2026-10-28 - Urban Design Commission

01:37Welcome to the October 28, 2026 meeting

01:40of the Urban Design Commission. My name

01:42is Scott Howard. I'm the vice chair of

01:44the commission.

01:46When called on, applicants and speakers

01:48will come to the front podium to speak.

01:50Only one person at a time should come to

01:52the podium.

01:54Please do not approach the podium until

01:56it has been vacated by the previous

01:58speaker.

02:00Please speak into the microphone and

02:02identify yourself and provide your

02:04address for the record when you begin

02:06speaking.

02:07Address your comments, questions, and

02:09testimony to the commission.

02:11Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.

02:14It is unnecessary to repeat testimony

02:17previously given by others.

02:19Citizens may address the commission on

02:21the agenda items by responding to the

02:23chair's call for speakers during

02:26discussion on each item and signing the

02:28speaker's log at the podium.

02:31All comments must be relevant to the

02:33item.

02:34The chair or presiding officer may in

02:36his or her discretion prohibit a person

02:39from addressing the committee and or

02:41remove that person from the council

02:43chambers if that person commits any

02:45disorderly or disruptive behavior.

02:49Please see the agenda for more

02:50information about these requirements.

02:53If you parked in the Sheraton Walker

02:55Parking Garage north of John Rex

02:57Elementary School or the Arts District

03:00Parking Garage immediately south of City

03:02Hall, staff can provide a parking

03:05validation ticket for you.

03:07The agenda and documents are located at

03:11https://okc.primegov.com

03:16/public/portal.

03:20You would then select the Urban Design

03:21Commission meeting, then click on the

03:23agenda item, and the relevant documents

03:25will come up below the item.

03:28Please see the agenda for additional

03:30information regarding meeting procedures

03:32and the review process.

03:34Keith, will you please call the roll?

03:37>> Howard.

03:38>> Present.

03:39>> Appleton.

03:40>> Present.

03:41>> Goulet.

03:42>> Present.

03:42>> Ison.

03:43>> Present.

03:44>> Watts.

03:45>> Present.

03:46>> Fifth quorum.

03:48>> Okay, we'll call the meeting to order.

03:50Um item two, approval of minutes.

03:54Uh, 2A rather.

03:57Do we have a motion?

04:02>> I make a motion to approve the minutes.

04:04>> Okay. Do we have a second?

04:07>> Second.

04:08>> Any discussion?

04:13Vote.

04:19Okay. Motion approved.

04:21Item 3A, cases withdrawn, none.

04:25Item four, continuance request, none.

04:30Item five, consent docket A and B.

04:35>> Um, before we move to the consent

04:36docket, really quickly, uh, no problem.

04:39Um, we have a new staff member in the

04:41planning department that I wanted to

04:42introduce. This is a brand new position

04:44to our department. Uh, Leon James is our

04:46new zoning compliance officer. So, he

04:48will be helping us with getting our

04:50certificates of approval and

04:51appropriateness inspected in a timely

04:53manner and helping with code

04:54enforcement, uh, in the design districts

04:56as well. Um, and many other things as he

04:58gets, uh, gets his feet under him, but,

05:00uh, Leon has been with the city for many

05:02years. He's comes to us from code

05:04enforcement, so we're very happy to have

05:06him on board. Uh, wanted to introduce

05:07him at the beginning and not make him

05:09sit through the

05:10>> [laughter]

05:10>> the rest of the meeting today, so.

05:12Um, thank you.

05:13>> Welcome, Katie. Welcome, Leon.

05:15>> Thank you.

05:17>> Okay, you can go now.

05:18>> Okay.

05:19Um, item five, uh, A and B, consent

05:22docket.

05:23>> So, with the consent docket, um, if

05:25somebody wants to pull one for

05:26discussion,

05:28um, you would announce that, otherwise,

05:30there would be a motion to approve the

05:32consent docket

05:33and a second, and you would actually

05:35vote on that.

05:38>> Do we have an emotion?

05:42>> I make a motion to approve the consent

05:44docket,

05:45items A and B.

05:46>> And a second.

05:47>> I'll second.

05:48>> Thank you.

05:50>> Well, that was weird.

05:53I was trying to turn microphones on.

05:55Just a reminder everybody turn your mic

05:56on when you speak so that we can hear

05:58you later when we have to watch the

06:00recording of the meeting.

06:03Thank you.

06:04You think you are turning it on and

06:05we're not hearing you.

06:07Wave at me and we can check that

06:09everything's working.

06:14>> Okay, item 6A cases for individual

06:18consideration, none.

06:21Item 7A other

06:23business

06:24uh

06:25SP SPUD-01858

06:30at 1121 South May Avenue and 2911

06:34Southwest 11th Street.

06:37Laura.

06:37>> Good afternoon. Laura Griggs, Planning

06:40Department.

06:43And I'm just going to leave it on this

06:44one. You might recall we continued this

06:46item at your last meeting.

06:48I wanted to start by saying I was wrong

06:51on when this would actually go to the

06:53Planning Commission

06:55because at that meeting I'm like, oh,

06:56it'll go to the Planning Commission

06:57tomorrow. No.

06:59Um

07:00because there were

07:03there's five Thursdays in October

07:06and tomorrow's the fifth Thursday and we

07:08don't have meetings on the fifth

07:09Thursday. So, it actually will be going

07:12to and I'm [clears throat] I don't want

07:14to misspeak again.

07:16This will be going to the Planning

07:17Commission at their next meeting and it

07:19is their only meeting in November

07:21which

07:24I'm the 12th. Is that what I told you?

07:25Okay. So, it's the 12th um

07:28cuz I [clears throat] confirmed that and

07:29I sent an email to let them know that

07:30I'm sorry I'm wrong about that.

07:32Um there was a lot of discussion at the

07:35last meeting and the direction that

07:37staff and the applicant was given was to

07:40get together and see if you can't work

07:42up

07:43uh an MDS

07:46that speaks to how the current business

07:49operates and allow them to continue to

07:51operate

07:53um so that they could build the building

07:55that they're wanting to build. Uh as you

07:57recall, this is a legal non-conforming

08:00um business and

08:03adding a building would be considered

08:05increasing the non-conformity.

08:07So the applicants did an excellent job

08:11and provided us with a lot of uh

08:13comments and suggestions for how to

08:16change the wording.

08:18A lot of the items

08:21were things that are actually governed

08:24by state agencies that we're not

08:26involved in.

08:28And so in discussing with them, I'm

08:30like, I didn't include those because we

08:32have no authority in DEQ's requirements.

08:36You have to meet them anyway. Um

08:40and so

08:42not all of the wording that they

08:44suggested was included in the revised um

08:47MDS that you see.

08:49There was some that we took straight

08:52word for word.

08:54Um and so there's no disagreement about

08:56that addition to the MDS.

09:00There is one um

09:03one item that I changed the wording on

09:05that they will discuss with you because

09:07by me changing the wording it created an

09:09issue for them and that deals with the

09:10shelving that they have.

09:15And um I've added items to the staff

09:18report on this.

09:19What you will notice though is I've I've

09:22actually eliminated some of the stuff.

09:24So the very first staff report flat out

09:26recommended denial and that was the only

09:28option that staff recommended to you.

09:31Um in that staff report under the issues

09:34and considerations, we referenced the

09:36fact that originally they wanted to pull

09:38themselves out of Scenic River.

09:40Which we are opposed to at that

09:42location.

09:44They're no longer requesting they be

09:45pulled out of Scenic River, so I removed

09:47that from the staff report cuz that

09:49that's really a non-issue.

09:51And so what I have continued to have in

09:53here is um the uses as we discussed at

09:56the last meeting, they're wanting uses

09:57that are not allowed in Scenic River.

10:00Um

10:02and

10:04in the review of these items, staff is

10:07still concerned about the impact on the

10:10surrounding area.

10:12Uh existing established residential

10:14development in the area.

10:17The applicant has attempted to mitigate

10:19staff and the commission's concerns

10:21regarding possible adverse effects

10:23associated with allowing the

10:24continuation of the current

10:26non-conforming use in perpetuity through

10:28additional limitations and requirements

10:30for screening, storage, and other

10:31factors.

10:33The commission may determine that these

10:34mitigations sufficiently address those

10:36concerns and that in this case it is

10:39appropriate to allow

10:41an otherwise prohibit

10:43And I'm sorry, that's the wrong word. An

10:46otherwise prohibited use within the

10:49SRODD and recommend approval to the

10:51planning commission.

10:53Alternatively,

10:55alternatively

10:57the commission may determine that even

10:59with these limitations, the use is

11:01inconsistent with the proposed and

11:03intent of SRODD and incompatible with

11:06surrounding residential development and

11:08recommended denial to the planning

11:10commission. And we have provided

11:13recommendation of approval with some

11:15suggested verbage or recommendation of

11:17denial with some suggested verbage.

11:20>> [snorts]

11:20>> So I wanted at this point um

11:23to

11:25indicate that if in fact you recommend

11:28approval

11:30staff is going to recommend that you add

11:33a condition.

11:34This addresses the concern that the

11:36applicant has with

11:38some of the verbage.

11:41And if you read it one way, it's what we

11:42intend, but you could read it another

11:44way and it's not what we intended to do.

11:47So,

11:48um

11:49on the last page

11:52of the new MDS that was included in

11:57the staff report, there's a reference

11:59one of them the second bullet talks

12:01about no car crusher and the third

12:03bullet talks about no shredder and some

12:05other.

12:06And so, what we're needing to add is cuz

12:09right now it states in both cases

12:12shall be permanently affixed or

12:15operating on site. So, the intent here

12:17was we didn't want this function

12:20permanently operating on site, just

12:22every few months or however often they

12:25need it

12:26operate that equipment.

12:29I intended it to really imply

12:31permanently affixed or permanently

12:33operating on site.

12:35And so, the concern was if I don't have

12:36permanently in both places, it sounds

12:38like you can't do that use at all, which

12:40was not what we were intending to do.

12:42So, the recommended condition is that

12:45the second bullet and the third bullet

12:47be

12:48uh revised so that you add permanently

12:52in front of operating on site on both of

12:54those bullets.

12:56And then it reads the way staff

12:59recommended it to be read and as what as

13:01well as the applicant.

13:03And it does address

13:04comments that was were discussed at the

13:06last meeting.

13:10And I actually have that written down

13:12for someone if when they make the motion

13:15and they want to actually read it, I

13:16have that written down for you if you

13:17need it.

13:18Um but

13:20with that summary, do you have any

13:22questions for me?

13:30>> Okay.

13:31So, let me

13:33set this up for the applicant.

13:43>> The arrow at the bottom. Yeah, right

13:44there.

13:54Right there.

13:55>> Okay. Thank you so much.

13:56>> Yeah, thanks for that. If you don't

13:57mind, the packet's still passing out.

13:59>> Okay. I'll start this meeting as well.

14:01>> Oh, okay. No problem.

14:08>> Uh hello, commission. Good to see you

14:10again.

14:11Um so, within our last meeting, uh our

14:15company hit the ground running to

14:16address everything that was brought to

14:18our attention, including all of the

14:20concerns that were brought up.

14:22Within that 48 hours, we wrote an entire

14:25library of language

14:27that in fact was is essentially copy and

14:30pasted by the city

14:32uh

14:33to help kind of give guidance

14:36and also to relieve some

14:39some dissatisfications of approving this

14:43uh non-conforming business as it is.

14:46Um

14:47a lot of the things I've addressed here,

14:49actually the modifications, we really

14:50only had four modifications to the

14:52language that was already accepted. Uh

14:54Ms. Flores actually

14:57actually tackled and addressed majority

14:59of them. Um so, on the document I've

15:01presented to you, there's four

15:03modifications I was going to speak of

15:04today,

15:05uh but modification one and two is

15:07literally what she just addressed. So,

15:09I'm not going to waste your time to

15:10repeat that. It is literally just the uh

15:13language adding that word permanent

15:14affixed,

15:16um and that's really what it came down

15:17to. She

15:18nailed that, and she's already made that

15:20a amendment to that language, so I won't

15:23waste your time speaking about

15:24modification one or two, excuse me, on

15:26our document here.

15:28Um really the only other modification so

15:30we have to speak of or request uh our

15:33our only last thing was

15:36a request of modification number three.

15:38Which was shelving and storage.

15:41Uh so

15:43I'll jump here to give you a display of

15:46what we're speaking of.

15:50And thankfully do since Laura spoke of

15:53most of those fixes, I'm going to skip a

15:54couple of these pages that have already

15:56been addressed. But it's really coming

15:58down to modification number three that

16:00we have that we're requesting an

16:01additional adjustment in the language.

16:05And that is the language for the

16:06screening. Uh what it comes down to is

16:08storage and shelving. And what it is is

16:12that the language speaks in a way where

16:15absolutely nothing can stick above or

16:18beyond that level of defense of the

16:21site.

16:22That kind of causes a minor issue for

16:25our current infrastructure that's

16:27actually already apparent and running.

16:29Uh I've presented some images here to

16:31give you an idea.

16:33This is an exact view of the property in

16:35which we speak of. You can see there is

16:37nothing sticking out that is

16:40obtuse or damning to the eye that would

16:43make the city look bad and

16:44unpresentable. Uh I'll give you a

16:46zoomed-in view.

16:48This is kind of what I'm speaking of.

16:50It is literally on this side. You can

16:52see PVC pipe that is not more than 12

16:55inches higher than the fence, 18 at

16:57most. And this is the top of the

16:59shelving system that we use for storing

17:00auto parts. It barely essentially what

17:03we call peekaboos above the fence. It's

17:05nothing obtuse. It's not a mountain of

17:07cars or anything of that nature. It is

17:09literally just storage and shelving

17:10that's sticking out. And I even wanted

17:13to give additional images and sites so

17:15you can see besides PVC PVC pipe you can

17:18see just pallet racking and storage

17:20shelving. That is essentially just above

17:23and beyond that fence line which if we

17:25accept the language as it is, we're

17:27immediately being non-confor- compliant

17:30to the rules that we're speaking of

17:31today.

17:32Um to even give you an idea of the um

17:37vehicles before we we ran an auto

17:40salvage this is what it looked like

17:43prior to us not running a full on auto

17:45dismantling parts. This is what it looks

17:47like when we store cars on shelves and

17:49racking.

17:51And so you can see barely the tops of

17:53cars

17:54um that stick over the fence line and of

17:57course this is not how it looks like

17:58today. But we wanted to give you a

18:00scenario cuz I'm sure it would have been

18:02brought up to the attention of hey, what

18:04if this goes back to the day of of auto

18:06dismantling? Well, this is the worst

18:08case scenario of what it looks like. Uh

18:11the cars stick out no higher than 18 in

18:13above the fence line. And as you see

18:15they're in an organized manner anyway

18:17when there's shelving and racking used

18:19to store cars. It's not a up to mountain

18:21of vehicles. It's a organized auto

18:23dismantling facility.

18:25And so our only real address or

18:28modification requested out of all the

18:31language that's been approved now by the

18:32city is to make that modification for

18:35the screening and to allow that

18:37exemption for the main reason of the

18:40storage and facility of our current

18:42shelving and racking system so that we

18:44do not become immediately uncompliant

18:46with our current infrastructure.

18:49Um

18:50and that's our main point for

18:51modification three.

18:53Um you'll see also on the list here

18:56modifi- modification four.

18:58Uh that's actually about solar

19:00and actually that has been

19:03uh we are removing that from a

19:04modification needed. Miss Laura has

19:06currently told us that a new uh

19:09ordinance has come into play kind of

19:11helping with the screening of solar

19:13panels, which was our other fourth

19:15concern here. But with the new

19:18with the new

19:19ordinance in place, this won't be an

19:21issue. We don't plan on having solar

19:23equipment outside. This was really just

19:25about solar paneling. So, in our entire

19:28presentation here between the four

19:29modifications that are presented in

19:31front of you right now in our

19:32presentation, it's really only actually

19:34about the shelving. She's already

19:36addressed our other issues in the

19:38language. That's been corrected. She's

19:41already

19:41informed us of the new city ordinances

19:43for the panels, so we're good there. And

19:46really what it comes down to is our only

19:48request of the additional language to be

19:50changed or altered, whatever is the

19:52proper language, is to get that modified

19:54to allow that storage to overcome that

19:5710-ft barrier of the fence, only for

19:59that reason. And as you can see, it's

20:01nothing obtuse, it's nothing obscene,

20:04it's nothing damning to the city or the

20:05overview. So, I believe we have done a

20:09lot to show how much we are here to

20:13conform, how much we are here not to

20:15cause or impose any damage to the

20:18overlook of the scenic river overlay.

20:21And I hope that

20:23we really helped a lot with the language

20:26that we provided, and it looks like it

20:27was literally absorbed. And we kind of

20:30probably did a little bit too much with,

20:32you know, showing how we were A lot of

20:34thoughts were brought up about

20:36dismantling of environmental issues, so

20:38we brought those up, but of course, that

20:40turned out to be other agencies to worry

20:42about and not even the city's issues.

20:45So, I bring that as our only request to

20:48the modification is just having that

20:51screening exemption, and as you see, for

20:53only this reason.

20:55If you have any questions, please do not

20:57hesitate.

21:00>> [snorts]

21:03>> Thank you for that update.

21:05Commissioners, are there any questions

21:07for the applicant?

21:12>> So, if I might, if someone is inclined

21:17to recommend approval,

21:20um

21:21we have

21:23uh and you agree with the revision that

21:25the applicant is wanting,

21:28I would recommend that that be referred

21:30to as uh revised number six site proof

21:33screening

21:34to replace the last sentence

21:37and then read his last sentence that he

21:40has in that orange highlight that's on

21:42page six of his handout.

21:44Um because that's the one that talks

21:46about

21:48the shelving does not

21:51have to remain below the top of the

21:53fence.

21:54Um and then the other one, the condition

21:57that staff is recommending

21:59under number nine other,

22:03uh the second and third bullet being

22:06revised to add the word permanently in

22:09front of operating on site, and that

22:11would cover both what I requested you

22:14do,

22:16which was at their request because we

22:17both agreed now says what it needs to

22:20say, as well as the request that they

22:22just presented to you.

22:25And I'll be glad to help you with that

22:26wording.

22:36>> [snorts]

22:40>> If there's no more questions, chair

22:42would entertain a motion.

22:44>> Is there anybody else in the audience

22:47that you might

22:48>> Yeah.

22:49>> Just a reminder.

22:50>> Thank you. Yes. I don't see anybody

22:52else, but

22:53>> No, but I do have a question about the

22:56building. You said it's 80 by 100.

22:58Do you have any idea of how tall it

23:00would be?

23:01>> The tallest point So, the building is a

23:03single slant building. So, the tallest

23:05point, if I'm not mistaken, is 24 ft

23:08from the very ground of which it's on.

23:11Uh so, of course, I don't know the exact

23:13elevation of the foundation. I would

23:14give it 6 in maybe, but I would tell you

23:1624 ft from foundation. Now, I can tell

23:20you this as well. What's beneficial

23:21about the geography of where we picked

23:23it, the fence is actually on a hill. So,

23:26the height of the fence being at 10 ft

23:28and the perception of the building has

23:30an advantage because the building is

23:32actually lower set than what the fence

23:34is. Mayve Avenue is actually kind of a

23:36higher set than where the yard is and

23:38it's kind of on a decline. So, the

23:41building is, if I'm not mistaken, set

23:43back approximately 30 or 35 ft. So, the

23:47angle of elevation, even though I say

23:49it's 24 ft high, it doesn't have the

23:51same perception. You're losing a lot of

23:53perception height. So, you will see and

23:55actually in my last presentation, we

23:57gave the best AI generated image we

23:59could to kind of give that perception.

24:01So, really you're only seeing just the

24:03front portion, let me say the front half

24:06of that building's highest point. And

24:08the good thing is we picked material

24:11that blended in. So, it's literally

24:13matching to the fence, the galvanized

24:15steel, so that way it's kind of a

24:17blended camouflage with material and

24:19doesn't stick out to be a sore thumb in

24:21the area.

24:22>> The SPUD speaks to maximum height of 25

24:25ft.

24:26So, it can't be taller than 25 ft.

24:29>> Thank you.

24:30>> I'm looking for that.

24:33>> I have a question as far as the building

24:35itself, will it be all one color? Um

24:39>> The building is completely galvanized.

24:41There's no color at all. It is literally

24:43exactly the fence uh material, which is

24:45galvanized entirely. The roof, the trim,

24:48the gutters, the fence, and we wanted it

24:51that way. We didn't want a building that

24:53stuck out. This is something not to be

24:55seen or advertised for the public. It's

24:57for storage only. So, we didn't know the

25:00more conspicuous we can be about the

25:02business and the operation, the better

25:03for us. And so, that's why we picked the

25:05materials that we did, so that it blends

25:08in with what already is currently in

25:10there. And all other buildings that are

25:12already in there are literally matching

25:13the same structure. So, there's no other

25:15materials beyond what you see, the same

25:17style. I believe the language is R

25:19paneling, if I'm not correct incorrect.

25:21It's the same style R paneling, exact

25:23same color, no trim. It's all

25:26galvanized.

25:28Thank you.

25:34>> Any other questions?

25:42Would anyone like to attempt to make a

25:44motion?

25:48>> I'd be happy to if I could get the

25:49language right.

25:54>> So, to clarify with the fence, staff had

25:56not supported the language to allow

26:00features to extend above the height of

26:03the fence. The fence was already at 10

26:05ft, which is

26:06taller than

26:08a typical fence.

26:10Um

26:11I understand the applicant's concern

26:13that they already have things that

26:15extend above the height of the fence

26:16that would immediately be out of

26:17compliance

26:19uh if that was prohibited. One

26:21compromise might be to set a limit of

26:24how high above the fence something could

26:25extend if it's an additional

26:282 ft, an additional five I don't know

26:31what a reasonable distance is to

26:33accommodate what's already there, but

26:35make sure that we don't have

26:37you know, a stack of three more cars

26:39sticking up above. And I don't know how

26:41high those can even go if there's a max

26:44uh limit, but just thinking if that's

26:46um

26:48something to discuss a little further

26:49with the applicant before making a

26:51motion.

26:54>> Is there a height that you would be

26:57okay with?

26:58>> Um

26:59>> Not to say

27:00>> put on the spot and not thinking in

27:01general, um to call it a safe limit, I

27:04would say

27:07a 6-ft buffer. That way you're not

27:09worried about a mountain of cars cuz

27:11obviously another auto body, I assume,

27:13is about

27:154-ft.

27:16So, you can already see just 12 in. So,

27:18if you're talking about triple stacking

27:20shelving as which what would I would

27:22consider the main concern here, you

27:24would be at least another you would hit

27:266-ft for sure. So, that way to stop a

27:29triple stack shelving system, I would

27:32definitely say 6-ft cap for sure.

27:34Anything above that would be gross or,

27:37you know, definitely unappealing. So, I

27:39could immediately accept language being

27:42so put on the spot about the detail.

27:45>> [laughter]

27:46>> No, I I understand the concern

27:47completely and it's a valid concern. You

27:49know, there is racking, but how far does

27:51that racking racking go? So,

27:54really the only legitimate concern I

27:55could see is triple racking cars and if

27:58I had to consider what's already there,

28:01you know, currently you've got 24 in.

28:03Another 4-ft. So, I would say if we

28:06wanted to add language of a max cap of

28:096-ft beyond that fence line, that would

28:11definitely be more than fair to put in

28:14such a cap.

28:15>> So, I think listening to that

28:18and looking at their sentence in orange,

28:22if that sentence

28:25if you added to that sentence and Katie,

28:26tell me if this makes sense to you,

28:28to the maximum of 6-ft above

28:31fence.

28:34>> That would be fair. That would be fair

28:36language to put or add.

28:43>> I um the only question I have is like on

28:46the car crusher and shredder, when it

28:48says this is like me not knowing the

28:49operations, you know, it says shall not

28:52shall like as far as not being

28:53permanently affixed.

28:58Does that allow the

29:00activity of car crushing still happen on

29:02the site if it's

29:04>> Yes. That's why That's why we put that

29:06other permanently in.

29:07>> Yeah. So, I guess if I what defines

29:09permanently at that point? Is it like if

29:11I'm doing it once a week it's not

29:13permanent or is it a

29:15>> Well, permanently affixed or permanently

29:16operating and and I mean, we did not

29:19define that because in my mind, with my

29:22my brother-in-law had a salvage yard, so

29:23I know how he operated and every few

29:25months he would hire somebody who would

29:27come in with a crusher and come in with

29:29a flatbed trailer and they would crush

29:31the cars and they would stack them and

29:32then they'd wrap them all up and they

29:34would go away.

29:35Um

29:36and I think that's typically how most

29:39operate unless they're a huge facility

29:42and then they have their own equipment.

29:44In which case, it might be permanently

29:46affixed which which could be like

29:47mounted to something

29:49or let's say

29:51you know, three or four days a week

29:53they're actually operating it. So, I can

29:54understand you're saying so if they

29:56operate it one day a week every single

29:58week, is that permanent?

30:00>> Mhm.

30:00>> Or

30:01are we talking about no, you can only

30:03operate it two days a month.

30:06I didn't get into that minutia, but I

30:09>> Well, I asked that not knowing how the

30:11operations work. So, it's kind of a uh

30:13uh

30:13>> that absolutely. So, just to kind of

30:14give you an idea of why

30:16why permanent is different than say

30:18mobile. And she's absolutely correct in

30:20her knowledge and understanding.

30:22Basically, auto salvage yards usually

30:24have to go through what we call flushing

30:26inventory or if there's change of

30:28ownership a company, not usually inside

30:32owned, a company is hired externally and

30:34what they do is they come in with a

30:35flatbed truck and they literally have a

30:38little crusher machine and a forklift

30:39that's unloaded and to clear out

30:42inventory in the cleanest, fastest way

30:44possible, they unload all the cars get

30:46crushed, put on the flatbed, and it's

30:48gone. This is usually a 5-day, 7-day

30:50process, maximum 2 weeks. And this is a

30:52very rare occurrence, like extremely

30:55rare. And so, in all honesty, too,

30:58considering the way the property was

31:00laid out, if such an activity ever

31:02happened, it probably wouldn't even

31:04happen on that side of the property

31:05anyway. It happened on the part that's

31:07already allowed and beyond the SRD. So,

31:10it's not really an issue, per se, but

31:12that language had to be there just

31:14because in case the machinery had to be

31:17moved or parked or adjacent on that

31:19property. Nobody wanted to be

31:20non-compliant from the city. So, I can

31:22understand the concern for sure, and she

31:24definitely addresses it and has an

31:25understanding that permanently affixes a

31:28different beast. We're talking about a

31:30large machine, an operation in which

31:33that is the means of income. And mobile

31:36crushing is a temporary unit, where it's

31:39literally used as a tool to clean out

31:41inventory, used as a temporary process,

31:44and then move it on, and then operation

31:46is back to a fresh yard, and new

31:48inventory comes in. This is a very rare

31:51occurrence, to be honest with you.

31:52Usually only takes place when auto

31:55salvage ownership is

31:57uh changed. When owner dies, new owner

32:00comes in, all the cars are crushed,

32:01moves on. So, this is an extremely,

32:04extremely rare case, if it ever does

32:06happen, but that's the purpose of having

32:08that language of verifying, "Hey,

32:11permanent is its own beast versus a

32:13mobile crusher or mobile uh unit of that

32:16that nature."

32:17>> Got it.

32:21Getting back to the triple racks, you

32:22don't currently use triple racks.

32:25>> It's very rare. It's very unsafe. There

32:28is Triple racks are on on In all

32:30honesty, never used really in Oklahoma,

32:33just because land is so cheap. Going

32:35triple is very high. Insurance companies

32:37usually don't like to cover you.

32:39Forklifts, just the infrastructure of

32:41that is very rare. Whenever you go

32:43triple, you're usually in big cities.

32:44You're usually in New York, usually in

32:46California, where land is just sparse.

32:48And so, to have that operation, you go

32:51triple. It's a very very rare situation

32:54which triple racking is used. Very rare.

32:57>> So, the 6-ft cap is really just

33:00flexibility if you ever chose to use

33:03that method.

33:04>> couldn't with the 6-ft addition, what

33:07that gives me is the the the flexibility

33:10to have the racking stick up as far as

33:13the I should say pallet racking stick

33:15up, but that would stop anybody from

33:18being able to put triple stack. Because

33:20at that point, you would be well over

33:22that 6-ft barrier. Because as you see in

33:25that previous image, uh and I'll go back

33:28to it just so there's reference here.

33:30You can see this is double stacking,

33:32right? The car is literally peaking out

33:35a maximum of pretty much 18 in here. So,

33:38if you can imagine another car on top of

33:40that, that is well over 6 ft. So, with

33:43the 6-ft cap, you would be basically

33:46putting the halt that you guys would

33:48need to feel comfortable to ensure such

33:50an operation never took place. So, that

33:526 ft would put in that barrier that I I

33:55feel like is needed to give you

33:56comfortable be comfortable with the

33:58exception.

33:59>> Okay.

34:05>> And I'm very accepting of that language

34:06as well.

34:07>> Mhm.

34:08Thank you.

34:10>> [snorts]

34:28>> Any other questions?

34:33>> I think I have more thoughts than maybe

34:35questions.

34:38>> [clears throat]

34:38>> First, thank you. Like you're doing a

34:40great job. You put a lot of work and a

34:41lot of effort into this. Um my biggest

34:44hang-up with your or one of two hang-ups

34:46I had with your your um last um proposal

34:50was that you were removing it from the

34:51scenic river district and you're not

34:53doing that with this one, but I fear we

34:55have basically written ourselves into a

34:57corner and have done the same thing.

34:59Um

35:01with heights and changing the um it to a

35:03non-conforming

35:05uh zoning, uh removing you from any of

35:08the required aesthetic um

35:11attributes of the district. I feel like

35:13if you if you come back to us in the

35:14future with something on this property,

35:16our hands are we basically tied our

35:17hands and there's no um

35:20purpose to our review in the future is

35:21kind of what I am I'm worried about.

35:24Um

35:25and so as someone

35:27tasked with the steward stewarding this

35:29district, I feel like I'm I would not be

35:31doing my job.

35:31>> I'm definitely happy you addressed that.

35:32So, one thing that really protects you

35:34here is the screening. So, the scree So,

35:36in the language, if I'm not mistaken,

35:38anything that takes place must be behind

35:40screening. And so, if there is, "Hey, we

35:43want to add this or that." Well, I must

35:45be behind the screening, number one. And

35:48all the And if I'm not mistaken, there's

35:50somewhere in the scenic river overlays

35:53language like our fencing must exist.

35:56So, there is not And our screening is to

35:58the fence the street, right? So, there's

36:00nothing we could build, design, or put

36:04that is outside of that bounds. And so,

36:07essentially, you're the screening that's

36:09already in place protects that. And if

36:11I'm not mistaken, I don't know where

36:13this is in the language, but I remember

36:14reading it, that I have to have the

36:17screening and that screening has to be

36:18in place. Uh

36:20and if it's not in place, then I have to

36:25You some type of additional acceptance.

36:27I can't remember. I wish I knew exactly

36:28where like I just remember reading

36:29>> No, in the the MDS in that site proof

36:33screening, which is the one we're

36:34talking about revising in the last

36:35sentence.

36:37The first sentence says site proof

36:38screening screening shall be provided

36:41around the entire site. So, we've

36:42written it into the SPUD.

36:44Because of the because exactly because

36:46there's outdoor storage, we want it

36:48screened to the best of our ability.

36:51>> Perfect. Thank you. I knew I'd read it.

36:53I couldn't remember where. So, to

36:55to at least address your concern, which

36:57is fully valid.

36:59Since that language is there, that

37:02screening could never be moved back per

37:04se. And even if it was moved back, you

37:06could never have any, let's say,

37:09attributes or anything cosmetic outside

37:11of that balance cuz it's written in the

37:14language as such. So, to address that, I

37:17feel like that screening

37:18>> It actually says around the entire

37:20perimeter. And so, to me, that means

37:23we're out on the property line going

37:25around this thing with the fence. And it

37:27always has to have a 10-ft fence.

37:29>> Correct.

37:30>> Solid.

37:30>> So, even if the fence ever got blown

37:32down, we would never come back to put a

37:346-ft fence and then fully exposed.

37:36Essentially, we're required to have that

37:38screen to kind of

37:41cover up any operation. So, that way I

37:43feel like any concern you have in that

37:45that area would be addressed by those

37:48that language.

37:53Thank you. You're welcome.

37:56>> Uh my my other hang-up has always just

37:58been there is another portion of your

38:00property where this could go.

38:02Um

38:03And so, you already have a a SPUD for

38:06which all of the supplies and we're just

38:08extending kind of that

38:10use and into

38:13what is an R R1 zoning.

38:16And so, extending it is also a hang-up I

38:18have. But But it's what we're here to

38:20do. So.

38:21>> Right. Right. But in its quarterly, it's

38:23not like that we're taking new property,

38:25right? So,

38:26I would understand the concern if it was

38:28like, "Hey, why are you taking

38:30additional properties in encompassing

38:32that?" We're talking about simply

38:34turning a property that's already

38:35non-conforming, not bending or changing

38:38rules to fit it in, just essentially

38:41just make it conforming enough to get

38:43the zoning that we require for the

38:45building.

38:50No intentions to

38:51increase or encroach additionally.

39:06>> Anyone want to attempt to make a motion?

39:10Chair would entertain it gladly.

39:19>> I've got it written down if you want the

39:21one with the recommended conditions.

39:23If that's where you're leaning. Did you

39:25want the Okay.

39:37>> I do want to make sure that I want I

39:39want to update

39:41um

39:42for the car crushing so that how I would

39:45like to make the motion would be that it

39:46would be permanently affixed or

39:48permanently operating on site.

39:50>> Yeah, you have

39:51>> Yeah, and

39:51>> Look at that piece of paper there.

39:52>> You have this already.

39:53>> Yeah, that's what I have up at the top.

39:55You can see where I wrote them out and

39:56you see that word underlined and bolded?

39:59>> Yes. Okay.

40:00>> before those last ones.

40:02>> And then we're going to do the maximum.

40:03I want to make that up. Okay.

40:16>> [snorts]

40:18>> Sorry, I'm going to go down to my

40:25So, I just provide

40:28All right, let me attempt. I'm going to

40:29provide a recommendation of approval to

40:31the planning commission on the basis

40:33that the proposed rezoning would allow

40:35the continuation of a business that has

40:37been operating at this location since

40:401954, which does not comply with the

40:42scenic river overlay design district

40:44zoning ordinance as referenced in

40:45section CD of the staff report

40:48with the

40:50um conditions that

40:54let's see

40:55that no car crusher or similar vehicle

40:58compaction equipment should be

40:59permanently affixed or permanently

41:01operating on site as well as no

41:04shredder, hammer mill, or similar

41:05vehicle reduction equipment shall be

41:07permanently affixed or permanently

41:09operating on site.

41:11In addition to recommend on the site

41:13proof screening and that

41:17>> And in that case, I would say replace

41:20the last sentence with and then just

41:22read what I if you can what I wrote

41:24down.

41:25>> Uh cuz it's the same as this one. Okay.

41:27>> Right, the first part's the same and

41:28then we added the other.

41:29>> All right, that we would replace the

41:31last sentence with vehicle vehicle

41:33bodies, auto parts

41:36and shelving or racking stored behind

41:38the required 10-ft minimum fence shall

41:41not be required to remain below the top

41:44of that fence to the maximum

41:46of 6-ft above that fence.

41:50>> Yes.

41:54I think you have nods from them, so

41:58Thank you.

41:58>> Yeah, thank you, Amy. Do we have a

42:00second?

42:01>> Second.

42:06>> Take a vote.

42:26>> Okay, motion passes 4 to 1.

42:29>> We'll see.

42:31>> All right. Thank you very much.

42:32>> you very much, Commissioner.

42:36>> All right, moving on to item eight

42:40A

42:41Um Laura, is there anything to comment

42:44about?

42:44>> So, there there are some projects in

42:46here. Um the first one was a spud that

42:50some of you might have been involved

42:53with and they're finally able to come in

42:55to actually build that building there um

42:57on South Penn.

42:59Um number two is we have a duplex that's

43:03going in. It's actually Capitol Hill.

43:05Um and it's a been a vacant piece of

43:08property and I'm really excited that

43:10they're getting some new construction in

43:11a neighborhood that hasn't had any for

43:13quite some time. It's on the west side

43:16of Walker. Um

43:18then there's another one for Rainbow

43:19Records. They have currently have the

43:22record for the most revisions

43:25um cuz this one is revision number

43:26eight, but they've almost got it. I

43:28mean, the sidewalk is in and so we're

43:30all looking forward to them finishing

43:32that project up. Um

43:34and let's see.

43:38I think I'm looking at my I'm not as

43:39familiar with Michael's projects. Um

43:43and then the very last one is on a Route

43:4566 shield monument and there's several

43:49different Route 66

43:51uh signs and monuments going up. Some of

43:53them not in

43:54um a design district cuz they just put

43:56one up in on uh 39th Street that I saw

43:58last week, which looks really cool. So.

44:01Um other than that, we're going to morph

44:03into yes, we have a meeting next month.

44:05We have items on the agenda.

44:07And

44:09the meeting next month, as you may

44:10remember, is not on the fourth Wednesday

44:12like you normally do because that's

44:14Thanksgiving week. So, it's the week

44:16before. It's the third Wednesday. It's

44:18actually the day before the downtown

44:19design commission meeting.

44:21There could be other

44:23committees and commissions that are

44:25shoved in before and after us because

44:27they get everybody off of the following

44:29week and try to get them out. So, it's

44:31possible somebody might

44:33interfere with us starting right at

44:343:00, but hopefully not. So, check your

44:37calendars. We need you here. Yes, thank

44:39you.

44:41>> Okay. Item B, is there any other

44:44comments? I think you

44:46>> I'm sorry, Katie.

44:47>> Oh, I was just going to mention I think

44:49we've been trying to figure out the most

44:50effective way to confirm quorum

44:53for each meeting and Keith and I

44:55[clears throat] have been talking about

44:56sending Outlook calendar invites for all

44:59of our meetings so that you'll have the

45:01whole year's worth on your calendar and

45:04hopefully if you're someone who uses

45:05your calendar regularly, then when you

45:07have a conflict come up, you can either

45:09decline our meeting

45:11or let us know that, you know, you won't

45:14be able to attend. And we're hoping

45:15that'll make it easier for people to to

45:17keep tabs on when a meeting's coming up

45:18or if we if we know ahead of time that

45:21there's not a meeting because there's no

45:22items for the commission to hear, we can

45:24cancel that and it falls off your

45:25calendar.

45:26So, keep an eye out for those Outlook

45:29invitations and we hope that'll be

45:30helpful for everybody.

45:32>> Okay.

45:33Thank you, Katie.

45:34Items or comments from commission

45:36members?

45:38None?

45:39And Laura talked about the next date.

45:42Uh we'll call this meeting adjourned.

45:47>> Molly, I thought you did a great job.

```*