all okay ready all right let's go ahead and call the meeting to order it's 1:30 we've got a quorum um before we get to the next item uh you may notice that there are only three of us were missing two folks today so that means on any vote to approve or deny you're going to have to get three out of three if anybody would like to bump it to the next docket when other two people are here and you get full board it's fine with me we've got a spot to request a continuance but uh you need to understand you got to get three out of three today so next item uh received amendments make a motion that we accept the minutes second got a motion in a second cast your votes all right now request for continuance or withdrawal I don't have any on the agenda anybody in the public want to ask for a continuance all right I don't have a consent docket so Cindy if you go ahead and call the first case please we have item number one case number 155 51 is a special exception for Oklahoma Shakespeare in the park to allow an outdoor venue for theater and other Gathering events in the NC District located at 2920 poo is the applicant here afternoon I'm Larry herel with HSC Architects we were the original Architects on the theater Remodel and we designed this uh what we're calling the Shakespeare Gardens back behind which is in uh on the board of adjustment today to extend the special exception that we got three years ago to make that exception permanent so with that in mind um a couple of things since uh uh 2021 when that special exception was uh granted for three years the theaters had uh 81 performances with 8,000 patrons and to our knowledge no complaints from any of the Neighbors which was originally going to be the uh the concern of the board of adjustment when that was granted as a temporary so um I was just going to try to keep this as brief as possible uh yeah the theater is located at 29th in poo and uh the city has been making a lot of improvements on the streets down there and actually increased the amount of parking which was going to be one of the concerns uh originally but I think that has proven to be a mute point at uh at this juncture and no complaints from the neighbors we do have endorsements from many of the businesses in that area saying what a good neighbor uh Shakespeare in the park has been and hopefully that they will continue to do their Productions into the future they've been in business for 40 years you may have known they started uh in Edmund 40 years ago and then about five or six years ago changed down to the Poo area and has been a very uh good neighbor and welcome addition to the performance ing Arts uh and visual arts in the neighborhood so uh that is our question today can we uh extend this special exception for a permanent basis rather than just a term limit questions comments from the board I don't have anybody signed up to speak on this one do anybody want to address the board on this application okay I think we're ready for a motion then I'd like to make a motion that we approve case number 15551 on the basis that it meets the criteria for a special exception uh for permanent use second okay we got a motion in a second cast your votes you're approved thank you right Applause after every performance no fight let's put that at citizens to be heard okay item number two item number two case number 15530 is a request of metroe Vocational Technical Center for a variance design and Landscaping regulations located at 4901 South Bryant Avenue good afternoon my name is Sebastian Clemens I'm with interface architectural signage on behalf of Metro Technology Centers um Metrotech identified a critical need for for improved signage a number of years ago um got funds through the map Bond program I'm also here with several representatives of Metrotech superintendent Collins J Martinez Brooks and Phil Carlton in the back um but using the uh bond funds they engaged interface as a national signage and wayfinding Company I'm local here but we do campus environments all over the country come in do both the assessment recommendation as well as make the signs um this is a very large complex campus with multiple buildings at South Bryant a lot of it is new construction as well um and there is little to no signage at the moment um with the current residential sign requirements and Landscaping requirements um it's not really possible to properly identify the entrances the new layouts a lot of a lot of it has changed um at South Brown right and so we have put together a plan um proposed signs the majority of which are internal to campus or building identification but a very conscious effort's been placed to minimize visual clutter you know only do what's required and necessary um you see the location plans you've seen the design but uh the variance uh that we are requesting is for both the signage kind of quantity which is currently in residential R1 is a maximum of of one per per Street as well as a uh sign size which I think is four four square feet very very small and so as well as the Landscaping because of all the new construction they've done a very good job with the existing landscaping and so our our request and application was for an exception to the or requesting a variance for the signage um quantity size and Landscaping requirements if you have any questions anything from the board the only question I have on the on the case itself is is the the landscaping and and trying to get a variance to to not have any Landscaping I think right maybe the ground mounted Monument signs in the front could use Landscaping just to soften it and and so understand kind of the the the raay signs and no need to have to have landscaping around those but thoughts on the okay uh the I guess the only the request the reason the request was was put in for the Landscaping was the the bond funds were actually specifically I guess set aside for signage itself um and not the Landscaping they've actually implemented a lot of new Landscaping which is all around the individual sign locations and so our professional opinion was that adding whether it's shrubs or additional Landscaping could actually detract from you know the the signage the way it's laid out so but the the campus is very well landscaped in addition to having very large green spaces around as well yeah and I saw that and I I know when you build the new buildings there's obviously a landscaping plan that you have to submit and follow I just yes sir the reason for that on the on the signs is the same just to soften the the look yes sir anything else from the board nobody signed up to speak on this one does anybody want to address the board on this application guess we're ready for a motion I I just have a quick question are you guys opposed to voluntarily adding some some Landscaping as you see fit if you put those in there uh you know some strubs that you guys feel would be appropriate that wouldn't detract from the signage not oppos all Aaron Collins superintendent CEO at Metro Technology Center it's good to see everybody thank you so much for for listening there is landscape there and you're absolutely correct on when we did the new building and in that we put in the the landscape we can look at and put landscape as appropriate around these signs once they're in we have absolutely no problem with that it is a separate fund but we can easily do that it would be separate from this discussion but we can easily um be able to adapt and put the the um Landscaping additional if needed but there is Landscaping where the signs will go yeah I'm fine with that I don't want to put any requirements on you I I mean I've been to the campuses the work you guys are doing is phenomenal and I think we can all appreciate good signage that tells us where to go if you've ever been on any type of Campus uh so yeah I just think that if I trust you guys that if you see that hey we could use some additional Landscaping here and see opportunities to add some that's good enough absolutely appreciate it thank you so much um with that I would like to make a motion to approve case number 15530 on the basis that it meets the statutory requirements for a variance second okay Motion in a second cast your VES I already voted it didn't show up it showed it passed but then it went oh did I missed it sorry do it again sorry there you go you're approved thank you item number three case number 15532 is a request of Metro Tech Vocational Technical Center for a variance design and Landscaping regulations located at the 1900 Spring Lake Drive hello again similar to South Bryant Spring Lake is the larger of the two campuses um it's much more involved I think double the amount of buildings and so um in the case bre trying to keep things brief um the majority of the the reason similar to South Bryant but the majority of sign locations are actually replacing and upgrading existing signs at South Bryant as well as interior to campus so you're going to see a number of signed locations but it's uh predominantly interior wayf finding to campus whether it's pedestrian Andor the side streets to navigate people to and from the buildings but um again a conscious effort was placed to uh minimize the number of new sign locations um sign clutter and putting our best foot forward trying to do what's in the best interest of both the community students visitors and anyone who comes to the campus so any questions comments on this one again nobody signed up to speak on this does anybody want to address the board all right ready for a motion then I'd like to make a motion to approve number 15532 on the basis that it meets the statutory requirements for a variance second a motion and second you're approved thank you all we have item number four case number 15533 request of madron Northwest investment company for a variance to sign regulations that prohibit signage on or over the street right away in the O2 office District located at 4 334 Northwest Expressway number 214 good afternoon my name is Rhonda Mishu I'm with madon Investment Company we the owners of the Northwest Office Center I'm here today to ask if for a variance to place a monument sign on excuse me this and I'm new at this so bear with me um in front of the building uh pre-co we were about 99% occupied today we're 50 and when we've interviewed existing and potential tenants they've told us their number one problem with the building is that it's not easily identified we have a monument sign now but it's up against the building on the uh south side of the fire lanane um and you can't see it until you're right up on it so when we started designing the sign and we determined what we needed from a monument standpoint we were aware that there was a easement there so that was new to us um so we've repositioned it and ask are asking you to consider allowing us to put it in this place it's about 90 ft off of the Northwest Expressway road I don't know if that's noticeable there but we think it's a a good um compromise for us anything from the board I don't have a problem with it you have a revocable permit already on it so knowing that approval if if something was to happen you the city could revoke it and have to move it anyway understood the only person signed up to speak is Ronda y anything else from the board okay we're ready for a motion then thank you very much I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 15533 on the basis that it meets the statutory requirements for variance second okay motion and a second pass votes you're approved item number five case number 15526 is a for special exception of Phil and Terry buan to allow Home Sharing located at 9812 Hefner Village Place I am Phil buan I'm representing my wife and I were the owners of this property I was here a year ago for our first uh exemption requests and uh at this time I'd like to request another exemption um and if possible for a period longer than one year according to the staff report we've had no issues uh had very good occupancy and very good occupants at the same time and good neighbor relations and uh we'd like to continue with this comments questions is there anybody here on this one [Music] um no that no on dep on this one I do remember when we first brought this case a year ago and and we had quite a few protests on it so you obviously have run a good business so thanks for that um just looking at the application there's there's three rooms being offer three bedrooms is it a three-bedroom correct and you're asking for eight guests on a three bedroom how can you how do you get to eight with there's uh bunk beds these are very large bedrooms and one bedroom has fullsize bunk beds in it and then the master has a Kings siiz and the other bedroom has a queen uh we do have a large sofa uh it was our original idea that we would have large families that could gather but that's not very practical for the the parking and um the proximity of all the units so um my wife had a vision that's really not practical for that particular site so we downsized all that and and that's worked out just fine we we changed our pricing and and that's worked all right for us okay another question how many cars can you park in the drive to be off Street two two in the garage and two in the drive and these are tow houses there are some uh guest slots right across the street from ours I think there's five in that space But the whole neighborhood really is not conducive to any street parking okay and that that's in the HOA okay so if if you would I'd like to make a couple adjustments to the application okay and put a limit of four cars and no on street parking that is in our bylaws yeah it's just so oh on yours just in the application okay yeah I see that and then and I would be okay with three years on the first renewal a three-year exception that would be great I'm good with eight anybody want to address the board on this application nobody signed up okay I guess we're ready for a motion then I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 15526 for special exception subject to the self-imposed rules with the change that the maximum number of vehicles to be for uh for a period of three years okay Motion in a second pass you VES you're approved thank you very much item number six case number 15514 is an application of Carissa FR to allow Home Sharing located at 4401 St Gregory Drive and this was continued from a previous meeting um there was protest and you asked them to come back showing that they had Property Management hi um I'm McKenna Bento I was here a month ago representing Carissa Fran I do have another packet for you guys to look at um just regarding uh that we did get a property manager and there are two property managers so um evolve is the one is the first and foremost property manager and then two to have someone there physically uh is going to be the neighbors across the street art and summer vincon and so they will be there physically to to monitor you know Vehicles if anybody parks on the street they can say hey to enforce the rules of the community and and um or if you know there's anything that people are bending the rules they can go and say Hey you know these are the rules of the community please respect them so on and so forth so um if you can I give this to you um there's a there's a letter from art and summer in there um just letting you know y'all know that they are going to be helping um and and the what shows online on on evolve when you book it shows all the rules and that evolve is the property manager and it lists online that they are so this is in the packet oh okay it's in it's in the packet okay okay anything from the board uh I am curious is to whether art and uh his wife were were they originally Pro protesters no no I was just curious about that uh I do want to commend you for taking the time to uh to go get a property manager and I think that the way that you guys did it um is innovative uh having a property manager but also including the neighbors uh with that I think that that speaks volumes I'm I'm really excited to see how it plays out with having somebody that's there that's you know in close proximity to the property and and if you haven't already I would just advise that you make sure to inform all the other neighbors of uh their role so that they know hey one of our very own neighbors right here has some capacity to interact with with anything that may may be going on that's undesirable yeah is there anybody wants to address the board on this application I don't have anybody signed up okay I guess we're ready for a motion then um before we do that just a couple of things on the on the application itself just want to make sure that there's four bedrooms eight guests quiet hours from 10: p.m.
To 8:00 a.m. so going to be a one-year exemption okay um maximum of four cars and no on street parking yep I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 15514 on the basis that it meets the statutory requirements for special exception subject to the self- impros rules for a period of one year with a maximum of four vehicles okay I got a motion in a second cast your votes you're approved thank you guys so much appreciate it item number seven case number5 20 is a renewal application Blake Omen to allow Home Sharing in the hlc district located at 612 Northwest 25th Street good afternoon everybody um my name is Blake Owen actually at 615 Northwest 25th just across the street uh from the subject property here um the the next agenda item is also um across the street as well at 608 Northwest 25th um 612 Northwest 25th since receiving a special exception last year has had the joy and pleasure of Hosting more than 85 stays 350 uh more than 350 nights have been stayed there and every single rating across the board from our guests has been nothing but five stars which is something we're really really proud of um also as a representative on the Leadership Council for the P neighborhood association I'm uh well connected with all the Neighbors in the area uh in addition to the the adjacent properties um and you know with me being across the street keeps it pretty easy uh to keep eyes on everything as well um I think our rules are pretty clearly stated there um we have a maximum of three cars in each one of those driveways no on street parking whatsoever uh and there's actually it's not allowed on that section of the street anyway um for 612 this is a renewal application for 608 this would be uh uh a new special exception the historical preservation uh Commission in last week's prior meeting recommended to approve it and I believe there was some supporting documentation from Neighbors uh submitted as part of that one as well but certainly happy to address any any questions or or concerns uh just one from me and that is on the quiet hours uh could we go from 900 p.m.
To 8:00 am I think I think right now it just says quiet hours quiet time after 10 p.m maybe it's a typo there but it's it's we we we usually enforce that from uh 8:00 am to 10 p.m. is is um when they're able to act freely and then acquired hour were after 10 p.m. everything else is good three years yes so the application says uh you're seeking a the the special exception for a period of five years we typically uh if there's been good history which it sounds like you have uh would be willing to go up to three years if you're okay with that that that'd be amable for sure it's really just uh just a matter of continuing to prove that out for you all and making sure everybody's comfortable yeah nobody signed up to speak on this one does anybody want address the board okay guess we're ready for a motion then I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 15520 on the basis that it meets the statutory requirements for a special exception uh subject to the self-imposed rules uh with quiet hours to be from 10: p.m.
To 8:00 a.m. uh for a period of three years second motion and a second C to votes you're approved item number eight case number 15527 is an application for special exception of Blake Owen to have Home Sharing located in the NC and HL District located at 608 Northwest 25th Street yeah so Ju Just for some added context this this property is actually directly next door um and had been historically operating as a short-term rental with the prior owner um under the radar for lack better words and so this is my opportunity to bring that to a more formal place and make sure we have the proper licenses and everything in order anything from the board are you okay with the same quiet hours 10 p.m. to 8:00 a. here y y no problem then you have you can fit it looks like the driveway is pretty long you can fit three vehicles there without any on street parking say that one more time sorry the dve you can fit three vehicles there actually there's a one car garage back there that we don't allow the the guest to um to park in so it's the exact same length as the driveway next door as well we we allow for three but U very strict on not blocking uh the sidewalk in any way um and then no street parking here as well okay and because this is an initial application we'd likely be approving just a one-year exception for right now understood understood anything else from the board anybody want to address this application nobody signed up okay I think we're ready for a motion then I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 15527 on the basis that it meets the statutory requirements for special exception for a period of one year maximum of three vehicles with quiet hours from 10 p.m.
To 8 a.m. second motion none a second go ahead and cast your votes thank you all you're approved item number nine case number 15528 is an application for special exception of Steven and Andre gags to allow Home Sharing located at 9406 Buttonwood Avenue hi there this is audris gags representing both Steph and audris scags and um this was our home of 30 years prior to becoming a short-term rental I have the utmost respect for all of my neighbors as many of them have been there for 30 years so they're all aware uh of the short-term rental and they haven't had any issues with it we've been super blessed with just having families come in uh for either short weekend or longer stays um for softball tournaments and things of that nature no one has had any issues um we do have a two-car garage but we advertise and allow for one car in the garage two in the driveway and then one in the street which is just right in front of the home um and we do also talk about in our house rules that this home um is amongst our neighbors of 30 years and you know to please be respectful of them and so far so good so in our quiet hours I was just refreshing my memory here um they are currently posted at 10: p.m.
To 7:00 a.m. but we can adjust that if you deem that to be needed anything from the board I don't have anybody signed up on this one it's a it's a three-bedroom property correct how many baths are in it two full baths two full baths and you're asking for seven with three that's correct we have a king and a queen and then in the what we call the kids room we have a fullsize bottom bunk and then a single Twin top bunk in there I know you said on the on the parking you you allowed for one space in the street uh and so you have three cars that we actually say four because uh we do allow them access to the garage but there's a a shelter in the garage on the left hand side so we allow one in the garage two in the driveway the driveway will actually accommodate four but we just said you know we would allow one in the garage two in the driveway and then one in the street right in front of the home which is really customary for that area there's not an HOA and um like I said we live there for 30 years and folks are you know often parking in front of their homes one of the complaints that we get a lot is about street parking would you be okay with uh limiting it to a maximum of three cars with no on street parking sure okay anybody want to address the board on this application nobody signed up and one year is okay um I would love to um ask for the longest amount I don't know because it's the initial one you do one we do one and may ask a question I just had a thought um so since the driveway will accommodate four would we be able to offer more than just three parking spaces but just say no parking in the street yeah I think so whatever you think would be reasonable there I think four cars can be there yeah as long as it's no on street parking I'm with four cars with on street okay there's nothing else I think we're ready for a motion I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 15528 on the basis that it meets the statutory requirements for a special exception for a period of one year subject to the self-imposed rules with the maximum of four cars and no on street parking second Motion in a second C votes you're approved item number 10 case number 15529 is an application for special exception of home sharing on behalf of current fedge on and cmf LLC located at 4800 Thompson Avenue good afternoon uh I'm Jeff sain with the center for economic development law 301 North Harvey suet 200 I'm here representing the applicant cmf LLC and it's principal Curran fudge who's here along with his property manager Eric Vios uh we're requesting a one-year special exception for the property at uh 4,800 North Thompson uh this is in uh Thompson's Woodland Edition kind of just Southwest to the intersection of Kelly and 50th uh the property has a 2100 foot uh 2150 foot single family house on a Halfacre lot there's an attached two-car garage and a recently repaved driveway that provide ample off street parking opportunities for five vehicles uh the home itself has three bedrooms and three bathrooms and it's anticipated will be furnished with a fullsize uh pullout sleeper sofa in the living room um the applicants propos rules have for a maximum of eight guests which is two per bedroom and then two on the sleeper sofa a minimum two night stay to prevent one night stays quiet hours between 10 p.m.
And 7:00 a.m. parking limited to the garage and driveway no Street prking allowed and then a requirement that the surrounding homes and neighborhood be respected and we're requesting a one-year special exception because it's our first application for this property u i the applicant or as property man man can address any questions you all might have how many bathrooms three you've got three bedrooms and you want eight occupants and you said your plan is to add a sleeper s so the property does not have one currently the property is currently not furnished because we don't know if you guys will accept this or not and if not the applicant would propose un leasing it or selling the property so yeah we propos to have a minimum full or queen siiz beds in each of the bedrooms and then a a fulls size sleeper sofa and with this being an initial application you understand we we typically Grant one year exception right that's all we've requested I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 15529 on the basis that it meets the uh the statutory requirements for a special exception for a period of one year subject to the self-imposed rules second okay nobody signed up to speak on this one so Motion in a second cash to votes you're approved thank you all item number 11 case number 5534 is an application for special exception of Julie K lamb to allow Home Sharing located at 600 Southwest 111th Street hello my name is Julie lamb and I live on 3501 Crystal Spring Drive in Norman I am requesting for a special exception for Home Sharing at 600 Southwest 100 111 Street this home has four bedrooms three and a half bath three car garage and it is 3200 square ft whenever we advertise uh whenever we will advertise on Airbnb we are planning to have quiet hours from 10: p.m.
To 7:00 a.m. then maximum number of Gest is to be eight the maximum number of cars to be six um two in the garage three in the driveway and we actually have a Circle Drive that is able to fit two to three vehicles and we are not allowing uh street parking you have to be a minimum of 25 years old to rent we require a two night minimum stay um to deter any parties to go on at the home we do not allow any parties or any type of commercial activities we do not allow pets motor home camping motor home camper trailer or boat parking and we do not allow last minute booking we will try our very best to enforce all the rules and activities uh we do have two cameras on the premise one is a ring doorbell and the other one is a um because the front of the uh house is just the entrance and then the driveways on the side so we have ring doorbells on each side to monitor um people coming and going and that camera on the side also um monitors uh coming and going into the back uh gate which is where the pool is and I know that some of the neighbors have concerns because the house has a pool um I would also like to take this time to I know that a lot of the neighbors have concern but this will be our second air beam be that we are doing um the the one that we are currently doing right now is in more um we are a super host we take pride and everything and anything that we do um we have a 4.97 stars out of 119 reviews we have never had any neighbors complained uh any code violation and the police have never been called out to the premise either and this is a three-year time span that we have been been doing uh the home that we currently are doing right now it's actually half a mile from Broadmore Elementary where the neighborhood has a lot of growing families um with a lot of young small children and we've never had any complaints from the neighbors of any of our guests we are not an out ofate investor my husband and I are the one that takes care of the property um so any issues that arise we are actually there uh we survey the property after before before and after each guest that comes and goes um before I go directly into because I read some of the letters that the neighbors have concerns about we acquired the property about a year and a half ago and I just kind of wanted to remind them of how we have been neighbors to them for the last year and a half we've been have been very respectful of trash whenever we're doing the facelift to the property um um taking care of the lawn and everything like that so we just want to be good neighbors to the neighbors in the neighborhood um I just hope that everything that I have mentioned is a clear indication that we do care about the neighborhood and as if we were living there um our goal is to keep the neighborhood safe appealing and not lose their property value you as well questions comments from the board nobody's signed up is there anybody here who wants to speak on this application all right go ahead come on up I didn't know what to do with this piece I'm sorry okay now we got somebody signed up my name is Carlos Bruce I live at 601 Southwest 111th Street which is directly across uh from the property that that we're talking about uh I'm going to assume that you have the email that I have sent yeah okay then I will go to the brief I'm I'm really out of my element here my name is Carlos Bruce I live at 601 Southwest 111th Street in Oklahoma City I'm 89 years old I'm here speaking for myself and neighbors that could not be here you have heard the objections in the email I won't go there with that any more you've heard them I will not uh I will not repeat all the objections when I became aware that this property is being renovated to an Airbnb and by the way I would like to compliment them on their they did extensive Renovations and they kept the property clean and kept up all the time that for this year that they were so I appreciated that there was no trash there was there was nothing so that's a that's a plus in their side I thought who would want to stay in such a place it's not near a hospital it's not near any kind of medical facility it's not near a sports venue it's not near a shopping center and it's not good near any good restaurants so who would want to uh use a place like that well I come to the conclusion only party people would want to use that that kind of facility I'd like to go on if I may and introduce you to some people who are not here but I'm representing Ivon day lives directly next door to the property she's she's 84 years old she spent the last 14 years taking care of her husband in their home instead of sending them to a nursing home he recently passed away now she may have to contend with a party house next door she don't deserve that she don't need that I'd like like to also introduce you to Joanne Lane 89 now you're you might see why I gave my age in the beginning because we are kind of old in that neighborhood she lost her husband 10 years ago she backs up to the lake here her property is directly across the street and backs up to the lake she has maintained her home on her own all these years well our health is starting to fail somewhat now and uh with the addition of this kind of Transit neighbors would create even a bigger problem that she has now I could introduce you to several more there are two more widows and one widower in my neighborhood one of them next door one of them across the street and the other one just on the other side of me we're we are not asking that you we're we we're asking that you allow us to continue to live our lives in a setting that we have worked for all of our Lives we don't need any extra problems we have plenty of our own you know we We Care a great deal about our neighborhood and we care a great deal about our city and I would like to ask one question how much does the city care about us thank you any questions for miss Lamb do you want to respond I feel that your concern is also our concern as well too the goal that we have is to provide provide a beautiful safe home for people like myself who go on vacations every year um and we look for a nice place to stay and we actually look tend to look for a home with a pool for our kids to um to keep them busy and to enjoy the property so my goal is to Target families and what we have noticed with our other property is that it's it's not party people that come it's people who we've had people who've been here for funerals um weddings and the one that I actually had to come and stay at this home to make sure all the drainage and everything had worked um she is a former guest of ours at the other location and she mainly came and stayed at our property because her daughter had cancer and so she was here to take care of her daughter that motivates us to provide a nice safe home for um families who were in town and I know that Mr Johnson's letter who is not here I assume um in his letter he did mention about um the lake that's behind his house and I honestly did not know that the neighborhood even had um had that for us to even use nor do I really care to even advertise that on our platform because I feel that that's private property and unfortunately I am one of those where I am like a helicopter mom so with the property I am that way as well too um if I have no control over it or to see it I I don't want to list anything that um could affect my rating and um my status as a super host as well too and that's all I have okay anything else from the board did you want to speak yes sir come on thank you to the board for brief recognition here today my name is Ryan Johnson I'm at 12000 sou chartel the property uh miss Lamb just mentioned and I first want to take a moment to apologize to Julie because I have not made your acquaintance yet I've seen a lot of coming and going across the way never really knew who was whom and so this is not the appropriate forum for Oklahomans to be meeting as neighbors and so I do apologize that I hope you accept my apology um we are all people this is also my grandfather who we moved from Texas to be next door to uh undertook a lengthy renovation as did you for the better part of the Year during Co supply chain shortage and we're all happily there with my young family uh expecting our third young child now I think the main thing I want to communicate is that all of these people are great neighbors uh they welcome everyone and they would like to treat you in the same way that uh yeah yeah yeah we would like to treat uh miss Lamb in the same way that if she were a resident neighbor we want to look out for the property we want to be able to reach out directly and let you know if there's anything suspicious going on if there's been weather damage on times where they're not at the property or not being rented out so my first ask is would we be able to contact you directly let you know uh things that you would want to know just as we would uh inform our other neighbors irrespective of any VR Boo or Airbnb so that would be my first ask Point number two uh I think you address is a two night minimum so that was going to be my my second Quest just make sure that we don't have the one night uh pool party situation I think the the piece on uh parking was brought up as well no street parking ample parking in the circle driveway uh and then finally uh to address the main concern because it struck me when I was pinning this letter of opposition that we as humans tend to allow our minds to drift to the outer space of the worst thing that could happen and that's kind of where the bounds of improbability meet probability so we need to reel it back into the mainstream and think what is probably going to happen what's probably going to happen is we are going to have curious people whether they be adults or children see this big beautiful lake or Reservoir technically and uh want to get a closer look and we actually had people doing that when they were looking at the property that miss Lamb purchased so it does happen it is a thing the neighbors have kind of agreed to keep this open for the benefit of all the neighbors that don't adjoin the lake directly and I just don't want to be in a position to have to mitigate my liability with fencing a bigger insurance policy so on and so forth this is foreseeable that people are going to be attracted to the lake so what I would wanted to suggest is some type of language and working together there some type of signage within the uh within the rental many of these you've seen kind of have come with a user manual that tell you how to use the remote control and the TV where the pool light switch is things of that nature if we could just uh kind of emphasize and underscore the importance that there is no easement to the lake because it does appear that there is one because there's no fencing there is a wide swath of land between our and Mrs Lane's property just indicate that this is private property there is no Tres there is no easement this would be a trespass and risk something with teeth like being evicted without refund or the premise should there be anything like that go on so with that I'll yield and thank you for your time you Mr Johnson just a question for you so the prop the the the reservoir itself is not open to the neighbors no this is priv prop surrounded yes and and actually I think when this property was built in ' 87 the land was not fully eroded towards the house that is is now such that my property line actually extends about 40t out into the water if you see that little embankment that hook that comes out that is where the edge of our property used to start out being in 1987 so we technically own some of the reservoir in that water yeah and that's the case with with all these properties that that line the lake there Y and just for you to know I mean I'm going to ask the applicant to make sure that she gives you contact information and then the other corest would be no Lake access okay thank you anything else from the board nobody signed up to speak I think we're ready for a motion just just a couple other things on the application I just want to go over it and I I want to maybe limit some of the application too if if you're so inclined but you have a maximum of eight guests and so you have eight rooms and so I'm okay with that um I'd like to limit the cars to five five with eight guests I think five five car maximum would be sufficient I just again there's a pool I just don't want the opportunity for one of your guests to have a bunch of people other people who aren't going to stay the night but still come over and so that and it' be a one-year exemption since it's the very first time and then for um for the sake of you know the safety of Mr Johnson's family as well too I will make sure that we will put in our rules that that is private property you have quiet hours already so that I'm good with everything else anything else okay ready for a motion I think I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 15534 on the basis that it meets the statutory requirements for special exception for a period of one year subject to the self-imposed rules with the maximum of five vehicles second motion and a second cast your votes okay you're approved item number 12 case number 15541 is an appeal by John Orman the third CEO of loock Supply Company of the decision of an administrative official regarding the assessment of streets development vment fees on building permit BLC 2023 5982 at 8811 South Bryant Avenue afternoon uh Mr chairman members of the board and thank you for having me this afternoon U my name is Maurice Woods I'm an attorney here at mcam Woods Oklahoma City our office up in Midtown I represent today Lock Supply Company uh Lock Supply is is represented by his chairman and CEO I should say uh Mr John Orman sitting in the back with us here today and I also have Mr Caleb Morgan here with me today from Johnson and Associates Engineers who's worked up some of the studies that form the basis for our appeal um I know that in the the agenda there's a a paragraph that says try to keep remarks to five minutes I also know that uh from my understanding from the city counselor's office this is the first time an appeal has ever been taken from the the uh Oklahoma City Municipal development fee and uh we took the first level appeal to Mr Rick Wick Camp the uh Services director and then here we are before the the board of adjustments so I think there's been a little bit of a learning process and and I'm not sure how familiar the board is with all of the ordinance and the procedures at this point so if I could have just a little latitude to maybe go through some of that I'd be be glad to explain sort of what brings us here today and and what the issue is um I know that you know our our appeal takes up probably twoth thirds or over a third maybe half of the packet that I received from City staff about the issues today and there's a lot packed in there uh but basically uh lock supply company has been assessed a traffic development fee or development fee which is really a traffic impact fee of about well precisely 725,000 cents as part of its building permit a little bit about the company lock supply company as you may be aware uh supplies Plumbing electrical heating ventilation air conditioning components to many of the contractors residential and Commercial throughout the state of Oklahoma they have a uh large distribution warehouse they operate out of currently at 82nd Southeast 82nd and I35 and then they have various uh retail wholesale uh type of shops in Oklahoma City as well as a lot of our surrounding communities they employ over 1100 people in the state of Oklahoma and last count somewhere between three and a half and $4 million a year is contributed in Oklahoma City sales tax by their efforts there has been a growth in their business a growth in the population of Oklahoma uh to the point that they are now needing to upssize the scope of their distribution facilities and as a result of that they purchased 95 Acres at the uh northwest corner of Southeast Bryant uh 89th and and Bryant just south of i240 that is part of something called the OK 577 LLC which is a partnership of uh private developers the Oklahoma industrial Authority and the alliance for the economic development and there's several lots to be developed in there but of the 95 5 Acres that lock purchased they are intending and in fact are underway in construction of a warehouse facility constituting 1.5 million square feet locks um need for this Warehouse uh and their use of this Warehouse is going to be different than most warehouses of this size and type that might fall into an industrial category they are intending to incorporate and use some of the most modern distribution technology ology computer technology uh tracking and U methods of organizing the warehouse and uh do so in such a manner that they will be able to operate a larger Warehouse with the same number of employees and basically the same number of truck trips per day semi-rs in and out as they are now at Southeast 82nd and I35 so what I we are here today is to ask for a significant reduction of the assessed development in impact fee in fact I'm going to go ahead and tell you the ask is going to be to reduce that fee by about 86.5% and if you'll indulge me I'll tell you why going back through a little bit of history of uh what this traffic impact fee comes from it originates out of a state statute it's called the enabling act uh it is found in Public Finance title 62 section 895 without it the Oklahoma city ordinance would not even be capable of of existing there are a few significant portions of it I don't certainly want to read the entirety of it but the whole purpose of the enabling Act is to allow municipalities to create ordinances to mitigate against what additional traffic impacts may occur as a result of a new development or a new commercial or new industrial building being built in other words if there's going to be an increase in the traffic on the roadways then it's an ability for a municipality to offset some of that additional cost of having to increase traffic signals turn Lanes put in more traffic Lanes Etc to accommodate whatever that traffic is but the development fee is defined in the statute as the payment of any money as a condition of approval of any building permit to pay for public infrastructure systems uh that need to be increased that are attributable attributable to the new development or to expand or modify new development it goes on to say those development fees shall not exceed a clear ascertainable and reasonably determined proportionate share of the cost of capital Improvement to the public infrastructure system attributable to the expansion or increase in the capacity generated by the new development to finish the paraphrase so against that uh backdrop city of otoma City uh enacted ordinance 2 25374 on April the 27th of 2016 it's codified in chapter 50 section 14 of the municipal code and it somewhat tracks of course what the state enabling statute says but some of the important language in it again are the uh definitions of the development fee which means the payment of the money imposed uh as a condition of approval to the extent the fee is to pay for public infrastructure systems and changes that are attributable to new development or the expanded development so very similar to the state statute it goes on to say that new developments uh are new developments and expanded or modified developments shall be charged a development fee for Capital Improvement costs for increases in expansion to the capacity of public infrastructure attributable to that development and development fees may not be used to fund repairs maintenance restoration or fixes to existing infrastructure so it's a it's a very nuanced that this must this money that's being collected must go to expansion of infrastructure not to repair potholes in the roads not to upkeep what's already on the books or already being already been constructed out here in in the city it's only for new expansion the way that the City Ordinance Works is fairly simple The Institute of Traffic Engineers U publishes a manual called the it manual in which it says that it has studied and deciphered roughly the amount of number of traffic trips automobile trips caused by different categories of buildings residential commercial retail industrial Etc and in the ordinance that table is adopted page 28 29 of your ordinance um and specifically as it applies here it has categorized Lock's new building as an industrial warehousing facility under category 150 the rest of the way that the municipals uh code works is that that land use category is then multiplied by the number of square feet of the facility and then multiplied by the rate table contained in chapter 60 50-1 of the ordinances which gives the rate uh per square foot depending on where whether you are in a rural a new growth an infill or a core area and this sitting out in southeast Oklahoma City uh being an industrial it's it's multiplied U by I believe it's roughly 50 cents per per square foot 54 per cents per square foot therefore on a million and a half square foot facility we end up with about a $752,000 traffic impact fee so that's kind of the mechanics of how that works but if you drill down into the details of this Institute of Traffic Engineers um land use category for item number 150 an industrial Warehouse that projection is that this type of Warehouse will cause 5,586 additional trips per day on the roadways and that is what forms the basis for uh charging this type of fee to lock supply so in response to that feeling as though that number of trips per day was extraordinarily out of balance with what Mr Orman knows of his business services of Johnson Associates were retained and what they have done is perform a study of what the actual traffic impact will be based upon the historical data of Mr Orman how Lock Supply actually operates his business how many employees he has coming and going from his Warehouse facility and how many semi- trucks he knows he has in and out on any day that opinion letter from Mr Tim Johnson who unfortunately can't be here with us today um is away on a personal issue um but that that letter formed the basis of our initial appeal to the development services director but in it it sets forth um really three very important things number one because of Lock's efficiency and how it operates because of its knowledge of years of numbers of trips in and out of its building it knows at most with approximately 250 employees in the building that equates to no more than 7 700 trips per day if each one of those employees drives to work drives to lunch and drives home in the evening you 250 time 3 roughly 700 plus they know that 50 semi trucks is all that they send out on any given day so as against City staff's determination that there should be over 5,500 trips we've demonstrated by evidence that there's only going to be 750 per day in and out of this facility if you look at that as a percentage 750 trips per day as a percentage of the 5,586 projected by the city it's roughly 13.4% is what we will actually cause in terms of usage of city streets another significant point to be uh considered here is the proximity of the new lock Warehouse to existing infrastructure that can already handle traffic so it's at the intersection of Southeast 89th and Bryant Bryant being a four-way north south fully developed uh Traffic Way and and it is within a half a mile of Interstate i240 i240 being a federally funded interstate highway for which the city of okahoma City contributes no dollars uh towards Improvement of that roadway system lastly uh Mr Johnson's opinion letter references the fact that as part of the overall OK 577 industrial part development there are three new four new streets being privately paid for by those developers and will be dedicated to the City of Oklahoma City these are on a map that Mr uh Johnson had provided as an exhibit to part of his report but essentially there's creation of a two-lane one mile long Frontage Road along the south side of Interstate i240 through the heart of the OK 577 development there's going to be two East West four lane roads I wish I could help you guys pull up a map I'm talking about uh so it's attached to Tim Johnson's uh probably that scan of opinion letter Tim Johnson divit D it's going to be one of the last schedules attached to that uh right there yeah roughly that shows us to it shows it to us yes uh so the looking at the uh projector here the lock building is kind of bottom center um to orient yourselves that's briyan on the right north south Southeast 89th running across the bottom of the screen and then we have these two roads in the in the frontage road here uh and the other road that cuts completely through the the 577 development then those two roads are joined by a north south uh road that will allow traffic to kind of migrate throughout the facility there now Mr John Johnson's opinion the creation of these privately developed roads to be dedicated to the city good will alleviate any traffic impact caused by locks Facility by other traffic being able to Route Around 89th or Bryant or even to the West in other words it will provide a public cut through U of of roadways to allow that to be alleviated any impact to be alleviated I should say the cost of those those roads being built by the 577 development is approximately $10 million and it's going to be dedicated to the City of Oklahoma City eventually for of course free and I'm sure subject to a maintenance Bond of some sort as well lock supplies purchase of that 95 Acres that they bought from OK 577 in a roundabout way helped fund what will be ultimate dedication of $10 million worth of Roads so there is an argument to be made here that lock supply has already contributed a significant amount towards alleviation towards mitigation of the traffic impact if any created by their new Warehouse facility I think it is worth noting and I don't know if this is knowledge of of the board of adjustment or not but in February of 2023 approximately a year ago the City of Oklahoma City Mr Jeff Butler U commissioned a private study by Consultants Tyler Bice and the purpose of the study and I'm reading from the executive Su summary the City of Oklahoma City retained TI Bice to review and compare the city's development impact fee program and methodology and they looked at how the city went about enacting this ordinance uh its impact how it Compares with other cities peer cities uh in the region and around the country to see what it may look like but there's a few takeaways from that titler Vice report that I think are very important here and it goes to this whole notion that number one locks impact is much less than what city staff has projected and number two any impact that they may be contributing towards the need for more infrastructure is more than offset by what's being paid for by OK 577 by existing infrastructure by the roads already being wide enough and there's lack of any evidence from the city thus far that that there will be any definite impact to these roads by by lock but let me go through this uh report by the city's consultants for just a minute and it it on page seven contains a statement a consideration of credits is integral to the development of a legally defensible impact fee there's two types of credits that should be addressed in Impact fee studies and ordinance the first is a revenue credit due to possible double payment situations which could occur when other revenues May contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure covered by the impact fee that's exactly what we're saying here there's a potential serious potential of Lock Supply being charged double because the cost of any Improvement is already being paid for by these other other developers in the roads that they're building and dedicating to the city this type of credit is integrated into the fee calculation thus reducing the fee amount and he goes on to say the second type of a credit is site specific credit or developer reimbursement for dedication of land or construction of system improvements for which an impact fee is intended at the moment the city well as originally drafted the city's ordinance did not have any type of credit to any developer recently it's been amended to say in section subsection M that if there is a lane widening I forget the exact language but I can find it for you um addition of new travel Lanes is the way it's worded that's the only credit that a developer can get the city's consultant has indicated to the city in this report that to be legally defensible they're going to have to do something something about giving credit to developers or Builders like lot supply for these other infrastructure that already exists that alleviate any concern or problem let me go on to another point from that TI advice report I'm reading from last page 23 where they say they've identified a number of opportunities for consideration by the City of Oklahoma City the overwhelming majority of impact fees they're speaking about other cities peer cities are backed by a detailed written technical study that outlines and documents the methodology all assumptions utilized and relevant demand indicators such as vehicle trip generation assumptions we recommend Oklahoma City complete this technical study Oklahoma City does not have a stated methodology for how they got to the point they're charging these impact fees a year ago the the the city's consultant told told them so told the city they need to develop that methodology and get it on paper so at the moment the real impact of that is that companies like loot Supply are being charged for 5,500 and some odd trips when they're actually only creating 750 he goes on to say uh and identifying another opportunity similar to Fort Worth the city may want to consider allowing Street impact fees reduction in projects that demonstrate the development will reduce trip generation below what is normal so a year ago the city's consultant said exactly what I'm standing here saying before you today the city should consider reduction of these fees when it can be demonstrated the actual number of trips is going to be less than what city staff has projected it's it's in the recommendations to the to the planning dep that's what we're asking you to do precisely what the city's consultant has suggested be done it goes on to talk about some other credits and discounts that may uh maybe should be considered by the City of Oklahoma City as well and I'll I'll spare you reading the the lengthy but there's plenty of opportunities for this to have been different this assessment to be different and the development service director Mr Wick Camp didn't do it at the first level appeal and so that's why we're here at the board of asking that it be done on on this appeal let me just say in conclusion um lock is being charged roughly a 720,000 $725,000 traffic impact fee not based on any methodology not based on any evidence but based on some tables that are erroneously applied and adopted here without specific consideration of their actual contribution to any traffic problem if any and let me also say that there is no demonstration anywhere in the in the record of the the the record Below in front of Mr Wick camp that there is actually any impact to the roads caused by Lock Supply it's an assumption based on some tables at this point I think it's worth noting as as a bit him in as side that just about three weeks ago the same issue was argued before the United States Supreme Court it was arguing case called sheets versus County of Eldorado eloro coming out of the Lake Tahoe area of California and in that case the argument was being made that these development fees these traffic impact fees are an impermissible unconstitutional taking of private citizens funds under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution as applied by the 14th Amendment to the states it's going to be a very interesting uh decision when it comes out probably May or June I'm guessing but it's definitely got the uh capacity to say that these types of fees are impermissible if they are they're going to be subjected to additional testing and scrutiny to make certain that they're not unreasonably applied without a methodology or a rational basis or any type of Nexus to the actual impact being caused by any developer or permit or somebody asking to put a building up on their site so in conclusion um I'd like to suggest our request is we reduce this impact fee consistent Mr Johnson wrote in his engineering report to approximately 13.4% of the assessed fee which equates to a monetary value of 97,7 one24 I know I've set a mouthful and I'm happy to entertain any questions that you all may have of me uh certainly allow Mr uh Morgan to answer any engineering questions about any technicalities that you all may have I've got some questions but before we go further I want to I want to try to hone in really quickly and make sure not to get off track uh the basis of this appeal is in how the fee was calculated part of it yes the the fee being calculated is based upon erroneous Institute of Traffic Engineers categories uh that don't properly categorize Lo supplies warehouse and and so that's where that's where I want us to and and may need to get an opinion from legal counsel on this but several of the points you touched on I feel they were great points but I think so many of them were outside of our purview and I'll I'll verify that in a second uh but on the basis of the appeal if you're when you say the category ories if we're talking about the categories that were already established uh basically the city's methodology for how they assess these fees um I think that would be outside of the purview simply because that decision has already made been made some time ago however to appeal the decision on how these fees impact your individual development yes is on the table so are you saying that uh the land use category and or some combination of the rate assess is inaccurate I I believe so okay so what I think the authority of the board is to consider this appeal is outlined in uh 5014 subsection M and I don't want to speak for the city you know councilor's office on that on this but I think you're allowed to review the the rate or the calculation and I think the rate is wrong well that's I tend to agree with you on the fact that that's at the heart of the the question is whether or not that we can incl include that subsection 50- 14 on in our in our consideration I um about to introduce Craig Keith um he is a deputy Municipal counselor in our office and he will answer those question okay Mr chairman members of the board of adjustment my name is Craig Keith I'm with the city attorney's office from Oklahoma City the perview of the um Board of adjustment as written in the ordinance is very limited it goes to whether or not the fees were properly calculated uh does not provide the board of adjustment any authority to wave development fees issue refunds Grant credits or exemptions it is not within the authority of the board of adjustment to rewrite the ordinance create new categories for land use those are within the the authority of the city council that would require a Amendment to the ordinance uh the question is whether or not staff has properly calculated the numbers per the existing ordinance uh not to customize a new ordinance or a new land use category for a particular uh applicant questions Mr P in reading the case that's that's how I read it and and so back to you I mean the argument against that I'm sorry I didn't hear you sir I said when I read the case that's exactly the conclusion that I had but now back to you what what's the argument against what he just said we I mean our purview is been documented what we can and cannot look at well the the argument I would have as I read um and I improperly cited as subsection M earlier I think it's actually um K two of the ordinance uh you're here to review the Building Services directors um decision and if you go back to what the uh or the development services director's decision uh could have reviewed him and based upon um and I'm I'm looking for in the ordinance so I can read it to you all right subsection K1 should the building permanent applicant dispute the determination of City staff on calculation of square feet of the development or the number of square feet of the development designated in land use category and or the assessment area or service benefit area in which the development is situated and here's the important part or any other basis for the city's calculation of the fee than the building permit applicant must take the appeal to this board so it is any other basis for the city's calculation of the fee which isn't clearly defined in the ordinance pretty broad pretty discretionary but as I read that that gives you the authority to review any other basis for the city's calculation and everything I laid out in my lengthy argument are all the other bases by the city staff determination is incorrect there is further in that same code provision um and I'm sure Mr Keith May reference this as he continues to present to you um it's in that same section that Mr Woods read from the board of adjustment may not wave development fees issue refunds or Grant credits or exemptions in addition if I may add the sence before that makes it very clear and very limited what the board of adjustment has Authority for to determine the number of square feet of development which is not been challenged the designation of the land use category which has not been challenged they applied the correct land use category to apply those funds to the appropriate area or benefit area which has not been been challenged or correction that is based on calculations herein herein being within the ordinance not in authority to amend the ordinance or create new rates or new classifications that's calculated here in if I may just respond to that point alone we do believe it's an inappropriate land use category uh Mr Johnson's report does lay out category 152 would be more appropriate uh which goes to a high Cube type Warehouse it estimates 2,600 trips per day which is roughly 50% of what city staff anticipated and of course then there's our evidence we think it's significantly below that is any portion of the fee calculated based on on a caseby Case basis of a particular development or is it all predetermined uh by the tables and the land uses that are already established the the rates are established by the tables under the law were only required to create reasonable classifications not customized classifications for each use and so in order to make the the uh ordinance applicable to classification reliably we utilize the classifications from the it and that classification is set as such so there are only the classifications that are in the ordinance so in theory two identical buildings built anywhere well built in the same benefit area would equate to the exact same fee that's correct anything else from the nobody signed up to speak on this one except you guys I'm I'm sorry I can't hear you sir uh nobody signed up to speak on this one except you guys CL is here he might have something yeah um is there anybody else who wants to address this Mr wood you got anything else anybody else you want to I I think you've given me more than enough latitude to say my piece and I I'm thankful to you for that Gregor Jeff any anything else to add no I think that the the concerns that Mr Woods has and Mr Woods CLE has would be more appropriately addressed to the council uh as part of a request for a the ordinance to be uh amended but that's a different body with a different Authority okay anything else okay I think we're ready for a motion then uh given that information that's presented I don't think that we have uh the jurisdictional authority to uh to Grant an appeal uh based on these grounds uh I completely understand the case as it's presented U uh for what it's worth which is obviously nothing uh the statute I think clearly talks to what is reasonable particularly as a as the proportional impact that that development would cause to additional traffic however uh it appears there's no basis for this body to uh to appeal that decision so I'm going to make a motion that we deny the appeal of case number 15541 second okay we have a motion in a second to deny the appeal cast your votes when the voting panel comes up thank you I appreciate it brother thank you all for your time today thank you anything else citizens to be heard nope no committees anybody want to say anything read no councelor no I think we're ready to adjourn we're adjourned