't. So there's no

1:11:00extraordinary reason. I bid you a do.

1:11:04Thank you. Okay, that's everyone I had

1:11:06signed up to speak. So, um,

1:11:11we'll turn it over to commissioners.

1:11:14>> Uh, did the applicant have anything he

1:11:15wanted to respond to first?

1:11:17>> Yeah. You, uh, Mr. Ryman Phillip, you

1:11:20have anything that you want to add or

1:11:22respond to? Um,

1:11:26you know, I think uh I think the idea

1:11:29that, you know, uh that the neighborhood

1:11:31hasn't had a voice is incorrect in the

1:11:34sense that we, you know, we originally

1:11:35came with an application for eight

1:11:37units, uh, two forplexes, and we've come

1:11:41all the way down from that to the most

1:11:43bare minimum application that we could

1:11:46pro, you know, possibly come up with,

1:11:48you know, with two single family houses.

1:11:50And uh I you know I don't believe it'll

1:11:53be detrimental to the neighborhood. I

1:11:54think it'll fit the character of the

1:11:56neighborhood um from an economic

1:11:58standpoint. You know, it's not like

1:12:00we're taking a house and demolishing it

1:12:02and trying to reszone it and put these

1:12:05houses here. It's a vacant lot. There

1:12:07are multiple vacant lots in the

1:12:10neighborhood. And you know, in our

1:12:12opinion, you know, we're replacing a

1:12:14vacant lot with two single family

1:12:16houses. And it's tough to see in my

1:12:19opinion how that is detrimental to the

1:12:21neighborhood or doesn't fit the pattern

1:12:23of uh development. So I, you know,

1:12:27yeah, I'd love to answer any more

1:12:29questions you have. [snorts] But

1:12:34uh any further comment from any other

1:12:36commissioners? and Commissioner Powers

1:12:38gave me uh she really led this quite a

1:12:41bit for us to try and get a clearer

1:12:43understanding of what we could do along

1:12:46with Commissioner Noble as well. So, if

1:12:49you have any further comment?

1:12:51>> Well, you know, um

1:12:55my my skin's pretty thick after 20 years

1:12:59on the planning commission. Um, but I I

1:13:02will let the commissioners judge for

1:13:03themselves how likely it was that I told

1:13:06anybody that this was going to get

1:13:07approved and that the city council

1:13:09person would push it through. Um, I

1:13:14when I first spoke to the applicant

1:13:16about this, I had sort of a vague idea

1:13:18of where we were talking about and I was

1:13:20like, "Okay, let me look at it." When I

1:13:23went and drove it and saw where it was,

1:13:25I called him back immediately

1:13:28and told him, you know,

1:13:31the chances of of getting approval for a

1:13:34midblock, two forplexes. I mean, it's

1:13:36just like this is not going to happen.

1:13:38And I told him, this is a very active

1:13:40neighborhood. They're very involved.

1:13:42They're going to be, you know, they're

1:13:43going to want to be at the table. You're

1:13:46going to need to meet, which he knows

1:13:48enough to know and was planning to do

1:13:50all of that anyway.

1:13:52Um, we did meet before the first

1:13:54hearing. Um,

1:13:58I suggested strongly that where we were

1:14:01would end up might be more like single

1:14:03family development. Uh, and and I

1:14:06understand that it's and it is R1

1:14:09development, but it's two R1

1:14:12uh, lots instead of one R1 lot. And I

1:14:15understand that for the neighborhood,

1:14:17the the lot split is is, you know, a

1:14:20dividing line that they that they're

1:14:21having a hard time getting past that.

1:14:23And I can't say I blame them, but I

1:14:25don't agree with it. You know, this is

1:14:28an area where um because of its

1:14:30proximity to downtown health sciences

1:14:33center, the capitol, there is, you know,

1:14:35this is probably like a neighborhood

1:14:38that staff might have absolutely thought

1:14:40would be perfect for the increased

1:14:42density that they're wanting to achieve

1:14:44all over the core. So, the fact that

1:14:48that where the application has landed is

1:14:51where it is. And even after our meeting

1:14:53on October 3rd, there were some things

1:14:55that I called uh the applicant and and

1:14:58suggested that they do with respect to

1:15:02the ADU privacy issues. I didn't, you

1:15:04know, I didn't think it was a good idea

1:15:05for them to be looking into anybody

1:15:07else's backyard. The porch, which is

1:15:10shown in the exhibit, but not had not

1:15:12been at until that time anyway, um uh

1:15:17written into the MDS. And the third one

1:15:20escapes me for the moment. But I am

1:15:23satisfied with where this application

1:15:25is. I do not think it will be a negative

1:15:27thing for the neighborhood. As a general

1:15:29rule, we tend to think that uh empty

1:15:32lots are not a good thing. I understand

1:15:35and told the applicant early on the

1:15:38people in this neighborhood are willing

1:15:39to wait for what they want and that they

1:15:41would not be persuaded by the argument

1:15:43that, you know, anything would be better

1:15:45than um an empty lot. Um, some places

1:15:49neighbors are like, "Please build

1:15:51anything." I knew that would not be the

1:15:52case here, but I'm satisfied with where

1:15:55we've with where we've landed and I

1:16:00we'll stand on that.

1:16:03>> Good.

1:16:05>> Anything else?

1:16:06>> Um, I'll I'll just say this. Um,

1:16:11so while the lot is 35 or 70 foot wide,

1:16:17split into two 35s with a shared

1:16:19driveway, it's acting like two 40 foot

1:16:21wide lots basically per se.

1:16:25um

1:16:27with that given the neighborhood, the

1:16:30variety of housing that this gives the

1:16:33neighborhood. Um and then with an ADU

1:16:36that meets the current ADU

1:16:39standard

1:16:42I I I think it fits now. Um, and the

1:16:46rendering that you've put into the

1:16:48packet is kind of your perception of

1:16:52what's going to be built there with the

1:16:54front porch.

1:16:57Um, so I I'm with you, Janice. I think

1:17:00it does fit. I talked to Kamal. He's

1:17:03very much

1:17:05uh

1:17:06involved in this one. He's seen it. he

1:17:09he's on board with it and and suggested

1:17:12that I push for it, too. So, I mean, I

1:17:16just again

1:17:18it it will work within it as a variety

1:17:21of housing type for this neighborhood.

1:17:28>> You know, I it's come a long ways from

1:17:31where they started. I think I I still

1:17:34have a hard time with it being midb

1:17:36block being 240 foot lots and

1:17:40I just don't know that fits the

1:17:42character of the rest of the

1:17:44neighborhood. So that's kind of where

1:17:45I'm at.

1:17:52>> I'm ready to vote.

1:17:54>> We've heard this one like three times.

1:17:55So

1:17:56>> yeah.

1:17:58>> Okay. We just need

1:17:59>> talk about the uh TEES in the staff

1:18:02report if we're going to put it. Yeah.

1:18:04So, we'd u like to strike the first one

1:18:06about the drainage. Um and then we have

1:18:10uh I think unfortunately the sheet that

1:18:13had the uh tees didn't in print, so I

1:18:15wrote them down here. cut. Uh the second

1:18:18one I think was a kind of a language

1:18:20correction, but we didn't want to make

1:18:22sure that we could do a uh shared access

1:18:25agreement for that driveway and

1:18:27maintenance agreement between the two

1:18:29properties since it is a shared drive to

1:18:30make sure that that is maintained. So,

1:18:33whatever we need to do, you know, uh

1:18:35property owners association that we

1:18:37could allow for that. Um

1:18:40and then, uh TE4

1:18:43mentions porches. It doesn't require

1:18:45porches, but you know, we're planning on

1:18:47putting porches on it. So, if that is

1:18:49something that um Commissioner Powers

1:18:51would like to add in, we're happy to add

1:18:55um you know, a provision for the

1:18:57porches. Uh and then same for detached

1:19:01garage and uh you know, the landscape uh

1:19:05one half caliber tree in front of each

1:19:07house.

1:19:08And uh finally, you know that one about

1:19:12the ADU that uh ADU is allowed but that

1:19:15it follows the uh general city adopted

1:19:20ADU requirements.

1:19:25>> So

1:19:27yes, if if you think that there is any

1:19:29portion of the ADU ordinance that you're

1:19:32not meeting and the 50oot width is one.

1:19:35If if there's a height variation that

1:19:37you think you're not meeting, let's

1:19:38don't just tie it to the ADU ordinance.

1:19:41My specific ask was with respect to the

1:19:43privacy elements

1:19:45>> that there not be windows overlooking or

1:19:47or p um balconies overlooking.

1:19:52>> Yeah, I think I think it was only to my

1:19:54knowledges only the width u

1:19:58the 50 foot width requirement.

1:20:11Sarah, is that sufficient for you?

1:20:14>> That was getting ready to be my

1:20:15question. As far as how the tees are set

1:20:17right now, sir, does how does that work

1:20:18with staff? How should that read?

1:20:30>> No, I'm sorry. Public comments closed.

1:20:53>> An apologies. These were added just uh

1:20:56like a week ago, so we didn't have time

1:20:57to get it in the uh the base MDS.

1:21:01>> Okay. So, sorry. Sarah Welch, Planning

1:21:03Department, um ask me again what you

1:21:04mean. The minimum lot width is currently

1:21:0635 ft in the SPUD. Could you please re

1:21:09ask me your question again?

1:21:11>> Well, that doesn't meet the actual ADU

1:21:13ordinance. So, that

1:21:15>> No, but it's it's modified in this SP to

1:21:18be a 35 foot minimum lot width,

1:21:20>> right? So, it works. and and what he's

1:21:22saying is that he's going to follow all

1:21:24the rest of the ADU ordinance

1:21:26>> that he meets all the criteria and

1:21:30>> so we're just adding that as as the TE.

1:21:32Correct.

1:21:33>> Okay.

1:21:34>> I don't

1:21:34>> you don't there's no TE for it. It's

1:21:36written into the application.

1:21:39>> I just

1:21:39>> And then the rest of the the TEES you're

1:21:42you're good with as written.

1:21:45>> Oh yeah, except for uh the first one.

1:21:48>> Yeah, we're going to strike it,

1:21:49>> right? And then yeah, I think the other

1:21:51ones were okay. The second one, um, I

1:21:53believe was a language clarification.

1:21:56Um, yeah, so we're we're okay with the

1:21:58other keys.

1:22:03>> All right.

1:22:04>> Sarah, hold on. Sarah,

1:22:13>> just clarification question. So, if I'm

1:22:15understanding correctly, the intent of

1:22:18this is compliance with the ADU

1:22:21requirements as written except for

1:22:23>> except as modified within the

1:22:25>> SPUD to for the 35 and you're sufficient

1:22:27that the spud already states that

1:22:30>> it does say that in section 1.2 minimum

1:22:32lot width 35 ft.

1:22:34>> Okay.

1:22:34>> In the spud. The question I was

1:22:36answering back here and maybe we should

1:22:38clarify today is it's a 70 it's 70 feet

1:22:40overall. Correct. and they're asking for

1:22:43two lots 35 ft in width. And there was a

1:22:46question in the back regarding the

1:22:48driveway.

1:22:49>> And I'm answering, make sure I'm

1:22:51answering correctly, whether where the

1:22:53driveway is or whether or not it's

1:22:55shared is not part of our lot width

1:22:59calculation or lot width calculation is

1:23:02the legal description. Okay. I just want

1:23:05to make sure that's clear for the back.

1:23:07>> Yeah. So the lot would be the lot line

1:23:09would be down the middle of the driveway

1:23:10which is shared and that's why we would

1:23:12like to have you know some provision for

1:23:15a shared property owners agreement

1:23:18something that you know if uh 20 years

1:23:20from now it's in disrepair there's an

1:23:22agreement in place that would you know

1:23:25uh maintain that I suppose

1:23:28>> I will also say I note that the TE

1:23:30regarding porches indicates that it may

1:23:33encroach into the front yard by 8 ft

1:23:37I'm just saying whatever the visual

1:23:40setback is down the street is what needs

1:23:43to be met.

1:23:44>> Yeah. And we have that for the uh I

1:23:47think we we actually increased the front

1:23:48yard setback to 30 ft. Um and then we

1:23:51have an item that says, you know, to

1:23:53match the adjacent

1:23:55>> and I'm good with that. So,

1:23:58>> so the so the additional TE's are we

1:24:00going to are we going to modify

1:24:03um um TE4 to just indicate that there

1:24:06will be a front porch period um and then

1:24:10add uh seven and eight I guess that the

1:24:14garages will be detached not attached

1:24:17and that the um other than the lot width

1:24:21requirement the other uh requirements of

1:24:24the ADU ordinance will be met if that's

1:24:26the way you want to do that?

1:24:29>> Yeah, I think that sounds great.

1:24:33>> And uh Commissioner Powers, you're

1:24:35comfortable with um that the MDS

1:24:38sufficiently states that the lot setback

1:24:40will be consistent with those around or

1:24:42does that need to be a separate TE as

1:24:43well? Just making sure that's clear in

1:24:46the document. I'm not alluding either

1:24:48way. I just want to make sure. Yeah, on

1:24:50the building setback line section of the

1:24:52MDS it says north 30foot front yard

1:24:55setback with an asterisk and says or to

1:24:58match the established building line

1:24:59along adjacent properties. So

1:25:01>> appreciate that. Thank you.

1:25:02>> Is

1:25:03>> and and does that include the porches?

1:25:06>> The porches are allowed to extend. So

1:25:08that's where that TE kind of comes in.

1:25:09Um the way the like development services

1:25:11sees that the the main body of the house

1:25:14is on that setback line, right? But then

1:25:16you know open porches um may extend into

1:25:19that um right of way I guess.

1:25:22>> So commissioner my question to you is is

1:25:24it important that porch like the porches

1:25:27of this

1:25:27>> it is important it has it has to meet

1:25:29the visual setback.

1:25:30>> So I I would suggest

1:25:32>> other porches encroach into the setback

1:25:35great if not

1:25:36>> let's simplify it. Let's just say new

1:25:37porches cannot extend closer to the

1:25:40street than adjacent property porches.

1:25:43Yeah,

1:25:45>> sure. Yeah,

1:25:46>> if you prefer that language, that's fine

1:25:47with me.

1:25:48>> I just want it to be crystal clear.

1:25:49>> It's fine.

1:25:52>> Get into

1:25:55>> Hold on before we go. So, trying to

1:25:58track TE for um Commissioner Powers, are

1:26:00you wanting

1:26:02how are you wanting to keep that as is

1:26:06and then clarify an additional TE? I'm

1:26:09tracking what you're saying. I'm just

1:26:10now getting into logistics for when

1:26:12Sarah and I get asked at city council.

1:26:17>> I'll staff to make sure it says what it

1:26:20needs to say. I don't feel the need to

1:26:21weigh in on that.

1:26:23>> It's going to have a porch. It's going

1:26:24to meet the setback. That's all.

1:26:26>> So, you have to strike the may encroach

1:26:28eight into the front yard by 8 foot.

1:26:33>> It's kind of where I'm at.

1:26:34>> Yeah.

1:26:36>> Yeah. Otherwise, it's conflicting to

1:26:37Well, unless every other porch down the

1:26:39street does. So, I mean,

1:26:41>> but I think it's already covered in that

1:26:43note in the setback line. So, it's it

1:26:46could conflict each other, and I'd

1:26:47rather just strike one of them.

1:26:49>> Okay. We did, you know, the 8 foot is

1:26:52nice because um you know, six foot is

1:26:54kind of a standard porch size, but six

1:26:56and eight is kind of standard porch

1:26:58depth that you see all around Oklahoma

1:27:00City. 8 foot is nice because it's deep

1:27:02enough to where you can actually, you

1:27:03know, put a table and chairs and really

1:27:05make it a usable space. But, but I think

1:27:08that adjacent ones are 8 ft. So, you

1:27:10know, whether however we do the

1:27:12language, I think it's kind of the same

1:27:14effect, but

1:27:19>> Mr. Chair,

1:27:20>> are we ready for a motion?

1:27:22>> I believe we are.

1:27:23>> Okay.

1:27:24>> Hold on one moment. Sarah, can you

1:27:26listen to the motion as read to make

1:27:28sure that staff is okay with it?

1:27:30>> [snorts]

1:27:34>> That's right.

1:27:37>> So, at this point, I'm going to make a

1:27:38motion to approve SPED 1852

1:27:41striking TE number one, modifying TE

1:27:44number four, adding TE 7 and 8 as read

1:27:47in.

1:27:51All right, we have a motion from

1:27:52Commissioner Harrison to recommend the

1:27:54item to city council for approval

1:27:56subject to the amended tees.

1:28:10It's been seconded by Commissioner PL.

1:28:13Please cast your votes.

1:28:22All right, that item is recommended for

1:28:24approval.

1:28:25>> All right, thank you.

1:28:26>> So, that is a recommendation to city

1:28:27council. So, neighbors, I know that was

1:28:29not the outcome that you were looking

1:28:31for, but you'll have the opportunity to

1:28:33speak again at council.

1:28:51Good afternoon, Jeff Strub 11-11.

1:28:53>> Oh, hold on one second. We got to call

1:28:54the item.

1:28:55>> Oh, okay.

1:28:55>> Item 17.

1:28:57>> Item 17 is case SPUD 1866, application

1:29:01to reszone 1519 Northwest 11th Street

1:29:04from R2 and R4.

1:29:09Jeff Strubal, 11-11 Northwest 15th. Um,

1:29:13I would like to start with the TEES

1:29:15clarified. Uh, TE number one, we're

1:29:18looking at 18 units, maximum of 18

1:29:20units, uh, on this spud. We, uh, are in

1:29:24favor of three, four,

1:29:30seven, and eight. We're not in favor of

1:29:32five with a setback. And uh we'd like to

1:29:35discuss uh

1:29:38two and six with the dumpster in the

1:29:40curb cut.

1:29:44So on TE2, we're fine with putting a

1:29:47curb all along McKinley. Otherwise, we'd

1:29:48like to keep a curb cut for the dumpster

1:29:50because that where the dumpster is at is

1:29:52kind of the only logistical place we can

1:29:54we can put that.

1:29:56and um

1:30:00been on our uh plans. The uh

1:30:04the 20 foot setback really uh we the 10

1:30:07foot is what we've really needing on uh

1:30:09T

1:30:11five

1:30:13and then I'd like to kind of have some

1:30:14more uh conversation about the dumpster

1:30:16placement and I'm open for questions.

1:30:22>> How about just a quick overview of the

1:30:24project?

1:30:26Well, uh,

1:30:28>> yeah, don't worry about the teeth.

1:30:30>> Do we have a the plans we can

1:30:38do? I

1:30:40>> Okay,

1:30:42so this is two big lots uh budding

1:30:44McKinley Park on 11th and McKinley. This

1:30:47is a few blocks from uh the Plaza

1:30:50District.

1:30:52So, we're proposing uh 18 uh units with

1:30:5621 parking spots. Looking at doing some

1:30:58heavy landscaping along McKinley

1:31:02and um just a buddy in the park

1:31:11and we've had, I guess, two neighbors

1:31:13that have written letters approval. I

1:31:14don't think we've had anybody uh against

1:31:17this and or anybody that signed up to uh

1:31:20talk about this. So, open to for

1:31:22discussion.

1:31:23>> Okay. Um, Commissioner Milner, this is

1:31:26this is your ward, so I'll let you lead

1:31:28us off. I do not have anyone signed up

1:31:31to speak.

1:31:32>> Okay. Um, I want to start by saying I

1:31:35met with the applicant um on this

1:31:38property. Uh, I believe Commissioner

1:31:40Powers was uh with us that day. Um, we

1:31:43talked for quite a while about the

1:31:45orientation of this um number of

1:31:47dwelling units. I'm I'm fine with this

1:31:50project. the number of dwelling units.

1:31:53I I think the benefit you've got so much

1:31:56open space with that park there. I I do

1:31:59think this makes sense. Um we talked

1:32:02about different orientations of how this

1:32:04would sit on this property. Um, I know

1:32:07we've discussed

1:32:09not putting a parking lot in a

1:32:11neighborhood, putting it in the rear,

1:32:13but if you're out there on site,

1:32:16I'm not sure I'm in favor of turning it

1:32:18where you've got the parking lot in the

1:32:19back and the structure up against that

1:32:22corner with what that does to sight

1:32:24lines for neighbors across the street

1:32:27looking into the park. Um,

1:32:31I want to touch on the dumpster

1:32:34tough item because obviously we don't

1:32:36want to put it where it's located right

1:32:38now on the property is going to be the

1:32:40farthest we're going to get it from,

1:32:43you know, residential, you know, a

1:32:45budding residential.

1:32:48So, I'm okay with it as long as it's

1:32:51sight proofed and screened. Um, those

1:32:54are my initial comments. I know

1:32:56commissioners will have other comments

1:32:58though. So, and I I want to clarify, we

1:33:01have no one signed up to speak on.

1:33:03>> No, I have no one signed up to speak. Um

1:33:06well, my initial thought looking at the

1:33:07site plan is why the heck are we putting

1:33:09a parking lot on the corner of this

1:33:12residential intersection? I understand,

1:33:15you know, some reasoning about

1:33:18um that we're given, but I mean what it

1:33:21just boils down to is maybe this is not

1:33:23the right product for this track to

1:33:25land.

1:33:27If we're concerned about obscuring views

1:33:30for neighbors and residential into the

1:33:32park and and all that, uh maybe this

1:33:35isn't the right product. But I can be

1:33:38convinced.

1:33:42I I'm with you and I don't know that I

1:33:44can be convinced. Um, how many bedrooms

1:33:48overall in this development?

1:33:50>> We're looking at uh 20 bedrooms.

1:33:52>> So, 18 or no, what

1:33:5617 singles and one two-bedroom unit.

1:34:00>> Yes, we'll get mainly one bedrooms and

1:34:02and with this neighborhood, I mean, it's

1:34:03a walkable district. Uh, to the plaza

1:34:06district, you know, uh housing is not

1:34:09affordable. So there's a lot of young

1:34:10people that are really uh needing a

1:34:13place to live and want to be in this

1:34:14area. So that's what we're have a

1:34:15product that is uh you know desirable

1:34:17for uh what we've seen in the area. And

1:34:20right now there is a parking lot on that

1:34:22corner that's existing.

1:34:27>> Yeah. So

1:34:31>> so doesn't mean we can't make it better.

1:34:33>> Yeah. This is true.

1:34:36I don't know. I just looked at it just

1:34:38from 30,000 ft and you know it looks

1:34:42like [clears throat] it's all

1:34:45um

1:34:51guess it's all R2 all around it and we

1:34:53kind of jump to R4. I don't know. It

1:34:55seems like a pretty significant trend

1:34:58u

1:35:00pretty significant jump there and if I

1:35:01did my math right that's like 56

1:35:03dwelling units an acre.

1:35:06Uh I'm not sure that I can go there.

1:35:08>> And behind this there is two duplexes

1:35:11that are directly next to this property

1:35:13but still and it is next to a huge park

1:35:16and the whole everything around the park

1:35:18is really nothing's really happened

1:35:19around the park. Hoping this would be

1:35:21something that can kind of spur some

1:35:22more development along there. Uh looking

1:35:23at doing some nice murals on the back of

1:35:25the building, you know, into the park.

1:35:27Uh there's several other small apartment

1:35:30complexes around this neighborhood and

1:35:33the neighborhood has been a really nice

1:35:34neighborhood in transition that uh uh is

1:35:38like the uh the added housing

1:35:42>> and I definitely think we have density

1:35:44within walking distance of this project.

1:35:46So I don't really I I don't believe this

1:35:48project's an outlier. Um although I I

1:35:52hear the concerns, but I mean even if

1:35:54you just look at the aerial, you can see

1:35:55you can definitely see where we've got

1:35:57some other corner projects that are

1:36:00definitely more dense.

1:36:01>> Um

1:36:03like this one,

1:36:05>> I just think I just think this one

1:36:08>> are they three stories? Are they three

1:36:10stories tall though? Because I don't I'm

1:36:11walking the streets and I don't see a

1:36:13threetory

1:36:14>> structure anywhere around there.

1:36:16>> Yeah. There are other northwest we do

1:36:19don't we aren't aren't in the

1:36:22>> you know the development we've got

1:36:24northwest I think those might be some of

1:36:26yours

1:36:27>> two stories two and a half

1:36:28>> they they are two and two and a half and

1:36:30then um on 15th street there is three

1:36:32stories and on 16th so within the area I

1:36:35mean there there is a lot of diversity

1:36:36in this neighborhood it's been changing

1:36:38you know rapidly over the last 20 years

1:36:42so it does this is one of the few

1:36:43neighborhoods that stuff like this does

1:36:45fit in and work and and there. That's

1:36:47why there's so much development going on

1:36:48in this neighborhood.

1:36:51>> So, what was the reason why you couldn't

1:36:52park it behind the building?

1:36:57>> Well, it kind of one of the things we

1:36:59met on site looking at it, it really

1:37:00obstructed the uh the uh views of the

1:37:03neighbors across the street to the park.

1:37:05And this is on the park

1:37:07>> from the south.

1:37:09>> The neighbors

1:37:10>> that would be to the west. So for the

1:37:11neighbors to the west looking into the

1:37:14park.

1:37:16>> Yeah.

1:37:16>> Yeah. It's going to be obstruction

1:37:18because it's going to be a threetory

1:37:20straight up and down building.

1:37:21>> Mhm.

1:37:22>> So whether it's on the block or behind

1:37:24the block, you're not seeing the park.

1:37:28>> We just have a or I do. I mean I just

1:37:30have a problem with trying to park a

1:37:32building on the on the hard corner. You

1:37:34know, and I think too in Oklahoma City,

1:37:35we're a rapidly changing city and

1:37:37density is something that we're moving

1:37:38towards in this bigger city. And if we

1:37:40we've got to go up, land prices are

1:37:42getting so expensive. If we stay with

1:37:43one, two stories, I mean, that's this

1:37:45this is things that uh we're going to

1:37:46need to look at in this city. And if

1:37:48we're going to be against going up above

1:37:50a story or two,

1:37:51>> there's places to go up and then you're

1:37:53in a middle of a single family

1:37:54neighborhood and you want to go up three

1:37:56stories. I' I'm I'd like to see it come

1:37:59down more within the comp plan. get it

1:38:03under 40 dwelling units per and

1:38:07definitely parked behind the building

1:38:10and we've made

1:38:13plenty of other developments do just

1:38:15that.

1:38:18>> Does anybody have any anybody else have

1:38:20any comments?

1:38:23>> So, we did meet on site. We talked

1:38:26mostly about layout. Um, I think I was

1:38:30persuaded that a heavily landscaped

1:38:33parking lot would be uh better than a

1:38:36threestory building on the corner. Um,

1:38:39would I would I prefer to see this whole

1:38:44project at two stories? Yes, I would. I

1:38:46mean, you all have heard me beat that

1:38:48drum before. Um generally um

1:38:53those comments are disregarded because

1:38:55of the you know proximity of the plaza

1:38:58and so on so forth but um it is very

1:39:01dense. There's no two ways about that.

1:39:08>> And I think in the neighborhood that

1:39:10it's in that's where it kind of fits

1:39:11because of what's going on in there. But

1:39:13but I'm open to discussion.

1:39:16I mean, I think where I mean, I have a

1:39:18real hard time not only with the parking

1:39:21on the hard corner, but then you've got

1:39:22a three-story building on the on what

1:39:25would be the east side of the property

1:39:26line that's adjacent to one story and

1:39:30>> which he owns.

1:39:31>> Okay. U but I see more of using that

1:39:34parking to separate that and as a

1:39:37transition. So, that's where I kind of

1:39:39see the the three stories up against the

1:39:41street as being more beneficial.

1:39:43>> You know, I and that's just a

1:39:46Yeah,

1:39:47>> difference of opinion perhaps. I would

1:39:48rather see a heavily landscaped corner,

1:39:51even if there's parking behind it, you

1:39:52know, um than than those buildings right

1:39:55up against the street. So,

1:39:58>> but I would much prefer them to be two

1:40:00stories.

1:40:01>> And that's another discussion we had

1:40:02about having it on McKenley and then

1:40:03having it just backyards or back of the

1:40:06building against the the street, you

1:40:07know, and I know it's not like to have

1:40:09doors along the street, but that's kind

1:40:10of hard to do in the landscaping. just

1:40:12kind of really buffers, you know, the

1:40:14the uh the parking lot and then also

1:40:16that it's along the park.

1:40:21I just want to bring up that when we met

1:40:23on the property and we talked about

1:40:25orientate it to where the parking would

1:40:27be in the back

1:40:29and refresh my memory the comment you

1:40:32made because I was envisioning if we

1:40:34turned it in parking lot then we would

1:40:36have

1:40:38and I'm saying I was envisioning at the

1:40:40time of the conversation that we'd have

1:40:42entryways you know abuing the streets

1:40:46but you told me the entries would still

1:40:48be interior

1:40:49to the property, right? Facing inward

1:40:52the property. So, we would just kind of

1:40:53look at

1:40:54>> Well, right. I think you you want the

1:40:56back front doors to go into the parking

1:40:57lot, not like onto the street. So, then

1:41:00it just kind of was just like would be

1:41:01just windows and a wall kind of against

1:41:03McKinley.

1:41:04>> Um, so that, you know, I just

1:41:08feel this is the best, you know, setup

1:41:10for the the uh parking lot for the

1:41:12whole, you know, structure. But on that

1:41:15same note, if you know, I'm willing to

1:41:17to work with you guys and if if we need

1:41:19to change a few things up, you know, I'm

1:41:21I'm open to that. I mean, I'd like to

1:41:23work with you to see what we can do.

1:41:24That's what we uh met, you know, John

1:41:27Janice out there to really go over uh

1:41:29this and try to figure that out and on

1:41:30site like when we got out there, it

1:41:32really made more sense to set it up like

1:41:33this than not. So, I'm open for

1:41:37suggestions.

1:41:40May I ask my fellow commissioners if the

1:41:42project was reorientated to where

1:41:44parking would be in the back,

1:41:47>> what are thoughts on the height at that

1:41:49point?

1:41:50>> I just want some

1:41:53>> Well, I mean, it's it's plus 50 dwelling

1:41:56units per acre. It's you take the story

1:41:59off the slope roof,

1:42:01>> create more of a

1:42:03single, you know, neighborhood feel to

1:42:05it. I understand it loses a lot of

1:42:07density, but this is a lot of density

1:42:10right there.

1:42:11>> Okay,

1:42:11>> that's

1:42:14what you could do.

1:42:17>> Commissioners, any other comments for

1:42:18the applicant? I'm thinking maybe we

1:42:20might want to continue and

1:42:24>> No. And I'm I'm, you know, I'm fine to

1:42:25to continue it and and discuss more and

1:42:27and and and see what we could do to try

1:42:30to make everybody happy if that's

1:42:31possible.

1:42:31>> Okay. Is there any Yeah,

1:42:33>> I would I mean, I hate to continue it.

1:42:35and you not know kind of where everyone

1:42:37stands. So, I appreciate that.

1:42:40>> I I believe a twotory.

1:42:43>> I would be good with a twotory.

1:42:44[clears throat] I'm I can go either way

1:42:47on the parking lot front or back. Um I

1:42:49just think the twotory would be in

1:42:52character with the neighborhood more and

1:42:53it would bring the density down some.

1:42:55you've got to um it would also help you

1:42:58bring down the parking count because

1:43:00your your your lot coverage on this, you

1:43:02know, and having to meet the drainage

1:43:04ordinance, you're going to have it's

1:43:06going to be tight.

1:43:07>> Yeah, it is.

1:43:08>> So, going down to a twotory is going to

1:43:10reduce the parking sizes. It's going to

1:43:12allow him to be able to design the

1:43:14detention retention better. Um and it'll

1:43:17match the neighborhood. So, if it was

1:43:18just twotory, I' i'd be on board. Well,

1:43:22if we would keep it as it is and to go

1:43:24from a three story to a two story, would

1:43:25that be something everybody could be uh

1:43:27on board with? Because I'd be willing to

1:43:30I still want to see the parking in the

1:43:32rear.

1:43:35>> Okay. So, we have one no parking. Yeah.

1:43:38I'd like to see the two stories. I mean,

1:43:40that would help me to get there. I And

1:43:44I don't I got mixed emotions on the

1:43:46parking on the corner and and maybe I

1:43:49could get there with maybe a masonary

1:43:52short screen wall and some landscaping.

1:43:55I don't know.

1:43:56>> In addition to the landscaping. Okay.

1:43:59>> Yeah.

1:43:59>> And nothing overwhelming. Just something

1:44:01that was three foot tall or so just to

1:44:04break up the parking slot. But I'm with

1:44:07Jeremy, too. Reducing the parking count,

1:44:10reducing the number of units is going to

1:44:12reduce the parking count. Uh, and you're

1:44:14going to have a really hard time getting

1:44:16the detention to work.

1:44:18>> Yeah. Two two stories and work within

1:44:21the neighborhood orientation. Have have

1:44:23it look a bit more.

1:44:26>> So, what I'm hearing twotory, we had one

1:44:29parking lot in the back. I mean, what

1:44:31what what's the temperature of the

1:44:33parking lot where it's at with some

1:44:34screening and that's what we're looking

1:44:36at with doing some bushes and trees

1:44:37behind it. there would be some good

1:44:38screening there, but I don't mind

1:44:40putting in, you know, a a small

1:44:42screening structure or something along

1:44:44with that.

1:44:45>> May I ask what is the what is the big

1:44:47issue with having the parking behind?

1:44:52>> Well, like I said, we got to the site

1:44:54some of the obstruction of the neighbors

1:44:55to see the park. Also, um the uh having

1:44:59front doors onto the street when then

1:45:02you want, you know, your front door

1:45:03going into the parking lot. Those are

1:45:05things that we encourage having front

1:45:07doors on the street, right?

1:45:08>> Not in the parking lot in a situation

1:45:10like this. So, I'm just

1:45:11>> I mean, I think we've established that

1:45:13the

1:45:14>> the view is not really an issue. You're

1:45:15going to have the same view blocked

1:45:19>> either way. It's orange.

1:45:21>> Well, also the the street is that's a

1:45:23really big setback. So, we'd have to and

1:45:25we're losing a lot of green space if we

1:45:28put the building there. And then we're

1:45:29going to be way we're still you see

1:45:30where the parking lot is? there's 30 40

1:45:32foot of green space there because of the

1:45:34the road is uh

1:45:36>> so big. So that that's another thing

1:45:38also. So we'd be we you know the

1:45:40building would be where the parking

1:45:41would be. So there's we're losing a lot

1:45:42of

1:45:43>> I agree that that that large rightway

1:45:45for that street is

1:45:47>> and the parking lot that's sitting out

1:45:49there right now is already right there.

1:45:50So that the utilities are going to be

1:45:52already set kind of for the way he's

1:45:54designed this. Um, but with the 40 foot

1:45:58setback on this, uh, having the parking

1:46:02in the front's going to make it look

1:46:03like a lot more green space and a lot

1:46:05more landscape.

1:46:06>> Well, can't can't we

1:46:09>> to me the character like if you look at

1:46:11the neighborhood, there's a lot of

1:46:12neighbor a lot of new development in

1:46:14this neighborhood that's all the way up

1:46:16on the street. I mean, that's kind of

1:46:18the new development look in here.

1:46:21>> The buildings,

1:46:22>> but

1:46:23>> I know you don't like that. I don't like

1:46:25that. I mean, it's it this is, you know,

1:46:28not urban in the way that downtown is

1:46:30urban. This is a residential area. So,

1:46:36>> and I think this is such a unique block

1:46:37because of the park. It's a huge park

1:46:39there that's really not being utilized.

1:46:41And that's that's where if this was in

1:46:43the middle of R1 with no park, I mean, I

1:46:46don't I think this would not I wouldn't

1:46:47be here. But um but I'm I'm fine to

1:46:50continue it and and work with staff to

1:46:51see if we can uh get something that

1:46:54would that would work better.

1:46:56>> Let's do that.

1:46:57>> Okay.

1:46:57>> I mean like here's the other thing too

1:46:59is is there any like either angled or on

1:47:02street parallel parking that you know

1:47:05could be incorporated to kind of make

1:47:07more efficient use.

1:47:10Um, well, I'd love to take that rightway

1:47:12out and do that, you know, but I think

1:47:13with a I mean, I guess I could do that

1:47:15with the the U rightway, but then it

1:47:18with the the corner, you have to come

1:47:20back so far and then any So, it does

1:47:22there's not a lot of street parking you

1:47:24can add when you do that with traffic,

1:47:28but it could add a few spaces.

1:47:34If I'm not wrong, there is

1:47:38parking

1:47:39um I don't know whether it's on or off

1:47:41street exactly in the ride ofway down

1:47:44McKinley to the north, isn't there?

1:47:47>> Yeah, there's some pillow parking along

1:47:48the park.

1:47:49>> Yes.

1:47:50>> So, I mean there is some

1:47:51>> Yeah, you're correct.

1:47:53>> So,

1:47:55>> okay. Well, um sounds like we're moving

1:47:57to continuence on this

1:47:59>> four weeks. You want that first one in

1:48:01November or

1:48:02>> um Yeah, that that'd be fine.

1:48:05>> I have to look up the date on that one.

1:48:07Is that the 12th?

1:48:08>> Yes.

1:48:08>> Okay. I'm gonna move we continue

1:48:11SPUD-1866

1:48:13to the November 12th planning commission

1:48:16hearing.

1:48:17>> Okay. We have a motion from Commissioner

1:48:18Milner to continue the item to the

1:48:21November 12th meeting.

1:48:40That was second by Commissioner Meek.

1:48:42Please cast your vote.

1:48:44>> I think.

1:48:46>> All right. That item is continued.

1:48:49>> Hey, computer. There you go.

1:48:52>> Item 18. Item 18 is PUD 2150 application

1:48:58to uh reszone 1205 Southwest 149th

1:49:01Street from AA to PUD 2150.

1:49:04>> Good afternoon, Mark Zitz Johnson

1:49:06Associates 20 Sheran Avenue. I want to

1:49:08start out by uh thanking uh Commissioner

1:49:11Newman for the time on this one. We've

1:49:12taken a couple deferrals. Uh also want

1:49:14to thank the neighborhood and by

1:49:16neighborhood the collection of residents

1:49:18that live around this uh somewhat rural

1:49:20but changing part of Oklahoma City. uh

1:49:23particularly with the new widening of

1:49:26149th that will occur. Um we have taken

1:49:29the time, we've had multiple

1:49:30neighborhood meetings. The last

1:49:31neighborhood meeting we had, we sent out

1:49:33our own notice. Um I think the first

1:49:36meeting we probably had 30 people.

1:49:38Second meeting there was maybe 10 and a

1:49:41couple of them were supportive uh of the

1:49:44application post all of the agreements

1:49:45we made. So the vast majority and by

1:49:48majority I mean two to three pages of

1:49:50revisions that have occurred are

1:49:53reflected in your packet. Uh with the

1:49:55staff report uh there are three TEES.

1:49:58The first one uh we would ask to strike.

1:50:01Uh we would like to uh keep the two use

1:50:04units that are requested to be removed.

1:50:06And then TE2 and three uh we're in

1:50:08agreement that was in our PUD staff

1:50:11asked for clarification. uh but rather

1:50:14than uh except two and three, we've

1:50:17rewritten it based on additional

1:50:19comments that we received. So I was

1:50:20going to read in the proposed uh TE's.

1:50:24Uh TE2 would be replaced with um outdoor

1:50:28sales and storage and display. Uh the

1:50:31location shall be limited to the north

1:50:33of the southernmost building. Location

1:50:35shall be specifically reviewed and

1:50:37approved by the planning commission at

1:50:38the specific plan stage.

1:50:42Uh and then the other TE uh for outdoor

1:50:45storage screening, we wanted to add to

1:50:47that. Uh except as otherwise noted, said

1:50:50screening shall be required to be a

1:50:52minimum of 8 ft in height and shall be a

1:50:54coated black chainlink fence with mesh

1:50:56screen and evergreen planting shall be

1:50:58required. So we're trying to allow the

1:51:01outdoor screening, but we're not going

1:51:03to allow it any further south than the

1:51:05backside

1:51:07of one of the buildings at front 149.

1:51:10So, it's screened that way, but in

1:51:11addition, we have a fence screening and

1:51:14a landscape screening around it. So,

1:51:17with that, I'm happy to answer any

1:51:19questions.

1:51:23>> Okay, Commissioner Newman, this is W

1:51:25five. I do not have anyone signed up to

1:51:28speak.

1:51:28>> Okay. Um, and I appreciate uh Mark and

1:51:31staff working with us. We did spend

1:51:33quite a bit of time with the neighbors

1:51:34and work through, I think, most of the

1:51:36issues. Um

1:51:39on the um

1:51:42so you're saying that you want to have

1:51:45the outdoor storage the limits for the

1:51:47outdoor storage would be the back of the

1:51:50south the southernmost building.

1:51:53>> Correct. So basically I think the intent

1:51:56based on conversations was we don't want

1:51:58to see uh the outdoor storage from any

1:52:02of the public or private streets. So, we

1:52:04want to put it uh no further south than

1:52:06the north side of the furthest south

1:52:09build building, which I know is a little

1:52:10confusing. Uh but basically, with this

1:52:13current site plan, we have where it's

1:52:15shown uh storage kind of on the right.

1:52:18And so, we can't put it anywhere south

1:52:21of those two 12,000 foot buildings along

1:52:24149th. So, in between that area is where

1:52:27it's allowed to go.

1:52:28>> Okay? And

1:52:30>> and you're going to review it at the

1:52:31specific plan stage. So, if it looks

1:52:32different than what we're talking about,

1:52:33you have specifically the right to deny

1:52:35that.

1:52:40>> Okay. Um, I know this is topic that a

1:52:44lot of other commissioners had some

1:52:45thoughts on. I'd like to hear those.

1:52:49>> Um, I'll start. I I would like to see

1:52:51that the outdoor storage not be any

1:52:54taller than 8 feet. So, you didn't see

1:52:57it over the top of the fence.

1:53:02uh we would prefer to maybe have that

1:53:04conversation at the specific plan stage

1:53:07because we don't know what user is

1:53:09potentially looking at it. So we can

1:53:12relay that to users at the time, but if

1:53:14there's something we can do or it's

1:53:15being stored in a particular area that's

1:53:17not visible, we'd still like to be able

1:53:19to have that conversation. I think it's

1:53:21worth noting our client is the neighbor

1:53:22immediately to the north and so he would

1:53:25be the most impacted by that. I think

1:53:27the way that we have it, you're not

1:53:28going to see it from the street.

1:53:31So, kind of becomes if they're storing,

1:53:33it's a countertop company. They're

1:53:35storing a 10-ft marble slab and you

1:53:38can't see it from the street. Our

1:53:40neighbor owns to the north. Who's that

1:53:41harming?

1:53:43>> Evergreen plantings will get taller.

1:53:46>> Yeah. Again, I just I what I don't want

1:53:49to see them store RVs,

1:53:53>> you know,

1:53:53>> RVs. I don't think that'd be allowed.

1:53:55And what the uses are in the the uses

1:53:58that are allowed in there. I mean, we're

1:53:59we're talking about like flex space for

1:54:01kind of like the contractor, plumbing,

1:54:04hobbyist,

1:54:06>> someone that parks a big

1:54:08>> backho or a tractor outside would be

1:54:10over 8 feet. So, that's kind of what

1:54:12he's talking about, I guess.

1:54:14>> Yeah.

1:54:15>> Yeah. I I like that we get to review it

1:54:18in specific plan and I like that we're

1:54:20limit limiting it to the, you know, back

1:54:23north corner like what's shown on this

1:54:25exhibit. Uh the only thing I worried

1:54:27about was, you know,

1:54:30eight buildings that they all had the

1:54:32ability to store outside around them.

1:54:34So, I really like having a dedicated

1:54:37storage area that you can't see from the

1:54:39street and the with the screening and

1:54:42with the evergreen plantings, I'm good

1:54:44with it. Then we get to review it again.

1:54:46That's the biggest thing.

1:54:48>> Review the fence. I mean, you're not

1:54:50going to review what's being stored

1:54:51there.

1:54:52>> No, but we're going to get to

1:54:54specifically review where the storage

1:54:56space is being allowed and what its

1:54:58screenings are,

1:55:01>> which

1:55:03if we didn't put that in as a TE, we

1:55:05wouldn't even be able to review it on a

1:55:06specific

1:55:06>> Usually on these flex spaces, we don't

1:55:08allow outdoor storage.

1:55:09>> Yeah. Um, so that's why if it's going to

1:55:12be allowed, I just don't think it needs

1:55:14to be taller than the 8 foot.

1:55:16>> I'm not a fan of the outdoor storage. I

1:55:18let the applicant know that. So, I'm not

1:55:20saying anything he doesn't already know.

1:55:22I just my experience with these kind of

1:55:27uses more like the office warehouse

1:55:30contractor kind of uses is that outdoor

1:55:33storage just keeps getting bigger and

1:55:37messier. And you know, there's nobody

1:55:40going by there every day to check what

1:55:42they're unloading and where it is.

1:55:44>> I

1:55:50>> Mark, my biggest concern is really this

1:55:52the buildings in the part that fronts on

1:55:55149th. I'm not so much concerned as the

1:55:58stuff that's further off of the road.

1:56:00Would you be willing to limit the

1:56:01outdoor storage use to the back half of

1:56:03the property,

1:56:05>> northern half of the property? I I mean

1:56:07we're confident in the placement of it

1:56:09because we have flood plane and floodway

1:56:11restrictions where we can't store

1:56:13material. So where we've shown it is a

1:56:15>> about the only spot that it can go

1:56:17unless a developer is looking to get rid

1:56:19of buildings which losing square footage

1:56:21is not ideal from a development

1:56:23standpoint. So if you want to say the

1:56:25northern half would be permitted outdoor

1:56:28storage still upon review of planning

1:56:30commission we're we're fine with that.

1:56:32The front buildings are going to block

1:56:34the view. I don't know if you have just

1:56:36the aerial, but the creek is pretty well

1:56:38wooded as well. So, we feel like there

1:56:41are more than enough protections from a

1:56:43vis from a visibility standpoint.

1:56:49>> Okay.

1:56:51Um, can you read that? Can we add that

1:56:55language to the TE you read earlier and

1:56:57re?

1:56:57>> Yeah. So we would say outdoor sales and

1:56:59display and outdoor storage location

1:57:01shall be limited to the northern half of

1:57:04the PUB location shall be specifically

1:57:07reviewed and approved by the planning

1:57:08commission at the specific plan stage.

1:57:10>> Okay.

1:57:14>> Um I think I'm good with that unless

1:57:16anyone else has something to add. Okay.

1:57:20Um, I'm going to make a motion to

1:57:22approve should be any taller

1:57:24>> PUD 2150 item number 18 or recommend

1:57:28approval to city council

1:57:31u with the tees as read into the record

1:57:34and

1:57:37>> and removing TE1.

1:57:39>> And that's what I was going to say in

1:57:40removing TE1.

1:57:41>> Yes.

1:57:42>> Okay.

1:57:46>> Okay. I have a motion from Commissioner

1:57:48Newman to recommend the item city

1:57:50council subject to the technical

1:57:52evaluations as read in second by

1:57:54Commissioner Meek. Please cast your

1:57:55votes.

1:58:05>> Thank you.

1:58:05>> That item is recommended for approval.

1:58:10>> Item 19.

1:58:13Item 19 is PUD 2157 application to

1:58:16reszone 4701 Northeast 122nd Street from

1:58:20PUD 1712.

1:58:23Uh good afternoon David Box 525

1:58:24Northwest 11th Street. Um if you could

1:58:26show the zoning map. There we go. This

1:58:29is a bit of a strange application um in

1:58:31that what we're really seeking I think

1:58:33is a significant down zone. This was

1:58:36deferred I believe from the last hearing

1:58:37or perhaps two hearings ago. Kendall

1:58:39Dill is the engineer. He's out of town.

1:58:41He did have the opportunity to meet with

1:58:43uh some of the neighbors that appeared

1:58:44at the last hearing and some changes

1:58:47were made. The the reason I stated this

1:58:49is kind of a strange one. PUD 1712

1:58:53was approved in May of 2019. It broken

1:58:57into two tracks. the tracked at issue

1:58:59that we seek to reszone uh allows for

1:59:03it's tract one in that PUB and allows

1:59:05for R4 also allows for some other uses

1:59:07but uh R4 and specifically R4 and tract

1:59:11one there are 32.91 acres there's a

1:59:15limitation on density but it's 15

1:59:17dwelling units per acre so what that

1:59:18means is the track that you see

1:59:20highlighted in black could be developed

1:59:22with 494

1:59:24multif family apartment units today

1:59:26under the current PUD

1:59:27And in addition, the height regulations

1:59:29that exist say 35 ft and two stories. If

1:59:32it were single family, two family, three

1:59:34family, but if it's for 82002

1:59:37multifamily residential, it is allowed

1:59:39to be 55 ft and four stories. So, a

1:59:43four-story multif family project is

1:59:45allowed there today. Now, there are some

1:59:47things that were important at the time,

1:59:48and that is a 40ft uh building setback

1:59:52on the north and a 40 foot building

1:59:53setback on the west. So fast forward to

1:59:55today, what we seek to do is an R1

1:59:58application and we seek to modify it to

2:00:00allow smaller than what would be allowed

2:00:01under the straight R1. Um I think it was

2:00:044500 the last time we have modified that

2:00:07to 4,725

2:00:09square ft per lot and we have added that

2:00:12the minimum lot width would be 45 ft. We

2:00:15know 40footers have become uh something

2:00:17that that have concern. So 45 foot in

2:00:20terms of the lot width and we require

2:00:23under landscaping a 40 foot tree

2:00:25preservation buffer along the north and

2:00:28west boundary. So the previous PD had

2:00:30that 40ft setback. We are committing to

2:00:31a 40ft uh tree preservation area both

2:00:34the north and the west. So um I believe

2:00:37this is more compatible than what would

2:00:39be allowed. Now again it's an over 300

2:00:42unit reduction in density and in

2:00:44exchange we want something slightly

2:00:46smaller than what would be allowed under

2:00:47R1. I think if if I were a neighbor,

2:00:50this would be a total win given the

2:00:53significant amount of density that could

2:00:54be done there today. So, there are no

2:00:56technical evaluations. Um, it is

2:00:59absolutely compatible. If you go to the

2:01:00aerial real quick, Jared, it's a it's an

2:01:02interesting area in that we're bordered

2:01:04by the Kilpatrick Turnpike on the north.

2:01:06You've got I35 uh on the east. You've

2:01:08got an industrial use on that south with

2:01:11the trucking operation. And then you've

2:01:12got Cracker Barrel, which my father

2:01:14loved to go to when he was working, as

2:01:16well as the Sonic right there. So, uh,

2:01:18absolutely, we believe this to be

2:01:20compatible. Um, happy to answer any

2:01:22questions. Uh, we'd ask for your

2:01:23approval.

2:01:26>> Um, Commissioner Harrison, this is your

2:01:28ward. I have one signed up to speak.

2:01:30>> Okay. Well, we we'll go ahead and hear

2:01:31from them.

2:01:31>> Okay.

2:01:32>> Thank you,

2:01:32>> Sheridan Hayes.

2:01:39>> Thank you. Sheridan Haynes, 11500

2:01:41Countryside Court. Um, we did meet as a

2:01:44community with Mr. uh Kindle and with

2:01:48Mr. Harrison. Um and we understand what

2:01:51is approved for there now, but as

2:01:53Kendall said at the meeting, that's not

2:01:55what anyone wants, including the

2:01:56developer. Um we are simply asking that

2:02:00the developer do 6,000 square foot lots.

2:02:02We feel that is what is fits best with

2:02:05what is already there. That is what he

2:02:07did in that neighborhood just to the

2:02:09west that he just recently developed. um

2:02:13that was not opposed by neighbors. Uh

2:02:16that is what is more everything

2:02:19surrounding even that farther out that

2:02:21is what is compatible more compatible.

2:02:24Uh and then it just it flows better with

2:02:27what with the community. In addition, by

2:02:30reducing the lot size to what they are

2:02:31proposing, you take away the tree

2:02:34coverage by almost 50% because of the

2:02:3765% coverage of the lot for building.

2:02:41This lies within the cross timbers which

2:02:44in the comprehensive plan for Oklahoma

2:02:46City, the cross timbers are specifically

2:02:49uh mentioned as an environment

2:02:51environmentally sensitive and

2:02:52historically significant ecosystem

2:02:54worthy of preservation. So if we're

2:02:57going to decrease lot size in this area,

2:03:00then we need to respect the coverage of

2:03:03those lot sizes as we would in R1. So,

2:03:07we're just asking that you require the

2:03:09minimum R1 6,000 square foot lot size.

2:03:12Thank you.

2:03:14>> Thank you.

2:03:19>> David, you want to talk about that?

2:03:21>> Well, I would just respond to say, you

2:03:23know, I'm trying to I'm trying to think

2:03:25through other single family residential

2:03:27neighborhoods I've done. Um, to my

2:03:30knowledge, a 40 foot tree preservation

2:03:32on both the north and the west is bigger

2:03:34than any other buffer that I can recall

2:03:37uh in a single family residential

2:03:39neighborhood. So the the tree argument

2:03:41is an interesting one, right? Like um

2:03:44somebody could go clearcut that whole

2:03:45thing today if they wanted that. You

2:03:47don't have to get a building permit or

2:03:49any permit to go take a tree down. Um

2:03:53understanding what was approved before,

2:03:56we believe that the the 40ft buffer on

2:03:58the north and the west does respect the

2:04:00trees that are out there. It respects

2:04:01the the nature of the area. Um, it's

2:04:04certainly a noble cause to want to

2:04:06preserve as many trees as possible.

2:04:07Unfortunately, in developments, that

2:04:09always isn't the case. But here, getting

2:04:1140 feet in two different areas, I think,

2:04:13is significant and a meaningful uh

2:04:16concession for the developer. So, um,

2:04:19again, yes, we want something smaller

2:04:20than than R1 allows, but um, this

2:04:23developer doesn't want to do multif

2:04:25family. um somebody someday if this gets

2:04:28denied would come through and and the

2:04:31opportunity to have 494 units at the

2:04:35intersection of two major highways would

2:04:37be appealing to someone. So we think

2:04:39this is actually a better use of the

2:04:40land and preserves the feel of the area

2:04:43way more than what the current PUD would

2:04:44allow.

2:04:47>> So I had conversation with Kendall and

2:04:49trying to figure out you know on the lot

2:04:52sizes and and the limited size of the

2:04:55smallest lot. So, the smallest lot's 70

2:04:574725.

2:04:59Not doesn't mean every lot in there is

2:05:00going to be 4725. Um, I tried to work a

2:05:04way to save as many trees as we could

2:05:06save into the development of the

2:05:09property. Um and then

2:05:13because he was downzoning so much

2:05:16um and agreed to 4725 as the very

2:05:20smallest lot in the neighborhood and

2:05:22then gave an additional

2:05:24actually designated what the amenities

2:05:27were going to be in the centralized

2:05:28park.

2:05:30I I could get behind where he was on the

2:05:34on the density and how it was going to

2:05:36be to develop this. This is on a the

2:05:38topographical

2:05:40area is very sloped to the north. It's

2:05:42on a hill and so it's going to be

2:05:45difficult enough to develop.

2:05:50>> I find that point to be important and

2:05:53somewhat persuasive. just the difficulty

2:05:55of the topography here in terms of you

2:05:58know facilitating development and yeah I

2:06:01mean we're reducing the number of units

2:06:04by half is that right

2:06:06>> more than that um I think

2:06:09>> yeah so 494 is what would be allowed

2:06:12today 180 is what we're at so by

2:06:15>> more I it's hard to say no to that

2:06:18>> and no 40s we've modified the minimum

2:06:21width to be 45 feet

2:06:23>> yeah My my comments are this application

2:06:25I would be excited about in my ward um

2:06:30especially with the 45. But moreover the

2:06:33baked in to 9.3 landscape they even if

2:06:37they you know didn't have this nice plat

2:06:41map uh they baked it in that all the

2:06:43tree preservations are in there. And

2:06:45then on the south side the double row 25

2:06:48uh foot landscape buffer with two rows

2:06:51of trees every 25 ft. I do appreciate

2:06:53the uh amenities being put in with the

2:06:56playground, the basketball, the pickle

2:06:58ball, the park benches. Um you know, it

2:07:02it's picked up a lot of good stuff to

2:07:04make a nice what I believe neighborhood,

2:07:07especially with what they could do right

2:07:09now without ever coming through this

2:07:11body.

2:07:13>> It is a different analysis. if it was

2:07:15zoned aa, you know, perhaps the argument

2:07:18would be different, but um whether they

2:07:21like it or not, the entitlements that

2:07:23exist are there and they're significant,

2:07:25>> right? And one more step,

2:07:29our drainage ordinance is there to

2:07:30protect us and and most people don't

2:07:33understand to get to get a development

2:07:36like this to all drain a certain

2:07:38direction into a certain detention pond,

2:07:40there's just no way to save all the

2:07:42trees in the middle. That's why they can

2:07:45help save the trees on the boundaries,

2:07:47but within the boundaries, they have to

2:07:50make everything drain a certain way, and

2:07:51you can't do that leaving trees

2:07:53everywhere. So, that's why we lose so

2:07:56many trees in a development like this.

2:07:58But, it's it's our drainage ordinance.

2:08:00It's what we have to they have to comply

2:08:02with

2:08:05>> and far fewer trees than we would lose

2:08:07if it were developed for multif family

2:08:09residential.

2:08:10>> Yeah, that's true.

2:08:12Any

2:08:13other commissions we didn't have

2:08:15comment?

2:08:16>> Well, I I was just going to add, you

2:08:18know, we originally saw this at 4,000

2:08:21square feet. They've come up, which I

2:08:22appreciate. We had the neighbors comment

2:08:26that they want to see 6,000.

2:08:29So, kind of in my mind, the compromise

2:08:32is right between four and six, which is

2:08:35five. And they're not far off of that.

2:08:37>> We can't do that. I I did ask Kendall,

2:08:40we can't make it five. Yeah.

2:08:42>> And to be clear, the neighbor um she she

2:08:45actually lives I think several miles

2:08:47east of I35 is is my belief. But

2:08:52>> yeah, after the meeting we did uh after

2:08:54meeting with the the neighborhood and as

2:08:56well as meeting back with Kendall, you

2:08:58know, the push I had was for five and

2:09:01you look at the amenities and then the

2:09:0345 ft. Well, I appreciated that as two.

2:09:06>> Yeah. But where I was going with that

2:09:08is, you know, the smallest lot is 4725,

2:09:13but I don't know what the largest lot

2:09:14might be, but but I mean, you're

2:09:18probably,

2:09:19you know, average,

2:09:22you know, five.

2:09:24So,

2:09:27so it's really close. And I think with

2:09:29all the amenities and and that and the

2:09:31buffers,

2:09:32um, I think that's enough to to get me

2:09:35there.

2:09:44We're not there's there's no plat

2:09:47associated with this.

2:09:51>> You have

2:09:52>> picture site plan. [laughter]

2:09:55>> We call it a sketch survey world. Huh.

2:09:58Without a great

2:09:59>> We could tie the exhibit B to as a

2:10:03>> PE though

2:10:04>> if we wanted to. Well, with those

2:10:06comments said, I'm I'm going to move

2:10:07forward with approval of PUD2

2:10:10recommendation. Approval of PUD 2157.

2:10:16We have a motion from Commissioner

2:10:17Harrison to recommend the item to city

2:10:20council for approval.

2:10:22Second by Commissioner Powers. Please

2:10:23cast your votes.

2:10:31And that item is recommended for

2:10:32approval.

2:10:33>> Thank you.

2:10:36Item 20.

2:10:38>> Item 20 is PUD 2148, application to

2:10:41reszone 11306 Northwestern Avenue from

2:10:44R1.

2:10:45>> Uh, good afternoon, David Box, 525

2:10:47Northwest 11th Street. Uh, this is

2:10:49another one that was deferred, I

2:10:51believe, two weeks ago um in an effort

2:10:54to try to come up with some

2:10:55modifications to it. So, can you show

2:10:58the new site plan? I know the There we

2:11:00go. and it's perhaps oriented um

2:11:03sideways, but you can imagine. So, in

2:11:05the previous version, there was one uh

2:11:07common area, and I think it was just

2:11:08kind of maybe off to the left. And so,

2:11:10what we've done now was created three

2:11:12separate common areas uh that are

2:11:14centrally located. They kind of all feel

2:11:16now like they're almost equidistant to

2:11:18each of the units that would uh be

2:11:20within this. Um so, with that, there are

2:11:24a handful of TEES. So, we agree to TE's.

2:11:29Well, I think we really agree to all of

2:11:30them. So, one, two, three. On four, we

2:11:33agree to, but we need to state that

2:11:35except that Western Avenue shall allow

2:11:37two points of access. We agree to five.

2:11:40Um, the next item is the CE. So, I don't

2:11:44know the six applies. If it's approved,

2:11:46if if it's approved, we agree to TE7.

2:11:52So, I think we agree to all of them. On

2:11:54four, we would say except that Western

2:11:56Avenue shall be allowed two points of

2:11:58access um

2:12:01and strike six.

2:12:06Happy to answer any questions.

2:12:13>> Well, so the next item I don't know how

2:12:16to deal with six and seven, but we agree

2:12:18with all of them. We would ask six be

2:12:21struck on TE4 access per subreg. We

2:12:24agree except just to be clear that

2:12:26Western Avenue shall allow two points of

2:12:29access which is what's shown on the

2:12:44>> Okay. Uh Mr. Harrison, this is your

2:12:48ward. I do not have anyone signed up to

2:12:50speak.

2:12:52>> Don't I get all the fun ones? Um,

2:12:55commissioners, I' I'd really like to

2:12:56hear your take on this. Uh, there have

2:12:58been some modifications. This is a an

2:13:01area that's been developed kind of

2:13:03strangely over the last 10-15 years

2:13:05honestly. Uh, but this is set vacant.

2:13:08The city's they haven't put streets in

2:13:10now. They're not going to uh not Jeff is

2:13:14just going to make somebody do it. But

2:13:16other than that, uh I'd really like to

2:13:18hear your take on any any additional

2:13:21possible improvements if if any uh

2:13:23before we move forward.

2:13:25>> So, I'll start a little bit, but I'll

2:13:27say this. The city wouldn't have put the

2:13:28streets in in the original development

2:13:30either. So, it's on the developer to put

2:13:33the streets in.

2:13:35I asked you to see about the public work

2:13:38stance on on whether the the streets the

2:13:42you know taking out one one easement and

2:13:44putting two streets in and and what you

2:13:47had planned. I didn't want to approve

2:13:49something here in this body that then

2:13:51you got to the public works department

2:13:54and they just said no this can't happen.

2:13:57>> So

2:13:58was there any communication back and

2:14:00forth? Do you know any of that? because

2:14:02>> I believe I've read that you want two

2:14:05public streets.

2:14:07>> Correct.

2:14:07>> Correct. And I talked to the staff and

2:14:09they're adamantly opposed to two public

2:14:12streets. So, they're more inclined to

2:14:15let them be private drives.

2:14:17>> Okay. I think that's fine.

2:14:19>> I mean,

2:14:20>> yeah, that's fine.

2:14:23>> But they don't want private drives

2:14:24either. So,

2:14:27that's kind of the the rub. I mean to me

2:14:31looking at the development they need to

2:14:33be private drives that this almost needs

2:14:35to be almost like a apartment complex.

2:14:37>> Yeah. With POA that controls and

2:14:39maintains,

2:14:39>> right? And plat. Yeah. Just because of

2:14:42what it is. If if you if you were to

2:14:45develop it this way, the best

2:14:47development would be to just change this

2:14:50to R1, put the street in the middle,

2:14:52duplexes across the board, and you would

2:14:55get density. You wouldn't get quite this

2:14:56much density. You're asking for one

2:14:58whole street of additional density of

2:15:01duplexes. The the T number one with a

2:15:0412T drive, that's that's a non-starter

2:15:06for sure because there's going to be

2:15:07cars everywhere if you did that.

2:15:10So,

2:15:12it's just,

2:15:16you know,

2:15:16>> do that again on TE1.

2:15:18>> Just if you had a 12oot drive in front

2:15:20of every one of these duplexes.

2:15:21>> Oh,

2:15:25>> you're going to have one car in front of

2:15:26them. I mean there there's just not

2:15:28enough room to do anything else. So you

2:15:32have cars everywhere.

2:15:33>> I think that would be 24 feet

2:15:37per dwelling, right? Each side is a

2:15:40dwelling. Is that the intent?

2:15:42>> Each drive would be per dwelling. So

2:15:44it's 24 total feet per

2:15:46>> like a single car. It's like a single

2:15:48carpet for for each one. I mean be great

2:15:50if there was just one person living in

2:15:52each one of these, but there's going to

2:15:53be a family in each one of these.

2:15:56It's it's it's

2:15:58it's going to be a lot.

2:16:01I need to see,

2:16:03you know,

2:16:05off-site parking.

2:16:08It's It's just so dense. That's just my

2:16:11thoughts. Sorry. But

2:16:13>> Well, you don't really have offsite

2:16:15parking. Is that what you're saying?

2:16:16Yeah,

2:16:17>> there isn't. I mean, you're not

2:16:18>> But you're gonna have cars.

2:16:20>> Yeah.

2:16:22>> Yeah.

2:16:36difficult problematic.

2:16:39>> Can you turn your microphone on?

2:16:42>> Probably got to put it on too. Um, yeah.

2:16:45I I I think that the issue with respect

2:16:47to the size of the lots, parking,

2:16:51width, the drive, all of that. It's just

2:16:53and

2:16:55If staff doesn't want it to be public

2:16:57streets, that's kind of a whole other

2:16:59thing for me. I'm not crazy about

2:17:00private drives. So,

2:17:03because I don't think people really ever

2:17:05believe that they're going to have to

2:17:06pay to to um maintain them. You know,

2:17:10it's like you have a street out in front

2:17:11of your house, you're not thinking about

2:17:12putting away money to maintain it,

2:17:15right?

2:17:21I agree on the the parking issue. I was

2:17:24hoping when this came back maybe we'd

2:17:26see some single family houses mixed in

2:17:28here, something that gives it a little

2:17:30bit of diversity. Um it's not quite as

2:17:34big of a sea of paving as it was, but

2:17:36it's still pretty substantial.

2:17:38Um and I agree that putting the two

2:17:42streets in here were just asking too

2:17:43much out of the the available land.

2:17:54Well, and I don't, you know, we don't

2:17:55get into what type of product this is

2:17:58going to be, but I mean, if it's if

2:18:01these end up being private drives, there

2:18:02has to be an association, an entity of

2:18:05some sort that has to

2:18:08be responsible for maintaining and

2:18:11repairing the drives. And if these

2:18:15aren't for sale units, uh I don't know

2:18:18how that's going to work.

2:18:20>> No, that's going to be

2:18:21>> uh so that means that they're not going

2:18:23to get repaired. And so in 20 years,

2:18:26we're going to have a bunch of vacant

2:18:27units because everyone's out because the

2:18:29streets torn

2:18:32torn up and and not getting replaced. So

2:18:34>> yeah, it's probably a minimum of 100

2:18:36bucks a month per dwelling. I mean on

2:18:39the low end I would think to maintain

2:18:41that but that's just a wildest guess.

2:18:45>> This is going to be platted though right

2:18:47>> the staff just we need to actually we

2:18:50don't agree

2:18:52um with TE3 because it may be that it is

2:18:56one common lot.

2:19:04Um, this is I'm David Lloyd with HGO

2:19:07Construction and uh, just so you know,

2:19:10we we took a lot of consideration under

2:19:11this project. We walked and looked at

2:19:13the area. We've been working on it for

2:19:15about two years. We're not a significant

2:19:17size developer. We're really trying to

2:19:19make something happen in this community.

2:19:20We've been a part of it. We got with

2:19:23staff early and we had some suggestions

2:19:24and they kind of led us this way. So, we

2:19:26didn't come up here just on our own. And

2:19:28I'm not trying to disrespect staff, but

2:19:30we kind of walked through the process

2:19:31and do it the best way we knew how. And

2:19:33then we get to the finish line and

2:19:35everything's kind of changed. And if we

2:19:37would have known that to begin with, we

2:19:38might not have bought the property. So,

2:19:40we were just trying to work with the

2:19:41community. It's been a blighted area. We

2:19:43think we're going to put a great product

2:19:44in there. I've done some urban renewal

2:19:46before, some really neat projects across

2:19:48the street from Douglas and some other

2:19:49areas. So, we took a lot of this under

2:19:51consideration. So, we're kind of just

2:19:53for me personally, we're kind of just

2:19:54trying to figure out if staff would have

2:19:56said we couldn't have done that to begin

2:19:57with, I wouldn't have purchased the

2:19:59property.

2:19:59>> Well, I mean, staff recommends denial.

2:20:03staff is the one that let us we have the

2:20:04emails to prove that point. So, I'm not

2:20:06trying to disrespect staff. I'm just

2:20:07saying we talked to staff back and forth

2:20:09initially. It's been going on for a

2:20:11process. I'm not saying they didn't

2:20:12recommend them. I am telling you when we

2:20:14went to them to talk to them initially

2:20:16before I purchased the property, this

2:20:18was kind of the guidance they gave us.

2:20:19We gave them several suggestions and

2:20:21they said, "Hey, this one we probably

2:20:22can get done." not a permanent, not a

2:20:24dict, you know, not dictatorship, not

2:20:26saying this is this is definitely what

2:20:27can get done, but this is a suggestion

2:20:29because we knew we wanted to create

2:20:30density and we knew we did not want to

2:20:32do multif family.

2:20:33>> Yeah. Well, and I think density would be

2:20:35increased because it's all zoned R1

2:20:37currently. Zone this all R2, but keep

2:20:40the existing topography of the streets

2:20:43and you've doubled the density. You're

2:20:46just wanting to triple it.

2:20:48>> That is great.

2:20:50>> And and I get that. It's just

2:20:54If it's under one [clears throat] parcel

2:20:55and one land and it's all in an HOA,

2:20:58it's more like an apartment complex and

2:20:59private drives and all that. That's

2:21:02that's one thing. If it's, you know,

2:21:06public streets and and

2:21:09our two, it it fits the area. Also,

2:21:13>> and just for the record, for you and

2:21:16everybody out there, um, obviously staff

2:21:18is not the decision-making body, and the

2:21:21wise course of action would be to get a

2:21:23zoning uh approval before purchasing

2:21:26property. We always recommend that. So,

2:21:28>> I'm not trying to disrespect staff. I'm

2:21:30just saying that we did our due

2:21:31diligence. We did our best, and I know

2:21:32staff did theirs as well. So, I just

2:21:34wanted to let that we didn't nefariously

2:21:36just come up with this on our own.

2:21:37>> Yeah. and and there's apartment

2:21:38complexes in this area and you know just

2:21:41just off street apartment complexes over

2:21:42here.

2:21:42>> Can I ask you to step in front of the

2:21:44microphone please?

2:21:44>> Yes, please.

2:21:46>> No, just if you're going to talk

2:21:48>> what you're saying. Yeah, I was just

2:21:48want to say that staff did their best.

2:21:50I'm not trying to disrespect of

2:21:51anything, but I just wanted you to know

2:21:52we were trying to work with staff to get

2:21:54to this point and we took some of their

2:21:56um instructions. So, you know, just

2:21:58letting you know.

2:22:00>> So, are we looking at uh continuing this

2:22:03and and having continued dialogue or was

2:22:07very We'll we'll we let's take a vote

2:22:09and then we'll see what city council

2:22:11does.

2:22:12>> Sound like

2:22:13>> Okay.

2:22:15All right. Okay. We have a motion.

2:22:17>> Are you sure you want to just do that? I

2:22:18mean, you're obviously going to take it

2:22:20to denial here.

2:22:20>> No, we we need I mean, the problem is we

2:22:22I

2:22:23>> I just rather make a better product to

2:22:25>> But we can't do what you want. We can't

2:22:28>> I'm not saying I Well, yes, I'd love to

2:22:30see this R2 and just that, but I think

2:22:32>> by itself, not platted under one

2:22:35property,

2:22:37>> it's like an apartment complex and it's

2:22:40all private, all private drives.

2:22:41>> Yeah. Yeah. So what I guess

2:22:44>> what would you want to see different if

2:22:46we took a deferral and came out?

2:22:47>> I think you need to make some

2:22:48adjustments to the application and make

2:22:50it basically you know

2:22:52>> like like I could see like if you could

2:22:55throw the site plan back up there again.

2:22:58I mean to me looking at it it's it's

2:23:01tight sight plan but if you consolidate

2:23:04your two entrance off western into one

2:23:06in the center and you take those you

2:23:09take those all those units that are down

2:23:11the center and you spin them 90 degrees

2:23:15and you have cutthroughs so basically

2:23:18they face the the eight units on the

2:23:21bottom have those face each other put a

2:23:24street through. So connect run you

2:23:26ladder streets north south. I think you

2:23:29can fit all those same units in that

2:23:32strip with cutthroughs driveways and

2:23:35then it's all just private internal

2:23:36circulation

2:23:38um with one drive to the east and one

2:23:40drive to the west

2:23:43>> and green space is still

2:23:46>> and then and then you

2:23:47>> still meet all the criteria. So

2:23:50>> yeah,

2:23:51>> what you had said we did take under

2:23:53consideration and we we would we would

2:23:55consider that we just kind of continue

2:23:57to go the direction that we were told to

2:23:59go initially. We went back and did ask

2:24:01that and they said kind of continue in

2:24:03this direction. So that's why we did

2:24:04that. So we know so I'm not minding if

2:24:06we can maybe review that and go back to

2:24:08it. I'm just saying that's why we did

2:24:10not present that because that's not the

2:24:12direction we were kind of told to.

2:24:13>> So So at this point can can we go back

2:24:15and have the conversation?

2:24:16>> It's his call. You want to

2:24:19>> I don't want to say David because

2:24:20there's two Davids up here.

2:24:22>> Yeah.

2:24:24>> You want to defer march on to city

2:24:25council?

2:24:28>> Well, if we defer it would be we I would

2:24:31suggest we take four weeks

2:24:33>> and try to redesign it or we go to city

2:24:36council.

2:24:40>> All right, we'll take a deferral.

2:24:41>> Thank you.

2:24:42>> Four weeks.

2:24:43>> I kind of would like to see what would

2:24:44happen, but here we are.

2:24:48Okay. I'm going to make a motion that we

2:24:49defer item 20, which is PUD 2148 out for

2:24:53four weeks, which makes that November

2:24:5512th

2:24:56>> 12th meeting. Thank you.

2:24:57>> Thank you.

2:24:58>> All right. A motion from Commissioner

2:24:59Harrison to defer the item to the

2:25:01November 12th meeting,

2:25:08>> second by Commissioner Powers. Please

2:25:09cast your votes

2:25:12>> and go ahead and defer the next one

2:25:13>> and then yeah, I would suggest that we

2:25:17>> Yeah, they do the same for the next one.

2:25:18So they're on the same docket.

2:25:22>> Commissioner Harrison, did you catch

2:25:24that? We're going to we're going to

2:25:25defer the next item to the same.

2:25:27>> Yes. So

2:25:29>> Okay. So I need a motion.

2:25:33>> Unless you guys want to go ahead and

2:25:34approve this.

2:25:35>> Do we need to call it?

2:25:36>> We can save ourselves a step. You want

2:25:38bills for the city?

2:25:40>> Okay, let's call let's call the item and

2:25:42then

2:25:43>> let's let Mr. Butler call the item.

2:25:46>> Okay. Item 21 is KCE 1167 application to

2:25:50close the rideway for Northwest 12th

2:25:51Street between Northwestern Avenue and

2:25:53North Chartel Avenue and a portion of

2:25:56intersecting rightway for North Ali

2:25:57Avenue between blocks 31 32 and 33 and

2:26:0034 of College Park edition.

2:26:03>> Okay. Now you can make your motion.

2:26:05>> Do you want my name and address or just

2:26:07No. Okay,

2:26:08>> please that we uh defer item C C1167

2:26:13>> to November the 12th. Have

2:26:16>> a motion from Commissioner Harrison to

2:26:18defer CE 11167 to the November 12th

2:26:21meeting. Second by Commissioner Meek.

2:26:23Please cast your votes

2:26:28and that item is deferred.

2:26:30>> Thank you.

2:26:32>> All right, we are now at the last item

2:26:34on the agenda, item 22.

2:26:37This is C1 1169 application to close a

2:26:40portion of the east west right ofway on

2:26:42Northwest 10th 103rd Street. The east

2:26:45west al alleyway in block 13 homedale

2:26:48edition. The east west alleyway in block

2:26:5014ale edition and the north south

2:26:53rightway of north avenue generally west

2:26:55of west garnet and north of northwest

2:26:58102nd street.

2:27:01Good afternoon. Cheryl Plexico, 923

2:27:04North Robinson, representing a chance to

2:27:06change Foundation. This is property that

2:27:09was donated to the foundation. It's

2:27:12residential property and we're here

2:27:15today because the property is

2:27:18essentially unmarketable due to the

2:27:22rightway that runs right through the

2:27:24middle of the property. So, we're asking

2:27:26that that be vacated and then half of

2:27:29the um property on North Alley to the um

2:27:36to the west be vacated.

2:27:42Okay.

2:27:44Um

2:27:46Commissioner Harrison, this is Ward 7.

2:27:48Uh, I do not have anyone signed up to

2:27:50speak, but um I know in our staff report

2:27:55we're basically saying remove the half

2:27:57street closures, but it brings up an

2:27:58interesting question is I think the

2:28:01applicant is wishing to close

2:28:06all portions of right away that they are

2:28:09within their property. They don't have

2:28:12the ability to include the other half of

2:28:14the street.

2:28:15>> Okay,

2:28:16>> it's outside their property. But I can

2:28:18see where they would they wouldn't want

2:28:20to come back later if we remove these

2:28:22half streets per the staff

2:28:23recommendation

2:28:25and come back and do it do it later when

2:28:28the adjacent property owners. So this is

2:28:31this is a tough one. I'd kind of like to

2:28:33hear from staff on what the

2:28:37what the what the thinking is on this.

2:28:41>> Hi Sarah Welsh planning department.

2:28:42Yeah, it's a little bit awkward because

2:28:44typically we see uh st we see closures

2:28:47for whole entire streets because you

2:28:48have to own more than 51% of the land

2:28:51when you ask for the closure. In this

2:28:53case, we know it dead ends to the east.

2:28:55Um but we don't typically support the

2:28:58half street closure because it leaves a

2:29:00substandard rightway for the future. Um

2:29:02our only concern with this one would be

2:29:04that it would um this is 103rd, correct?

2:29:08103rd is installed.

2:29:11Hold on.

2:29:13Oh, I'm sorry. Um, so,

2:29:16scratch my comment, wrong case about the

2:29:18dead end. There's another one coming.

2:29:20You'll you'll you'll see it. Um, so we

2:29:24are just noting that the closure of

2:29:26103rd, the whole thing or even the half

2:29:29would really prevent us from ever being

2:29:31able to get a complete connection all

2:29:32the way through from the improved 103rd

2:29:35all the way to Garnett. Um that being

2:29:37said, you the commission should get used

2:29:39to us

2:29:41um not recommending closure of half

2:29:42streets just because it leaves a

2:29:44substandard right away. However, there

2:29:47it is it's been done pretty consistently

2:29:49and even recently. So

2:29:51>> wait, what's the alternative? Is there

2:29:53one?

2:29:53>> I'm sorry.

2:29:54>> What's the alternative? Is there one?

2:29:56>> No.

2:29:56>> Not to close them.

2:29:58>> Yeah.

2:29:58>> Yeah.

2:29:59>> They're going to have to come back

2:30:00anyway, right? I I would prefer to be

2:30:04considering the closures in context of

2:30:06something as opposed to just doing this

2:30:09when they're not able to do all of it

2:30:11and we know that it's going to come back

2:30:13and it's like let's just wait and see. I

2:30:15mean

2:30:17closures are always um iffy, you know. I

2:30:20mean if if there's a clear trend in

2:30:23development around it and you know you

2:30:25have a pretty good guess what's going to

2:30:27go in there, that's one thing. But um

2:30:32>> are are you when you say it's not

2:30:34marketable, are so you're trying this is

2:30:36your organization received this as a

2:30:38donation, correct?

2:30:39>> And you're trying to sell the property

2:30:41>> to a residential user. They want to

2:30:43build a new residence on the property.

2:30:46It's it's all unimproved property and

2:30:48this rideway has been there for a very

2:30:51very very long period of time. And

2:30:54>> so what she's saying,

2:30:55>> as far as we can tell, it hasn't been

2:30:56used. I'm sorry. We can get behind it a

2:30:58lot better if we know what it's going to

2:31:00look like.

2:31:01>> You said a single residence or a

2:31:04neighborhood.

2:31:04>> Who knows, right?

2:31:07>> Whatever they zone it to.

2:31:09>> What you're saying, I'm sorry. I'm

2:31:10having I'm hearing

2:31:11>> Sorry. It's just that if we knew what it

2:31:14was going to become,

2:31:15>> right,

2:31:16>> then and and why you want to close

2:31:18portions and and not other portions,

2:31:19then

2:31:20>> Well, we can I mean, I know why because

2:31:22you don't own all of the property,

2:31:25>> right? We're only asking to close what

2:31:28what we own and what impedes

2:31:30>> our property.

2:31:32>> We don't have their design because we

2:31:35can't sell it

2:31:38and have someone design it.

2:31:40>> Yeah.

2:31:41>> Because of this um I mean I don't know

2:31:44if you've seen the residents around

2:31:45there. They're not large residential

2:31:47properties and whoever buys it would

2:31:50have to go through the permitting

2:31:52process to build. But it's just going to

2:31:55sit there as it sat there for many, many

2:31:58years unless we can at least vacate the

2:32:02right away for Northwest 103rd Street.

2:32:06You just have the property it's

2:32:08unusable.

2:32:10>> But just like the case before, you'll

2:32:12see that, you know, then they come in

2:32:15with a different design that we're not

2:32:18in favor of and then you vacated an

2:32:20easement that

2:32:21>> Yeah. If I mean I I could see it's it's

2:32:25tough, but I could see like if you have

2:32:27an interested buyer,

2:32:30um I would maybe encourage them to go

2:32:32ahead and and work with you to put

2:32:36together a a site plan. Uh what what

2:32:39their intended development plans are.

2:32:40And I don't know if they if they even

2:32:42have to be part of the application or

2:32:44not, but um I think

2:32:49I mean it would it would have to be part

2:32:51of the application in order to

2:32:53>> tie it.

2:32:54>> Like we'd have to have a zoning

2:32:55application in order to to tie it

2:32:57together. So

2:32:59>> um and I know but that's tough for them

2:33:01to to go through that process if they

2:33:03haven't purchased the property.

2:33:04>> Right. I think what's a little bit

2:33:05challenging and it's it's too bad that

2:33:07the last one the last case wasn't heard

2:33:09and I apologize you're at the end but

2:33:10that would have been informative because

2:33:12we were we're asking for the same thing

2:33:14planning would prefer streets are

2:33:16installed rather than closed and vacated

2:33:18and re relocated in this case they're

2:33:21already zoned for R1 and they're already

2:33:23platted so um kind of similar to the

2:33:26last one we would we would envision

2:33:28103rd Street being connected all the way

2:33:30through and then the zoning and the

2:33:32platting already exists on either side

2:33:34of it. So, um, but that would be if

2:33:38that's not the we we also don't know the

2:33:39vision and and we didn't know if maybe

2:33:41there was a zoning application coming

2:33:42later or there was a use that maybe

2:33:44would be allowed in R1 that wouldn't be

2:33:46required to plat, you know, like a low

2:33:49impact residential use or something like

2:33:51that. Um, so I'm not I'm sorry I'm not

2:33:54being probably overly helpful, but uh we

2:33:56just had a lot of closures lately that

2:33:58include half streets and partial rights

2:33:59of way, and we're trying to stay

2:34:01consistent in our recommendation,

2:34:03>> right? And we're we're trying to avoid a

2:34:04situation where this owner uh on the

2:34:07northeast here it says owner Leon Jose

2:34:11where you know say they're planning on

2:34:14using 103rd Street and if half of it's

2:34:16closed they no longer have the ability

2:34:18to access

2:34:19>> you know if they were to develop it in

2:34:21lots north south like kind of like it's

2:34:22shown. We just don't know what their

2:34:24plans are and so hate to take a right

2:34:26away from them that they already have.

2:34:29>> Right. I if the owner Leon Jose whatever

2:34:33if you own that corner and you could I'

2:34:35I could get behind just shutting down

2:34:37103rd and it became one big piece of

2:34:39property. Even if you left the alleys

2:34:42out of the closure that makes it a one

2:34:44big marketable piece of property that

2:34:46you could access off Garnett Drive. But

2:34:49especially not owning

2:34:51half the street where it attaches to

2:34:53Garnet Drive, it's it's a mess for I

2:34:56don't I don't like it.

2:34:57>> But again, it it's been this way for at

2:35:00least the 1980s. I mean,

2:35:02>> that's why that's why someone donated it

2:35:04probably.

2:35:05>> Well, yeah. And this he require he

2:35:08acquired it as part of

2:35:09>> where are you taking access after you

2:35:11closed that? And this the best use was

2:35:13to donate to someone that could

2:35:15>> build out Francis. But then you're

2:35:17closing half of Francis too or Olly or

2:35:19whatever that is.

2:35:20>> Holly.

2:35:21>> Yeah. Well, it's Francis for the north

2:35:23and south, but Ollie there

2:35:25>> and the Ali is not critical. That was a

2:35:28recommendation from the surveyor. What's

2:35:30critical is the rightway at Northwest

2:35:33103rd Street because again, the property

2:35:35is just going to sit there and be

2:35:37vacant. Um, if we can't get it vacated,

2:35:40>> I mean, I I could get behind the

2:35:41closure. I really can't. I mean, you're

2:35:43going to have to come back one way or

2:35:45another with whatever the development's

2:35:46going to be or if they want to come back

2:35:48and build 103rd all the way through.

2:35:52They're coming back.

2:35:54>> Or don't try to close the first uh

2:35:58>> the first blocks 44 through 51. Leave

2:36:01that 103rd full width there. you can

2:36:03donate it to that other owner and then

2:36:07you can close the full rest of 103rd and

2:36:09it becomes a marketable property then.

2:36:12Um but yeah

2:36:14>> and I understand the alleys aren't that

2:36:16big of a deal.

2:36:17>> I don't know that you can ne necessarily

2:36:20have a have a foundation a 501c that

2:36:23would donate to an individual. Well,

2:36:26then just remove the closure on that

2:36:28part,

2:36:29>> that flag.

2:36:30>> But then then you can't use the entirety

2:36:33of the property.

2:36:35>> But you can't anyway because you're

2:36:36leaving half of that street.

2:36:39>> You just leave a flag. What?

2:36:40>> Well, we the I'm sorry, I'm really

2:36:43having a hard time hearing. But

2:36:44>> I understand.

2:36:45>> We've got the access on the Garnett.

2:36:50Well, I think that's the point is you

2:36:52with you've only got half of the access

2:36:54on the Garnett

2:36:55>> and

2:36:57you know, I'm not sure how wide that is,

2:36:59but it's I'm assuming it would be a

2:37:01non-standard city street. So,

2:37:03>> it's 20 it's it's 25 it's it's 25 feet.

2:37:08So,

2:37:09>> so you'd have to go through some

2:37:12>> you'd have to get special design,

2:37:14unusual design. The city wouldn't accept

2:37:16it as a public street and all of that.

2:37:18And so, it might tie your hands as well

2:37:22to get access to Garnett uh with without

2:37:25closing without

2:37:28>> Yeah. the way you got it.

2:37:31>> Yeah. And unfortunately, I don't know

2:37:33what these people's plans are. Again, it

2:37:37got stopped dead in its tracks because

2:37:41they couldn't get financing to buy the

2:37:44property as long as this rideway is

2:37:47here. So,

2:37:48>> well, did they say they wanted

2:37:50>> did did they say they wanted to build

2:37:52one big house or are they want to build

2:37:55many houses?

2:37:56>> No, my understanding is one residence.

2:37:58The these are I mean probably a $100,000

2:38:02home,

2:38:02>> right? That

2:38:03>> so you'd be looking for a driveway off

2:38:06Garnett even though you just shut down a

2:38:08platted public right away. And if you

2:38:12didn't include that 103rd, then you'd

2:38:14have two driveways really close to each

2:38:16other, which would also be a bad idea.

2:38:20>> So,

2:38:22is what you're comfortable with is if we

2:38:24take out the

2:38:28lots,

2:38:304, three, and two. Is that what you're

2:38:32saying?

2:38:34>> It's more of lots 44 through 51. I think

2:38:37the north owner,

2:38:39>> right? You've got an owner in the top

2:38:41right

2:38:42>> hasn't access to a public right

2:38:43>> and both the owner of the top right

2:38:45property Leon Jose and whoever becomes

2:38:48the new owner of your property could

2:38:50enter on what is already platted as

2:38:52103rd

2:38:54>> 103.

2:38:55>> So 1 2 3 4

2:38:58>> five

2:38:59>> of her property.

2:39:01>> That's her property.

2:39:02>> Her property.

2:39:03>> Yeah. If you could leave that street,

2:39:05that platted street right there, and

2:39:07pull that blue line down and leave the

2:39:09street there, that person has a way to

2:39:12enter. Your prospective buyer has a way

2:39:15to enter.

2:39:17>> Can we amend what's before you guys

2:39:19today to do that?

2:39:21>> No. Troy D is going to have to redo the

2:39:23survey.

2:39:24>> Yeah. New legal.

2:39:25>> Yeah.

2:39:28>> Okay. So, basically, we start the

2:39:30process over.

2:39:31>> Just defer it. Just defer it.

2:39:33>> We just defer it and let him have enough

2:39:35time to make the change on it.

2:39:36>> Make that change, which he can do in

2:39:38about five minutes.

2:39:40>> So, defer two weeks.

2:39:41>> Yeah.

2:39:43>> Got it.

2:39:44>> Thank you. [clears throat]

2:39:44>> Thank you.

2:39:46>> All right.

2:39:47>> I move that

2:39:50>> I

2:39:52we we can remove we can make the subject

2:39:54sites smaller through a TE. Is that if

2:39:57that's what you're wanting?

2:39:57>> Oh, wow. We can.

2:40:00>> Yeah. because RTE was to remove half

2:40:02street closures. So if that is being

2:40:04agreed to for 103rd, you could you could

2:40:07either approve it per 10 and3rd or we

2:40:09could reference those. We conveniently

2:40:11have the lots and blocks. We could

2:40:13remove the um right ofway closure

2:40:16adjacent to those lots from the

2:40:18application. That's if

2:40:20>> what about oi that's

2:40:22>> because those the property owners to the

2:40:24west

2:40:25>> it's going to appears they have to take

2:40:27access from oi.

2:40:30>> Yeah. We don't have any problem removing

2:40:32that if we can do that through the TE.

2:40:35>> Okay.

2:40:39>> So to confirm the what would remain in

2:40:41as part of the closure request would be

2:40:43the the full portion of 103

2:40:46and then the half alleys.

2:40:49>> Well, kind of the full portion up to a

2:40:53block line. I'm just saying the part

2:40:55that you would be closing would remain o

2:41:00>> the part of the application would be

2:41:01amended to only include the full section

2:41:04of 103rd where it's 50 ft wide and then

2:41:07the half alleys running east and west

2:41:11along the north and south sides of the

2:41:13property. And we would be removing the

2:41:16half street portion of 103rd and the

2:41:18half street

2:41:19>> half street of oi. Yes.

2:41:20>> Right. Okay.

2:41:22>> That would work. I'm not in favor of

2:41:24closing half an alley. That's crazy.

2:41:29>> Sarah, didn't you say we would nix the

2:41:32alley closure all together? you we just

2:41:36take out that I'm I'm just offering

2:41:38instead of deferring we we you could

2:41:39through a TE keep o as long as what is

2:41:42being closed is shown on this map we can

2:41:44modify the closure if the applicant

2:41:46agrees and we can move it forward

2:41:49through a TE

2:41:52I just want to make sure everybody knows

2:41:53that there's a water line

2:41:57>> so you know we we will reserve all those

2:41:59whatever easements are in there can't be

2:42:01built over they'd have to be either

2:42:02relocated or they'll be reserved at the

2:42:04closure and the vacation.

2:42:07>> Where was the water line?

2:42:10>> Alley or on Ali or on 103.

2:42:15>> He's uh Dustin can confirm that. He's

2:42:17checking now to be sure.

2:42:19>> Yeah. Cuz that

2:42:20>> probably

2:42:20>> that becomes a problem for a perspective

2:42:23owner also if it's

2:42:24>> it could be a issue for if it's one

2:42:26owner,

2:42:26>> right?

2:42:53Okay. utilities is confirming we have a

2:42:55water line down uh 103rd and then the

2:42:58the sewer sanitary sewer lines are in

2:43:01the alleys both alleys.

2:43:05The ordinance that we take forward to

2:43:06council and eventually to district court

2:43:08will reserve those unless or until the

2:43:12lines are relocated.

2:43:19>> That changes things. the water line on

2:43:21103rd

2:43:25>> doesn't really change anything the sewer

2:43:28line will stay in

2:43:30>> right I know it doesn't change anything

2:43:32but the you need to know that or anybody

2:43:35that buys it cannot build that

2:43:37>> and we're we're aware of those

2:43:38>> okay

2:43:45>> I appreciate what uh Miss Welch is

2:43:48trying to do but I think two weeks to

2:43:50have uh your surveyor redo this. Um it

2:43:55would be just a lot cleaner of a

2:43:58[clears throat] process.

2:43:58>> That's what I

2:44:00>> Well, the question becomes is is

2:44:03everyone good? Well, I know Janice, you

2:44:05said you didn't like the half alleys.

2:44:08I mean, we need to kind of give her

2:44:09direction on what to do. She's going to

2:44:11redo.

2:44:12>> Yeah. You're okay with not closing the

2:44:14alleys, right?

2:44:17>> I'm sorry. What? Are you okay with not

2:44:19closing the alleys? Correct.

2:44:21>> Yes, fine with that.

2:44:22>> So, if you have him remove the alleys

2:44:24>> and just leave that one portion 103.

2:44:27>> Yeah.

2:44:33[clears throat]

2:44:33>> So, there's no way we can go forward

2:44:35today.

2:44:38>> I think sorry.

2:44:40>> Yeah. No, I think we want to we want to

2:44:42see it cleaned up. There's just

2:44:45um but I just want to make sure that I'm

2:44:47clear. So um so 103rd would remain in

2:44:53the application to close 103. What about

2:44:55>> oie? The whole

2:44:57>> the whole part right what about what

2:45:00about

2:45:00>> and that would be gone as well

2:45:04saying

2:45:04>> so basically we're closing or we're

2:45:06removing from the application everything

2:45:08around the perimeter. The only thing

2:45:09that the application would include would

2:45:12be the full portion of 103rd Street.

2:45:14>> Right.

2:45:14>> Okay.

2:45:15>> Correct. So yes, that gets a lot

2:45:17simpler.

2:45:21>> Okay,

2:45:25>> thank you. Appreciate it.

2:45:27>> All right, so we'll just um need a

2:45:29motion to defer this two weeks.

2:45:32>> I move we uh defer item 22 C1169

2:45:37out for two weeks, which would be the

2:45:40>> 7th of October.

2:45:42>> All right. A motion from Commissioner

2:45:43Harrison defer the item to the October

2:45:4522nd meeting.

2:45:47Second by Commissioner Miller. Please

2:45:48cast your votes.

2:46:00That item is deferred.

2:46:12Uh we move on to additional items and

2:46:15communications and reports. Planning

2:46:17commission committees.

2:46:20I don't believe there are any any

2:46:22reports uh planning commission members

2:46:28>> um study session really in educational

2:46:32today and informative and I'm hoping

2:46:35that we have you know more of those um

2:46:37discussions about the one transit thing.

2:46:40I think it's going to be uh impactful

2:46:42and that it's definitely something we

2:46:44need to have you know on our radar as

2:46:47we're moving forward. So,

2:46:54>> anything? Uh, Commissioner Privet?

2:46:59>> No.

2:47:00>> Okay. Commissioner Newman.

2:47:02>> All right. Commissioner Milner,

2:47:04Commissioner Harrison, Commissioner

2:47:06Noble. No. All right. Uh, planning

2:47:09department.

2:47:10>> Um, so study session wise, thank you all

2:47:12for attending today. Um we we have we

2:47:17have another study session we'd like to

2:47:18do on December 10th for the code update.

2:47:21Um we can't for various scheduling

2:47:24reasons whether it be planning

2:47:26commission commitments uh or staff

2:47:30uh we're having trouble finding another

2:47:32study session. We'd like to do another

2:47:33study session like late October, early

2:47:35November, but it doesn't really line up

2:47:38with a planning commission meeting. So,

2:47:40are you all okay with doing a

2:47:43nonplanning commission date study

2:47:45session?

2:47:45>> Yeah, that's fine by me.

2:47:47>> I know we we've done it before, but uh

2:47:50Okay, then we will send out some um an

2:47:53email and try and and settle something.

2:47:55Do you still prefer

2:47:58kind of the 11 o'clock?

2:48:00>> I got a quick question. So, we already

2:48:02have November 12th as a study session,

2:48:04correct?

2:48:06>> That that is a policy committee meeting.

2:48:08>> Okay. because I have

2:48:09>> workshop. Yeah.

2:48:10>> Yeah. Because I have them both in there.

2:48:11I have study session at 11 and code

2:48:14working group at 11:30. And I don't know

2:48:16how they would both be in there like

2:48:18that. I wouldn't have done that.

2:48:20>> Um yeah, I don't I think that may be an

2:48:23old one. I mean, so you're saying you've

2:48:26got a study session on November 12th.

2:48:28>> Yeah, that I added the calendar off of

2:48:30an email and then the code working group

2:48:32did the same thing.

2:48:33>> Okay. Okay. So, the code the code

2:48:35working group is

2:48:36>> that's all we have that day. Yeah.

2:48:38>> Okay.

2:48:39>> Um and I think we maybe put a hold on

2:48:43the what the study

2:48:44>> placeholder. Yeah. But

2:48:46>> we cancel

2:48:48>> November 12th. It's not happening.

2:48:51>> Code committee.

2:48:54>> Yeah.

2:48:54>> Yours says study. You might add Do you

2:48:56have So, we have a code working group on

2:48:59November 12.

2:48:59>> It's my group.

2:49:00>> I'm the only one on that group. Don Don

2:49:03and Right. So they're on the other

2:49:05group.

2:49:05>> You do not have a study session for that

2:49:07day.

2:49:08>> Well, if you did, I would be the only

2:49:10one that's not there, but you would be

2:49:11in the code group, correct?

2:49:14>> Right.

2:49:14>> Okay.

2:49:15>> So, okay. We we will get uh we'll get

2:49:18that uh scheduled and be in touch. And

2:49:21sounds like sounds like there may be a

2:49:23little confusion on

2:49:24>> are we talking about talking about?

2:49:26>> We're not my group.

2:49:28>> He was just like thinking October.

2:49:29>> November 12th. We do have a a code

2:49:33update study a working group for the

2:49:36policy committee.

2:49:37>> But but now we're talking about another

2:49:39day for a study session and that would

2:49:41be

2:49:41>> December 10th.

2:49:42>> Well, December 10th, but I'm asking can

2:49:45we do something in early November

2:49:48study session?

2:49:48>> What's the topic of the study session?

2:49:50Just curious. Is it code update stuff?

2:49:53>> Okay.

2:49:54>> It's it's very much so. We may be able

2:49:56to finish if we do uh this next study

2:49:59session in you know 3 weeks or so and

2:50:02then another one December 10th. We may

2:50:06be done. No guarantees though.

2:50:10>> Yeah.

2:50:10>> Like today we we couldn't get to

2:50:12everything today because we were so

2:50:13interested in the one transit. Uh which

2:50:16was great. It was great.

2:50:18>> So we'll uh we'll be in touch.

2:50:21>> I really wanted to go to that one but

2:50:24work got in the way. I think we can send

2:50:25you slides.

2:50:27>> Yeah.

2:50:27>> Yeah. I'd like to see uh the

2:50:29presentation or whatever for sure.

2:50:31>> There's a test.

2:50:32>> Yeah. Was it recorded

2:50:33>> and everybody likes the 11 a.m. thing

2:50:35on?

2:50:38>> I don't but

2:50:40>> I'm just one. So,

2:50:42>> is that it?

2:50:43>> Not going to hold everybody.

2:50:44>> Play. All right. Anything from municipal

2:50:45counselor's office?

2:50:47>> You don't want to be I'm not gonna put

2:50:49you on the spot. [laughter]

2:50:53>> All right. Uh, I see no citizens to be

2:50:55heard.