2026-10-22 - Oklahoma City Planning Commission Meeting

00:26Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to

00:28the October 22nd meeting of the Oklahoma

00:30City Planning Commission. I'd like to

00:31call us to order and go over a few

00:33housekeeping items. If you have a cell

00:35phone with you, please silence or turn

00:36it to off.

00:38Uh if you haven't been with us before,

00:39here's what you can expect. We'll begin

00:41with some simple administrative tasks,

00:43including minutes and continuances. Then

00:45we'll move to cases on the consent

00:47docket that are pretty straightforward,

00:48can be

00:50heard and approved as a group.

00:52Uh after that, we move to cases to be

00:54heard individually. We'll hear the item,

00:56discuss, and determine if a

00:57recommendation or decision can be made,

01:00uh or if more time and a continuance is

01:02necessary.

01:03Uh there are certain cases where this

01:05body makes the final decision, but in

01:07most instances, we provide a

01:09recommendation to City Council

01:12and are not the final decision. So, for

01:14those, uh you'll have another

01:15opportunity to share your concerns again

01:17when those are heard at Council in

01:18approximately 6 to 8 weeks.

01:21Uh there are certain items such as uh

01:23homeowner association CCRs and

01:25agreements between private entities

01:27uh that are outside the purview of this

01:29commission and are not factors in our

01:31discussion or consideration, and we ask

01:33for the sake of time that you refrain

01:35from using those in justification of

01:37your case.

01:38If you're here to speak on an item and

01:39are not the applicant, please fill out

01:41one of the forms available outside and

01:43give it to Jared or Elena down here

01:45below.

01:46Uh when that item is called, you'll be

01:48asked to come to the podium, give your

01:49name and address for the record, and

01:51you'll have up to 5 minutes to speak. If

01:53you're here to speak on an on an item

01:55with a large group of people, we

01:56encourage you to elect a representative

01:58to share your group's concerns. And some

02:01additional time for that speaker will be

02:03considered in those instances.

02:05Where several speakers are heard, we ask

02:07that you do your best to limit comments

02:09to those concerns that we haven't heard

02:10yet. Uh we just want to keep the meeting

02:12moving and limit repetitious and

02:14extensive comments. Please direct all

02:16your comments and questions to uh the

02:19commission and if needed we'll ask staff

02:21or the applicant to respond.

02:23Finally, we appreciate everyone's

02:24presence here today and the obligations

02:26that you took time away from to be here.

02:29We ask for your cooperation in upholding

02:31the decorum in the meeting and that you

02:33don't speak from the audience.

02:35Thank you for your attendance, your

02:37attention, and your assistance.

02:40We'll begin uh with the receipt of the

02:42minutes from the October 8th meeting.

02:47>> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make like to

02:48make a motion to receive the minutes of

02:50October 8th, 2026.

02:52>> A motion from Commissioner Noble to

02:54receive the minutes, seconded by

02:56Commissioner Harrison.

02:57Please cast your votes.

03:10The minutes are received.

03:13Uh item three is continuance requests.

03:16We'll start with uncontested requests.

03:19>> We have five uncontested requests for

03:21continuance. The following items will be

03:23continued until November 12th.

03:27Item 24, case C-7761.

03:30Item 25, case number PUD-2163.

03:34Item 26, case SPUD-1849.

03:39Item 27, SPUD-1875.

03:43And then item 28, which is SPUD-1861,

03:46is being continued indefinitely.

03:48>> Let's confirm there's no one here to be

03:50heard on any of those items.

03:52All right, seeing none, I'm ready for a

03:53motion.

03:55>> I'd like to make a motion to approve the

03:56continuance requests, the uncontested

03:58continuance requests as read.

04:00>> We have a motion to approve the

04:01uncontested continuance requests as

04:03read, seconded by Commissioner Meek.

04:05Please cast your votes.

04:11And those

04:12uncontested requests are granted. Uh new

04:14requests.

04:16>> We have four new requests for

04:18continuance. Item two, KC 7843, deferred

04:22to November 12th. Item three, KC 7842,

04:25deferred to November 12th. Item 17, SPUD

04:291876, deferred to November 12th. And

04:32then item 23, which is PC 11018,

04:35deferred to December 10th.

04:37>> Okay. So, anyone here to be heard on any

04:39of those items? All right, ready for a

04:41motion.

04:42>> I will make a motion to approve the new

04:44continuance requests as read.

04:46>> We have a motion to approve the new

04:47requests as read from Commissioner

04:49Noble, seconded by Commissioner Privett.

04:50Please cast your votes.

05:03And the new requests are approved. Um

05:06next is item four in the consent docket.

05:11>> Okay, we just have one item on consent

05:13today. It's case C7849, the final plat

05:17of Knox Farm Addition Section 6, which

05:19is located south of Northwest 178th and

05:22west of North Portland Avenue.

05:24>> Okay.

05:25Anyone here to be heard on this item?

05:28Seeing none, ready for a motion.

05:30>> I will make a motion to approve the

05:31consent docket.

05:33>> We have a motion from Commissioner Noble

05:34to approve the consent docket.

05:38Seconded by Commissioner Pever, please

05:39cast your votes.

05:45Consent docket is approved.

05:48Now we hear uh the items individually

05:51and we'll start with item four.

05:54>> Item four is case number PUD 1426 SP03,

05:59which is an application for a specific

06:00plan pursuant to the approval of PUD

06:031426 located at 620 Northwest 61st

06:06Street.

06:07>> Good afternoon, David Box, 525 Northwest

06:0911th Street here on behalf of the

06:10applicant. This is an application for a

06:13specific plan. It's a former Chesapeake

06:15campus. We had one previously for a data

06:17center and expansion of the central

06:19plant.

06:20My belief is one of the buildings was

06:21left off our permit. In order to get the

06:23permit, you have to have a specific

06:24plan. And so this is cleanup for that

06:27particular one.

06:28Conforms to the PUD. Happy to answer any

06:30questions.

06:33>> All right, Commissioner Powers, this is

06:35Ward 2. Do you want to

06:37lead our discussion?

06:40>> Well, we we went through this recently

06:43to to approve

06:45this request on on the

06:48specific plan. Apparently it didn't

06:50include a piece of property that it

06:52should have. I'm I've been assured that

06:54this is strictly kind of a cleanup

06:57administrative sort of thing. And so

06:59unless somebody has something else they

07:01want to say about it, I'll move

07:02approval. There's not anybody here

07:04signed up to speak.

07:05>> No.

07:07>> It's not a new data center, I've been

07:09assured.

07:10>> [laughter]

07:11>> And and it's specifically exempt in our

07:14moratorium.

07:15>> Just

07:16>> Correct. The moratorium exempt two,

07:19maybe four things. This PUD

07:23was one of the things specifically

07:24exempted in that moratorium ordinance.

07:30>> So,

07:32if nobody else has anything they want to

07:34contribute, I'm going to move to approve

07:35item number 25.

07:38Specific plan for Am I in the right

07:40place? I'm not, am I?

07:42No.

07:44Thank you.

07:45>> Item four.

07:46>> Uh for the specific plan for PUD item

07:48four.

07:49PUD specific plan for PUD 1426-SPO3.

07:52[clears throat]

07:55>> We have a motion from Commissioner

07:56Powers to approve the specific plan. For

07:58the record, staff's review of the

07:59specific plan for the development

08:01indicates the proposal is consistent

08:03with PUD 1426 master design statement

08:06and the master development plans as

08:07amended, provided that potable water is

08:09not used for domestic consumption,

08:11irrigation, and fire protection

08:12purposes.

08:13That has been seconded by Commissioner

08:15Meek. Please cast your votes.

08:25>> Thank you.

08:26>> That item is approved.

08:29Item five.

08:30>> Item five is case number P 1532-SP04,

08:36which is an application for a specific

08:38plan pursuant to the approval of PUD

08:391532,

08:41located at 16640 Network Avenue.

08:46>> Hello, Jessica Lloyd with Johnson

08:47Associates, representing the applicant.

08:49The specific plan before you today is

08:50just an extension of the Port 164

08:52development. As to what we're proposing

08:55is a 20,000 square foot building for

08:57commercial and industrial flex space

08:58units. Uh we have three units proposed

09:01with this specific plan.

09:03So, happy to answer any questions and it

09:05conforms with the PUD.

09:08>> Um Commissioner Noble, this is Ward A. I

09:11do not have anyone signed up to speak.

09:13Thank you. Um

09:15any other commissioners have anything on

09:16this? No.

09:19So, in

09:20staff said that it meets the specific

09:21plan or the specific plan is

09:25consistent with the PUD 1532, so

09:29I will make a motion to approve PUD

09:311532-SP04.

09:34>> We have a motion from Commissioner Noble

09:36to approve the specific plan. It's been

09:38seconded by Commissioner Harrison.

09:39Please cast your votes.

09:44That specific plan is approved.

09:47Item six.

09:50>> Item six is case number CE1169, which is

09:53an application to close a portion of the

09:54East-West right-of-way for Northwest

09:56103rd Street, um which is generally west

09:59of West Garnett.

10:02>> Sheryl Plexico, 923 North Robinson here

10:06for the applicant, Chance to Change

10:07Foundation. We're back from 2 weeks ago.

10:11We've revised the application to include

10:14only that East-West portion and not

10:17include that portion of the neighbor

10:21that is to the east and would be happy

10:24to answer any questions.

10:29>> Okay.

10:30Um

10:31Commissioner Harrison, this is your

10:32ward. I do not have anyone signed up to

10:34speak.

10:34>> Okay, then uh any of the other

10:36commissioners have any comments

10:37regarding this particular application?

10:40>> I I think this is, you know, from the

10:42last time we saw it, this really cleans

10:43it up, makes it pretty straightforward.

10:46Um I think it basically resolved all the

10:47concerns that we had when we saw it

10:50last. So,

10:50>> Yeah, thank you for doing exactly what

10:52we were looking for. Looks good.

10:54>> Yeah, thank you.

10:55>> Anytime.

10:56I definitely agree with that. Uh seeing

10:59not seeing any more conversation, I'll

11:01move that item CE1169

11:04for approval.

11:05>> A motion to recommend the item City

11:07Council for approval from Commissioner

11:09Harrison.

11:13Seconded by Commissioner Meek. Please

11:14cast your votes.

11:22That item is recommended for approval.

11:23Good luck.

11:25Item seven.

11:27>> Item seven is case number CE1156, which

11:30is an application to close a portion of

11:32the East Crest right away for Southeast

11:34Southeast 61st Street and a portion of

11:37the East West platted utility easement

11:39in block three in the Voorhees Acres

11:42addition.

11:43Um this is east of South Sooner Road and

11:45south of Southeast 59th.

11:49>> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members

11:52of the commission. My name is Kelly Work

11:54and my address is 105 North Hudson,

11:57Suite 304 and I'm here on behalf of the

11:59applicant and connection with this

12:02request to close portion of uh

12:06platted street that is identified as

12:08Southeast 61st Street and also portion

12:12of a 20-ft platted easement.

12:14Uh the um

12:16applicant owns the property on on both

12:19sides of these platted rights of way

12:23that were included in the 1947 plat of

12:27Voorhees addition. Uh they've never been

12:30improved. There is

12:32Crutcho Creek runs through there and

12:34it's is a pretty significant creek. So

12:37there is no connection there as you

12:39extend to the east. This area was

12:42originally it was platted to be a

12:45residential development and there there

12:47are some residences there on the east

12:48side of Crutcho Creek but the property

12:51that fronts along Sooner Road

12:54is industrial and is is is zoned I-2

12:58including the property that this

13:00applicant owns. And so the object here

13:02is to close the these unused right of

13:06ways to consolidate this tract for to be

13:09able to market it as a as a whole tract.

13:13And this has been kicking around as you

13:15I'm sure will have noticed on your

13:18agenda for quite a while because there

13:20were some concerns raised by

13:22uh some of the neighbors and uh

13:25we have resolved those to our knowledge

13:27and so we don't believe there's any

13:29objection remaining at this time.

13:32One of those neighbors we we acquired

13:36their property and so they formally

13:38withdraw withdrew their

13:41opposition and as a result we expanded

13:45the area that was

13:48included in this request to close to

13:50include the property that was adjacent

13:52to the

13:53to that tract. So it's a little bit

13:56more area that is requested to be closed

13:59and what was included with the original

14:01application and and that's the reason

14:03for that. So what we would then do is go

14:06to the council if we get your

14:08recommendation for approval and then

14:10from there to district court to file an

14:14action to vacate the right of way and

14:16then we'd be in a position to

14:18to market the property which is the

14:21plan. I'm happy to answer any questions

14:23that you all may have.

14:26>> Um Commissioner Privett, this is Ward 4.

14:29I do not have anyone signed up to speak.

14:31>> Okay. Um

14:33thought about gaking you a little bit

14:34about the half closure on the end but

14:36I don't think just because of the

14:38previous case but I think it's fine. Um

14:41I don't have any issues with it.

14:44I think if that property wasn't acquired

14:46we might

14:47talk about it but it was so no issues

14:50for me.

14:52If anybody else didn't have anything.

14:53>> I just

14:55I just wanted to make sure that you got

14:56with this Michael Wintz and explained to

14:58him

14:59>> Yes. Yeah. And he's he has been

15:02represented by counsel and we've been

15:04advised by his counsel that they are no

15:08longer objecting.

15:12>> Okay.

15:15Turn my mic back on. In that case I will

15:18move approval of CE 1156.

15:22>> The motion from Commissioner Privett to

15:24recommend the item city council for

15:26approval.

15:28Seconded by Commissioner Pever, please

15:30cast your votes.

15:37That item is recommended for approval.

15:39>> Thank you.

15:41>> Item eight.

15:44>> Item eight is case number CE 1166 an

15:47application to close portions of street

15:50and alley right-of-way within um

15:53the College Park addition which is

15:55generally north of West Hefner Road and

15:57west of Broadway Extension.

16:00>> Pat Garrett and Company 9701 North

16:03Broadway Extension, Oklahoma City.

16:08>> What can you tell us about the

16:09application?

16:10>> Um if we're closing streets and alleys

16:12up here at College Park addition, all

16:14the neighbors have either joined

16:17have signed off on it or sold me the

16:19property. We were on this a couple about

16:21a month ago and we had a continuance

16:23because we had some protest. Uh they

16:25have agreed and I have now deeds to that

16:28property.

16:29And I ask that you all approve these uh

16:31street vacations and alley vacations.

16:34>> All right.

16:35Well, thank you thank you for taking the

16:37extra time to go back and and visit with

16:39them and and get everything straightened

16:41out. I think it was well worth the

16:43the delay to to get consensus. So, uh

16:46Commissioner Harrison, this is your

16:48ward. I do not have anyone signed up to

16:50speak.

16:51>> Okay. And

16:53if we don't have anyone else um any

16:55other commissioners have any other

16:56comments?

16:57If not, uh I agree with

17:00uh what Chair said that you spent the

17:02time to make sure that they were cleaned

17:03up. Uh with that being the case, I

17:05recommend item CE 1166 for approval.

17:09>> A motion from Commissioner Harrison to

17:11recommend the item city council for

17:12approval. Seconded by Commissioner Meek,

17:15please cast your votes.

17:25>> Thank you.

17:25>> That item is recommended for approval.

17:28Item nine.

17:31>> Item nine is case VP-14, which is an

17:34application to vacate the final plat of

17:37Coyle North, which is located east of

17:40North May Avenue and south of Northwest

17:42150th.

17:43>> Good afternoon, David Box 525 5

17:45Northwest 11th. Item nine and 10 are

17:47companion items. This is an item that we

17:49or this tract we got rezoned a few years

17:51ago to have a series of duplex lots. My

17:54client now owns all of the lots within

17:56there and so item nine is seeking to

17:58vacate the lot lines essentially to

18:00create one single lot. Um

18:03there are two T&E's, both of which we

18:04agree to. Happy to answer any questions.

18:12>> Commissioner Noble, this is your ward.

18:14If you want to

18:15>> lead our discussion, I do not have

18:16anyone signed up to speak.

18:18>> Great. Um it's pretty simple. Does any

18:21commissioner have anything on this

18:22vacation?

18:24Um staff recommended approval. Uh you

18:26agree with two T&E's, so I will make a

18:29motion to approve

18:32case number VP-0 or VP-14.

18:38>> Uh we have a motion from Commissioner

18:40Noble to approve the item, seconded by

18:42Commissioner Harrison. Please cast your

18:44subject to the T&E's. Please cast your

18:46votes.

18:52>> Thank you.

18:53>> That item is approved. Item 10.

18:55>> Okay, item 10 is the companion PUD. It's

18:58case number PUD-2164,

19:00an application to rezone 14712 Mesaluna

19:04Avenue from the PUD-1961

19:07and PUD-2011

19:08um PUD's to a new PUD-2164.

19:13>> Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest

19:1411th. The purpose of the PUD is to allow

19:16the multi-family use unit, which is what

19:18is necessary to have all of these

19:19dwelling units on a single lot. Uh so,

19:22there are no TEs. Happy to answer any

19:23questions.

19:25>> Um again, Commissioner Noble, if you

19:28want to lead our discussion, I do not

19:30have anyone signed up to speak.

19:32>> Good. Um

19:34I did have a conversation with the

19:36applicant on this. It is basically the

19:38exact same PUD as

19:41it was before, just with the cleanup of

19:43the R4.

19:45So,

19:46anybody have anything else to say?

19:48It's already completed. Um

19:50staff recommended approval, and so I

19:52will recommend

19:54um or make a motion to recommend

19:55approval of PUD 2164.

20:00>> A motion from Commissioner Noble to

20:01recommend the item

20:03to City Council for approval.

20:07Been seconded by Commissioner Meek.

20:08Please cast your votes.

20:15>> Thank you.

20:16>> That item's recommended

20:17recommended for approval. Thank you.

20:20Um

20:22Commissioners, we have a we have a

20:26scenario where the chair has to leave

20:28early today, and I've got two cases in

20:30my ward

20:32um that are at the end of the agenda

20:33that I absolutely want to be present

20:35for, and so I'm going to ask that we

20:37take items 21 and 22 out of order and

20:40hear those now.

20:46So, we'll call item 21.

20:54>> Okay, item 21 and 22 are related. Item

20:5721 is case number CPA 2600011,

21:04which is consideration of a proposed map

21:06amendment to the comprehensive plan that

21:08would remove the agricultural preserve

21:10layer and change the land use typology

21:12from rural low to urban low

21:15on a 705 acre tract north of West

21:17Wilshire Boulevard and west of North

21:19Frisco.

21:23>> Good afternoon. Bonetti Mohi Ortiz for

21:25the planning department.

21:29We have CPA 2600011.

21:33The request is an amendment to the

21:35comprehensive plan

21:37to remove the agricultural preserve from

21:40the rural low and change the designation

21:43to urban low. The associate beauties

21:462152.

21:50Okay. So, like you can see in this map,

21:53it's located in the northwest part of

21:55the city.

21:58In terms of the existing conditions,

22:02here you can see the map of the existing

22:03condition.

22:06In land use, almost the whole area is

22:10undeveloped with some residential to the

22:11south and some residentials to the east

22:15and west.

22:17In terms of the zoning, everything is

22:20zoned

22:21AA and everything around it is zoned AA.

22:26In terms of the Luda,

22:27like you can see here,

22:29it's agricultural preserve and the

22:31agricultural preserve [snorts] layer is

22:33over the rural low

22:36base designation.

22:39In terms of city services,

22:41usually I do this part real quick, but

22:44I'm going to stop and do each one of

22:46them

22:47and take a little bit of time and if you

22:48have any questions about them, you can

22:51um

22:52let me know. In terms of water,

22:55the site is located outside of what the

22:58city designate

22:59a zone that is character so it is within

23:02a zone that is characterized as

23:04inefficient to serve.

23:06Um the nearest public water line is over

23:10two and a half miles away to the east.

23:15In terms of sewer, the site falls

23:18outside of the city sewer service zone

23:20characterized as need of major

23:22investment.

23:24Then it is the nearest sewer line is

23:26approximately 4 to 5 miles to the west.

23:29Um Bear Creek sewer basin is already

23:32almost at capacity.

23:34Um and depending on the speed speed of

23:37development in this area, they might not

23:39be able to develop until that plan

23:42uh

23:43um get more capacity. It's also

23:45important that when we talk to

23:47utilities, they let us know this will

23:49require a lift station

23:51and a major investment from the

23:53developer to be able to develop this

23:55site uh

23:57uh with sewer.

24:00In terms of emergency services, the site

24:02falls outside

24:04well outside of the city preferred rural

24:07response time for um emergency services.

24:11And there's no plans uh from the city to

24:15do in the 2025 bond to do any new uh

24:20fire station or anything close

24:22to this site.

24:25Um we added a little bit about street

24:28topology because I know for the

24:29neighbors, the roads around this area is

24:32a big deal, it's very important. Um the

24:34road network serving this site does not

24:37meet the standards typically expected

24:39for urban low.

24:41Several roads in the vicinity remain

24:44chip and seal surfaces rather than

24:45asphalt, reflecting the lower capacity

24:48rural roadway conditions inconsistent

24:50with the increased traffic demands

24:52associated with urban low intensity.

24:55Connectivity along Frisco Road is

24:57interrupted at certain points, further

25:00limiting access and complicating

25:02emergency services response

25:05capabilities.

25:06No new program city improvements

25:09improvements for roadway subgrades or

25:11infrastructure extensions in this area

25:13within the 2025 geo bond. So there's no

25:16plan

25:17um

25:18program or anything from the city to

25:19improve any of these roads.

25:22Um here are the

25:24our street type uh typology map um

25:28for the area is mostly very rural roads.

25:31I have some pictures in the next slide

25:34um

25:35of the roads in the area. Like you can

25:38see there, they're very small roads.

25:40Um

25:41a lot of them are not improved. So um

25:44these type of development for this area

25:47um

25:48with the city have having no plans

25:51um

25:52it's just not not recommended at this

25:54moment.

25:56Um also in terms of environmental

25:58sensitive areas,

26:00um

26:01this uh project uh has some riparian

26:04areas. There are some concerns

26:06about um

26:07drainage issues in this area. There are

26:09some concerns about streams. Um with

26:12this big project, you can go to the next

26:15one.

26:16Also uh we have introduced to these

26:19council uh to these uh

26:22to you members the impaired waters map

26:24and one at one time um almost all

26:27Oklahoma City sadly almost all our

26:29streams are already uh classified as

26:32impaired or at risk. In this area almost

26:35all the stream are um

26:38already classified as impaired or at

26:41risk to be impaired.

26:43Um they drain to um

26:46major streams that are already

26:48classified as impaired. So um

26:51these type of development to in my to

26:54that risk.

26:58In terms of the finding the subject site

27:00is largely in develop and adjacent to

27:03mostly undeveloped land with some big

27:05lots of residential and agricultural

27:07uses.

27:08The predominant pattern surrounding the

27:10subject site is undeveloped land and

27:12rural residential zone AA.

27:15Conditions and provisions for higher

27:16level of services have not changed for

27:18the subject site not or that adjacent

27:21size to indicate that a change in LODA

27:23is appropriate.

27:25The city has no expectation in the

27:27foreseeable future for organization or

27:29extension of urban infrastructure as

27:31water or sewer in this area.

27:33I know future fire stations are planned

27:35to improve rural response time in this

27:37area. This site is not proximate to

27:40either urban low or urban future

27:42designated areas.

27:44Based on the findings above, the staff

27:45recommend denial of this request.

27:49If there is any questions.

27:52>> Uh yeah, I I have one. So, obviously

27:54this is this is a precursor to the next

27:56item that we're going to hear and that

27:58proposal

28:01includes bringing water and sewer to the

28:04area.

28:05Um the analysis that you showed is based

28:08on current conditions now. There's

28:09there's not water and sewer there,

28:11correct?

28:11>> Also in the um

28:13application that we received for the

28:15CPA, there was no mention of expanding

28:18or extending water or sewer.

28:19>> Okay.

28:20>> So, I

28:22I do my analysis based on the

28:23application and what they write in their

28:25report.

28:26>> So, you have information that that

28:29doesn't say that water and sewer is

28:30being brought to the site.

28:31>> In my application is not mentioned.

28:33>> Okay.

28:35>> Or at least in the report they give it

28:36to us.

28:37For the CPA.

28:39>> Okay.

28:41>> We

28:42>> So, if it were in the if it were in

28:44there, it would have been considered in

28:47in your analysis?

28:48>> Yeah, it would have had.

28:49>> Okay.

28:54Uh other questions, comments from

28:58commissioners?

29:03>> Well, I I don't know how much of it's

29:04appropriate for us to get into the the

29:06following application, but it's also my

29:09understanding that they are willing to

29:10provide Skype sites for school for uh a

29:14possible future fire station. So, if

29:17that's true, that seems to me to

29:19alleviate an awful lot of the concern.

29:21>> Well, there's I mean, they can they can

29:23provide a site, but then somebody else

29:24has to fund it. So, there's no

29:26guarantee.

29:27>> we've always told people that

29:28infrastructure of all kinds

29:29>> Right.

29:30Drive Right.

29:32>> Right. We get that, but I'm just I want

29:33to make I just want to be perfectly

29:35clear

29:35>> Absolutely.

29:36>> um that yes, they can provide the sites,

29:39but

29:41city might not have [laughter] the city

29:43might not have the money immediately to

29:44put in a fire station.

29:46>> Well,

29:46>> So,

29:47>> this isn't going to be developed

29:48immediately.

29:49>> Right. Right.

29:49>> Would it

29:50need to be developed me I believe

29:52there's a fire station in Surrey Hills 5

29:54miles away.

29:55As future development goes, can can

29:57continues to the west.

30:00You know,

30:02so, that and and the idea that there's

30:06nothing in the 2025 bond issue to

30:08improve the roads out here. Well, this

30:09development didn't exist or they didn't

30:11know.

30:12>> [music]

30:12>> So, if you don't know, you you can't

30:15plan.

30:17The other part is that I don't recall

30:18that we've done a whole lot of

30:20uh upfront infrastructure building

30:23before the rooftops. So, [clears throat]

30:26rooftops come first and development and

30:28street

30:29improvements come after.

30:32>> Mr. Box, did you have something to

30:33>> it is my application. So, David Box, 525

30:36Northwest 11th. I do want to say in our

30:38application, we say uh that the property

30:40will utilize public water and public

30:43sewer. So, we do state that in our

30:44application. Of course, there's no way

30:46to develop what we propose in the next

30:48item without the availability of public

30:50water, public sewer. So, understand that

30:51yes, it's a different world today than

30:54perhaps when the comp plan was drafted,

30:55but the extension of those public

30:57services are what will allow for our

30:59development to move forward.

31:02>> Okay. Thank you.

31:04Uh I do have one person signed up to

31:05speak, so I'd like to hear from him, Mr.

31:07Garrett Powell.

31:20>> Good morning.

31:21Good morning, chair commissioners.

31:24Uh Garrett Powell, 7801 North Frisco, uh

31:27Yukon, Oklahoma.

31:30I got quite a bit to get through, so if

31:31you will let me, I'm just going to read

31:33from this uh for the sake of time, and

31:35then I'm happy to answer any questions

31:36afterwards, so.

31:37My name is Garrett Powell, I'm a

31:38geologist specializing in subsurface

31:40flow and hydrodynamics. My family, we

31:42live downstream of this property, just

31:44across the road, uh just across Frisco

31:46there or Wheel Shire there.

31:48And we're concerned about many of the

31:49unaddressed factors uh up to this point,

31:51not the least being potential

31:52groundwater pathways towards neighboring

31:54wells or other stream systems.

31:57I oppose removing the agricultural

31:58preserve and changing these 705 acres

32:00from rural low to urban low, as we

32:02described or as was described in the

32:04October 2026 report.

32:07And this isn't brought opposition to

32:08every possible use of private land. It's

32:10a question of whether the city should

32:12authorize urban intensity where the

32:13evidence for protecting existing

32:16families is still not in place.

32:18Plan OKC policy SU-14 calls for

32:21concentrating development where

32:22infrastructure and emergency services

32:23have capacity. SU-44 and SU-45 protect

32:27rural scale and character.

32:29Along with that, policy G9 addresses

32:31sensitive environmental areas.

32:33As you just heard, your staff still

32:34recommends denial. Why should we change

32:36the city's plan to fit the developer

32:38rather than require the development to

32:40fit the city's plan?

32:41The developer sure has agreed to fund

32:43sewer and water

32:45that was described to us in a community

32:48uh

32:48outreach.

32:50Um and this is approaching something

32:52like $10 million and I acknowledge that

32:53is a large commitment. But installing

32:55utilities for new houses

32:57does not by itself establish my concern,

33:00safe roads, emergency response,

33:01downstream drainage, or protection of

33:04existing drinking water that us families

33:05out there already already depend on.

33:08For instance, using the 705 acre

33:10footprint, it's simple calculation, but

33:12it's

33:13um you can calculate that a simple 1-in

33:15rainfall event would equate to about

33:1619.1 million gallons falling onto that

33:19site.

33:22That's not

33:23uh that's rainfall, that's not runoff of

33:25course, but still the numbers are big.

33:28Adding grading, compacted soil, roads,

33:30pavement, roofs, concrete drainage, all

33:32these things change where that water

33:34goes and importantly how fast it gets

33:36there.

33:37A natural a natural drainage channel

33:39across the proposed development um

33:42So coming from there then crosses my

33:43family's land, this creek.

33:45Um and this this creek receives

33:47everything that happens upstream. So

33:49during construction, exposed soil

33:51uh can deliver sediment-laden runoff

33:53contaminations and who knows what else

33:56um

33:57uh through that that system. Worse yet,

34:00once this uh land has been occupied and

34:02houses built, the lawns, roads,

34:04commercial areas, all these things will

34:06be adding reoccurring pesticides,

34:07petroleum residues, and other pollutants

34:09to our groundwater sources.

34:12Now detention, they do address detention

34:14may manage peak discharge discharge, but

34:17it does not necessarily manage the

34:18pollutant loading itself, runoff

34:20duration, or the channel erosion that

34:22occurs downstream as a result.

34:26This simply doesn't need to pass, but

34:27even if it does, we need a full

34:28build-out and construction phase

34:29analysis that extend downstream through

34:31our property and beyond to the North

34:32Canadian.

34:35Under their own example of 2,400 home

34:38lawn care scenario, Oklahoma State

34:40University's 2017 guidance along with

34:42Law and Colleagues 2019 household survey

34:45gives a midpoint estimate of about

34:4710,800 lb of nitrogen would be applied

34:50to this property annually.

34:53That's fertilizer application sure not

34:54aquafer load, but it's still enough

34:56however to justify evaluating whether

34:57infiltration, water quality and

34:59contamination transport, evaluating

35:02these things before approval.

35:04Now let's get to traffic. The Institute

35:06of Transportation Engineers 2021

35:09detached house rate suggests that this

35:12many houses would approximately add

35:1323,000 weekday vehicle trips in this

35:17area alone. That's every week or across

35:195 days the weekdays, 23,000 additional

35:22trips out here.

35:24Uh distributed across that road work.

35:26As as was mentioned just now and you saw

35:28in the pictures, Wilshire has many blind

35:30hills.

35:31Narrow pavements, no shoulders, school

35:33buses, my nieces nieces get on the bus

35:36right after a blind hill after Frisco.

35:38It's terrifying every morning for my

35:40mis- my brother and sister-in-law.

35:42Um and this is all in a posted 50 mph

35:45zone.

35:47In my former uh protest, I showed you a

35:50vehicle that ran off the road onto our

35:52our neighboring property and into a

35:54pond. That was earlier in January.

35:56I didn't even have time to update my own

35:57speech. Just last Friday a car ran

35:59through Frisco and totaled it into uh

36:02coming over a blind hill, ran into the

36:04Frisco ditch. It's about a 7-8 ft drop

36:06there and totaled it causing back up and

36:08more dangers right there at Frisco and

36:10Wilshire.

36:11>> 30 seconds remaining.

36:12>> I'm sorry.

36:13>> You have 30 seconds in your time left.

36:14>> to hurry. I'm sorry.

36:16Um

36:19Yeah, so where's the demonstrated

36:20capacity to add uh

36:22add this for traffic safety? Yukon's

36:24April 2026 water supply plan identifies

36:26the North Canadian alluvial groundwater

36:28among its preferred future potable

36:30options and it already document

36:32documents nitrate concerns. So I'll call

36:34you back to the the nitrogen loading

36:35that I

36:37mentioned early on.

36:39Repairing systems, it's already been

36:40mentioned by your your

36:42own staff here that many habitats exist

36:45out here.

36:46>> Please wrap it Please wrap it up. You've

36:48got Your time's up.

36:50>> So in short, us residents, we can't

36:52write $10 million checks to get water.

36:54Once they contaminate this,

36:56I can I can run through the map here and

36:57I will when I hop up again, but within

36:59less than a year, if you're within a

37:01couple hundred yards, you're

37:01contaminated. We can't afford to get

37:03water ran to us. We can't pay these high

37:05amounts, so anyhow, I appreciate your

37:07time. Happy to answer any questions.

37:09>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Powell. Any

37:11questions for Mr. Powell?

37:13All right. Thank you.

37:17That was That was the only one I had

37:19signed up on the on the on this item,

37:22so.

37:26>> On the Frisco Road, we understand the

37:28the state that it's currently in. We've

37:29had discussions with the council person.

37:30We're going to explore options to

37:32perhaps have a some sort of joint effort

37:34with the county. We understand we can't

37:36develop what we want until a solution

37:37for Frisco has been reached. This This

37:39is a very long-term development and so

37:42what the world's going to look like when

37:44we're ready to start moving dirt

37:45probably very different than it looks

37:46now. So we're trying to be thoughtful in

37:49our planning process given the size of

37:51this and given the ability to bring

37:53sewer and water, we think that this will

37:54allow for

37:55the the proper expansion of urban

37:58services in the area.

38:04>> Any comments, questions from

38:07commission members?

38:09>> What is the time frame, Mr. Box?

38:11>> I'm sorry?

38:12>> What is the time frame?

38:13>> Of total build-out?

38:15>> Well, I mean, can you give us sort of an

38:17idea of when it would start?

38:18>> Uh I mean, several years. I mean,

38:21even if we were to move forward with the

38:23recommendation today, we're talking 6

38:25weeks before council. We have no plat

38:27application before you. Even if we had a

38:29preliminary plat, you're still looking

38:31at 18 months if that were approved. So,

38:33you're looking at several years before

38:35we were to even start development of the

38:37site.

38:40And perhaps we can talk about more like

38:42we understand that the size of this may

38:44dictate donation of land for a school,

38:46perhaps donation of land for a fire

38:47department, donation of land for a

38:49police station. Um

38:51we're happy to work hand in hand with

38:52the city and the the council person for

38:54this area to make sure that this

38:55development is appropriate for the area

38:57and has all the necessary services. But,

38:59this is a long-term development and it's

39:02probably years before you see the first

39:05stage of this move forward.

39:15>> I mean

39:17from my perspective, I guess,

39:19this is some of the hardest part of what

39:22we do. Um it's been a long time since

39:25the comp plan was drafted uh with

39:28respect to development of this part of

39:29Oklahoma City. Um

39:32I I'm generally very deferential to

39:35staff with respect to comp plan

39:37amendments, but I think that

39:41the development of this area is so

39:44foreseeable.

39:45Um there are obstacles to it. I think

39:48it's going to take, you know, someone

39:50with a

39:51a a serious plan and uh you know, the

39:55ability to carry it out to see that uh

39:59through it just just to see it through

40:01the obstacles that it's going to take to

40:02make it possible.

40:04Um we think we want people to present us

40:09with these long-term plans for big

40:10pieces of property, big chunks of it. I

40:13And I I I

40:14this is what this is. It may not be

40:16exactly what ends up being there. We're

40:18not that far along yet, you know? But,

40:21um

40:26I I I don't think it makes any sense for

40:28us to sort of stick our head in the sand

40:31and say that this all is all stay, you

40:33know, agricultural and rural. That's

40:35just

40:36not realistic. Um

40:39I I think we need to be cautious about

40:41looking too far into the future. You

40:43don't have to look that far in the

40:45future to see this area developing. So,

40:49my two cents.

40:51>> I And I agree with that wholeheartedly.

40:53I think that

40:56you know, this is a large parcel of

40:58property. There's a really large PUD

41:00that's in Ward 8 that's was done in

41:031999. It's still being built out today.

41:07There's been multiple other PUDs within

41:11that PUD to make refinements. So, this

41:14isn't the final product of this by any

41:15means.

41:17I also believe that

41:20a large parcel under one PUD can create

41:24a good program, a good project, and

41:27community. And that's why I'm for doing

41:30this development in in this type of

41:33way and area.

41:36Even though it is very far from,

41:38you know, the central part of Oklahoma

41:40City, it's still within the city

41:42boundary. So,

41:44it

41:45needs to be built.

41:47>> And it's really if you looked at a

41:48broader map, we're only about maybe 2 or

41:503 mi uh to the south is I-40. And, you

41:53know, you have that large chunk of land

41:54that the city has acquired for whatever

41:56that ends up being. Um so, you're not

41:59too terribly far removed from I-40 and a

42:01lot of the stuff that's going on in that

42:03corridor.

42:03>> Yeah. We're 6 mi from the turnpike, 3 mi

42:06from Highway 34.

42:08It's really not that far out, even

42:10though it seems to be

42:12in a rural area. And Ward 8 was really

42:15rural when in 1999 when that got

42:17approved.

42:22Okay, anything else?

42:24>> I would just say that

42:26at first blush I was very convinced by

42:29the reasons not

42:30Is it not on?

42:31>> There you go.

42:32>> Can you hear me? Okay. At first blush I

42:35was very convinced by the reasons not to

42:37do it, but I do like the large size of

42:39it that I think can provide continuity.

42:42And then I was also I was surprised by

42:44the lack of opposition. Um I do

42:46definitely appreciate hearing from

42:49you know, the gentleman that was here.

42:52Um

42:53I'm not sure how

42:57convinced I am by some of the arguments,

42:59but um

43:02you know, I'm frankly just very

43:04surprised by the lack of opposition and

43:06that makes me think that we should look

43:09to who owns the property.

43:10>> Yeah. Well, I think we'll we'll hear

43:13from more on the actual on the zoning

43:15case.

43:15>> Sure.

43:16>> Yeah.

43:16So.

43:27So.

43:29Okay. Well, being Ward 1, um you know,

43:33we do we do have some very rural uh

43:36pieces of Ward 1.

43:38Um

43:38and I you know, I don't know the exact

43:40numbers, but I mean you get out you

43:42start getting out west of the turnpike

43:44and there's a lot of Ward 1 out there

43:45and it it's pretty it's pretty remote,

43:47but you've got people

43:49um you know, that don't have you know,

43:52their their basic daily needs. Um if

43:56they're if if they work in the city,

43:58they can you know, they're coming to and

44:00and from the city um daily and and have

44:03access to that, but if if they're not

44:05working in the city, they've got a

44:06they've got a ways to go. Um and I think

44:10this is an opportunity um you know, for

44:14for more commercial and retail

44:15development uh to generate more

44:18commercial retail development out that

44:20way that'll that'll give them some of

44:21those daily needs um

44:23and and quite frankly sales tax revenue

44:25for the city in order to be able to do

44:28that development of of uh roads and

44:30streets and utilities. So,

44:33um

44:35it's it's it's kind of a reach, but I

44:37don't I don't think it's it's

44:38necessarily um a bad thing. And again,

44:41this is this is going to happen over 20

44:43years. So,

44:45uh I don't think it's

44:47I think we'll have the opportunity to to

44:49monitor it and and make sure that it

44:52doesn't uh

44:54go too quickly. So,

44:58Okay, so I think we're we're ready for a

45:00motion

45:02uh on this item.

45:03>> Okay. Um and I appreciate everyone's

45:05thoughts on it and I will make a motion

45:07to rec- or to approve CPA 2600011.

45:11>> We have a motion from Commissioner Noble

45:14to approve the comprehensive plan

45:17change.

45:19Seconded by Commissioner Powers. Please

45:21cast your votes.

45:26>> Thank you.

45:26>> And that item is approved. Now, we'll

45:28hear the zoning portion, item 22.

45:32>> Item 22's related to the previous item.

45:35It's PUD 2152,

45:37an application to rezone 14101 West

45:41Wilshire Boulevard from the AA district

45:43to PUD 2152.

45:45>> Once again, David Box, 525 Northwest

45:4811th Street. This is the companion item.

45:50So, this [clears throat] is a it's a

45:51large-scale PUD. It's approximately 705

45:54acres.

45:55Uh when we filed this, there was a lot

45:58of protest letters that we had come in.

45:59So, So did have a community meeting.

46:01We've actually had two of them now.

46:02Um at the first community meeting, we

46:05had a PUD that would have allowed for 48

46:07excuse me, 40-ft lots

46:09almost throughout. Um it became clear

46:12that that was not acceptable. Whether or

46:14not they accepted it and see they we

46:15proposed now, perhaps not, but at a

46:18minimum 40-ft lots was a was viewed as

46:21as a problem. And so we made changes.

46:23There were some discussion about tracts

46:24one and three where we proposed

46:26commercial. A lot of the uses that we

46:28had were were viewed as objectionable.

46:30So what we did was we went back. We

46:32committed to have another meeting.

46:34Um made changes, came back, had another

46:36meeting last week or the week before

46:39where we showed them the the removal of

46:41various commercial uses.

46:42And now the smallest lot width we have

46:45is 50-ft. So in the PUD we now have a

46:48minimum lot width of 50-ft. We have kind

46:50of a varied amount of lots in tract two

46:52and tract four is more traditional R1.

46:54And then when you get to tract five,

46:56it's more larger lots. And in fact at

46:58the west and north portions of tract

47:00five where we adjoin that AA, we provide

47:03for a third acre lot. So um kind of some

47:06of the discussion we had at the last

47:07item.

47:09We do believe this is the proper way to

47:10do it when you have a developer like

47:11this that has the ability to go acquire

47:14this much land. It allows for a

47:15long-term forecast of what this area is.

47:18It allows for proper planning from both

47:20schools as well as the city for roads

47:22and police and fire. Um it's going to be

47:25a long time before this thing is is

47:28done. And so it allows for all parties,

47:30including those people who live in close

47:31proximity to understand what the future

47:33is going to look like. Uh we believe

47:36that with the extension of water and

47:37sewer,

47:38um

47:39the land changes significantly. Um the

47:42the nature of the area changes

47:43significantly. May be viewed as bad by

47:45some, but it also allows proper

47:47forecasting. And as as the chair said,

47:49it allows for planning of commercial,

47:51planning for sales tax revenue. So

47:54with that, um we think we have a PUD now

47:57that is going to be something that

47:58long-term will be a value to the western

48:00part of Oklahoma City. In the staff

48:02report, there are four technical

48:04evaluations.

48:05Um, on TE1, we we can't agree to that.

48:08We believe that what we've done through

48:10the PUD itself in modifying the lot

48:12sizes is appropriate after we've

48:14modified to no 40-footers. We agree to

48:16TE2. We agree to TE3. And we agree to

48:20TE4, but we we want to state that um, at

48:23the end of the sentence say prior to any

48:25final plat acceptance uh, immediately

48:28adjacent to Frisco Road. So, we agree

48:30that Frisco Road has to be, uh, fixed.

48:33It cannot be We can't develop our site

48:35in a manner that we want to develop it

48:36with Frisco Road being like this, but we

48:38also uh, acknowledge that we can't go

48:40out there and fix Frisco Road now. It's

48:42going to be a longer-term discussion

48:43with the city and perhaps the county.

48:44So, we would propose TE4 to read Frisco

48:47Road must be improved as part of the

48:48development construction plans in

48:50accordance with the city of Oklahoma

48:51City paving standards prior to any final

48:53plat acceptance immediately adjacent to

48:56Frisco Road right-of-way.

48:58With that, I'm happy to answer any

49:00questions.

49:05Um, we do not agree to TE1. We agree to

49:07TE2 as written, three as written, four

49:09as read by me.

49:23>> Okay.

49:24Uh, I have four signed up to speak if

49:26you're ready to hear from them.

49:28Okay. We'll start with Heather

49:30Fairbanks.

49:38>> I am Heather Fairbanks. I live at 8500

49:40North Richland Road on the far west side

49:43of this, um, proposed change. Um, my

49:46family and I just bought the property 3

49:48months ago

49:49because we searched for 18 months for 5

49:52acres in the country where we could have

49:54animals.

49:56We literally searched for 18 months and

49:57at no point in that time were we at a

49:59loss for finding a possible place to

50:01live in the area. We lived in El Reno.

50:03We were driving into the city. We wanted

50:04to be a little bit closer but still live

50:06in the country. And we specifically

50:07chose that. I mean as you heard from the

50:09city staff earlier, the the area out

50:12there is not ready um and I'm not sure

50:14that we will be and I just I've really

50:17wanted to make that known. Like we

50:18searched very specifically for this kind

50:21of a property. The agricultural

50:22character is really important to us. We

50:25we have animals. There's animal

50:26husbandry. There's noise. There's you

50:28know, we have neighbors that raise

50:30birds. We have uh guard dogs. We have

50:33guns going off. I mean like this is not

50:35living in the city. We moved from the

50:37city specifically to a place like this

50:39so that we would be able to have the

50:41lifestyle that we want. And and now

50:42we're going to have to move out and and

50:44and I realize that you think that it's

50:45coming that way but but there's a whole

50:49bunch of as you saw agricultural land

50:51all the way around this that's not being

50:53built out. It feels like the only person

50:55in here that's going to make the money

50:56is going to be the developer and it I

50:58mean like that's that doesn't make sense

50:59for all of the homeowners that are

51:00surrounding this whole area in 5 and 10

51:02acre plots. So, thank you.

51:04>> All right. Thank you, Ms. Fairbanks.

51:08It's

51:09uh Resenda Ross.

51:18>> I I'm Resenda Ross. I live at 9900 North

51:21Frisco Road

51:22in Yukon

51:24and I don't know where my house is on

51:26there but I do know we live on the

51:28closed

51:30part of sec- of Frisco Road.

51:33It's closed and we don't have animals.

51:36We don't have cattle, anything like

51:39that. We saved our whole lives and

51:41worked our whole lives to build this

51:43house and we built the house of our

51:44dreams. We love the house and we grow

51:47wheat. So, we are agricultural. I like

51:50the wheat field. I like the wildlife.

51:54And I understand the city is going to

51:56have to move, but this is

51:58it's too dense. It's too dense.

52:02What they're proposing

52:04the the housing is just it's too small.

52:08It's there's too much of it.

52:10And obviously I have not prepared a

52:13statement.

52:14And I really don't know what I was going

52:17to tell you when I came up here except

52:18I'm adamantly opposed to it. Cuz I can

52:21see the wildlife disappearing out there.

52:24I can see the wheat that we grow

52:26disappearing out there and I don't want

52:28that to happen.

52:29Thank you.

52:30>> Thank you, Ms. Ross.

52:35Um

52:36Carla Rayburn?

52:44>> My name's Carla Rayburn. I live at 14549

52:47West Britton Road. It's the light 10

52:49area

52:51on the left side right where it says

52:53Oklahoma city limits.

52:55I feel like we were all kind of misled

52:57on when we should speak because you've

53:00already approved moving from agriculture

53:03to the pod. So, I feel like everything

53:06we have to say now is contradictory cuz

53:09the part that we're protesting has

53:11already been approved.

53:13I've lived at the area for 50 years. 50

53:17years. There's no response time for

53:20police. We once had someone robbing us.

53:23We called the police. They said, "Okay,

53:26we're on our way." 2 hours later, no

53:28police. We called back. "Oh, you'll just

53:30have to come to our station and fill out

53:32a report." No one ever came. No one ever

53:35came.

53:37I went to the station and filled out a

53:38report. What good did that do? None.

53:40Zero. The people were in our property.

53:43In our property. If someone was

53:44murdering me,

53:46how what what is that going to do? Oh,

53:50you're dead, but come and fill out a

53:52report at our station. The station is at

53:54Hefner Road.

53:56122nd and Hefner Road.

53:59That is um 17 miles from my house.

54:03Uh there's no police time. We have a

54:06rural fire department that's volunteer a

54:09volunteer fire department. Thanks for

54:11ignoring me.

54:14Um

54:16there's a waterway across the property.

54:18There are

54:19uh oil and gas pipelines across the

54:21property. There's a high voltage power

54:23line across the property.

54:25There's wildlife. There's trees. There

54:27are ponds. Everyone surrounding that is

54:29on water wells. Every single person.

54:32We've been held to the standard of you

54:34have to have 5 acres or 10 acres. We've

54:37all held to that standard.

54:39Um our water wells are going to be

54:41trashed from all the runoff. There is no

54:44way to preserve a water well whenever

54:45you have that many houses stuck in

54:47there.

54:48Um the the infrastructure for the

54:50electrical is already overwhelmed.

54:52Surrey what Hills already has brownouts

54:55because they can't handle the

54:57electricity.

54:58Um

55:00there was a fatality wreck at my corner

55:03um 2 months ago.

55:051 hour for Oklahoma City police to

55:08respond.

55:09A fatality. A person laying dead in the

55:12ditch. And it took an hour for the

55:14police to get there.

55:17We um

55:18our schools are overwhelmed. Yukon, it

55:21is the fastest growing area out at

55:23Surrey Hills. Yukon schools cannot keep

55:26up. And I know they say we'll donate

55:28property for a school, but

55:31where are those students going? Our high

55:33school is overcrowded. Our intermediate

55:35schools are overcrowded. Our elementary

55:37schools are overcrowded. So, are you

55:39building a pre-K through high school

55:41school on the property? Are you funding

55:44that? Who's funding that?

55:46Um

55:47our roads are terrible.

55:51The city does not support this. I know

55:53it's already been voted. So, I'm

55:56speaking

55:57for nothing, apparently.

55:59>> Well, that's that's not true. The comp

56:01plan is a separate item. It just

56:04gives us the ability to hear this item

56:07with more information. So, this this

56:10item is being voted on separately with

56:13different factors. So,

56:15it's not decided.

56:17>> It I mean, if you look at the area, it's

56:20potentially spot zoning because of

56:24there's no We're at the end of the line.

56:26There is no other place to expand. We're

56:29it. Yukon is on the south.

56:32There's nothing to the west cuz that

56:34goes out on the Colvin Steven limits.

56:36Um the east is already done.

56:40So, there's no place to expand. You're

56:43going to put 705 acres of housing in the

56:45middle of

56:47of

56:48a farm community. That's not even farms

56:51anymore because there's there are

56:52housing additions with five, 10-acre

56:54lots.

56:56Um

56:59And then there's going to be two

57:00commercial zones in there, too, that

57:02it's in the middle of a farming

57:03community. Except it's not farming

57:05because Surrey Hills is coming with

57:06houses, but that's over there, and then

57:10it's 10 acres, 5 acres, 2 acres, 1 acre.

57:13They're they're large lots all the way

57:15around us.

57:16There's also a Civil War veteran and his

57:18wife buried on the property. So, I want

57:20that in the record in case this does

57:23Well, when it does pass that that he

57:25gets found and relocated. His

57:28his remains are on the property in the

57:30commercial section. I don't want a

57:32parking lot on top of him.

57:35So, I want that on record that he is

57:37there. Um there's a cemetery next to the

57:40property.

57:43Um

57:46and I just, you know, would like to know

57:49Yes, they're going to pay for the

57:50utilities to come there, but can

57:52Oklahoma City support that? Do they have

57:54the water wells to support that water

57:56that needs to come there? Do they have

57:58the sewer that needs to support the

58:00sewer that's coming off of there? It's

58:04It's

58:05overwhelming what's happening out at

58:07Surrey Hills right now. And

58:11if this passes, I would ask the lots be

58:15bigger sized so that we can

58:18not be overwhelmed in our our water

58:20wells.

58:22And I would ask that it be a long-term

58:24project. So, our schools, our fire, our

58:28police can all catch up with what's

58:30happening in our area. Thank you.

58:33>> Thank you, Ms. Rayburn.

58:35Uh and then lastly, we'll hear from Mr.

58:37Powell again.

58:48>> Gary Powell, 7801 Northwest Co.

58:51Frankly, I'm kind of disappointed the

58:52ease with which y'all just passed that

58:53previous one. Um

58:56It was mentioned two community meetings

58:58have occurred.

59:00That is true. Attendance there in

59:01protest were quite heavy, actually. The

59:04building was nearly full.

59:05And one thing I do not want to mistake

59:07is our attendance for our consent. And

59:09I'm betting any of you to come to these

59:11meetings and listen. There wasn't a

59:12single person there happy. They reduced,

59:14okay, 26 to 2,400.

59:178%? Well, that that's not changing much.

59:19They're checking a box for you, and we

59:21all know it.

59:22Member said rooftops come first. How

59:24many more deaths need to happen?

59:26Well, if we don't have your your own

59:29um

59:30Plan OKC issue dash 14 prioritizes

59:32infrastructure and emergency service

59:34capacity. That capacity is not there.

59:36You want rooftop rooftops to come first.

59:39How does that make sense?

59:41I'm going to skip through a lot of the

59:42hydrologic stuff. Apparently that

59:44doesn't matter, but I'll just let you

59:45know that within a year any of us within

59:47that quarter mile section are likely

59:49run.

59:50Developers

59:51sure they're they're going to do the

59:52absolute bare minimum from an

59:54environmental standpoint, but that

59:55doesn't our our water table is upwards

59:57of of tens of feet shallow in this area.