well good afternoon good afternoon and welcome to the Oklahoma City Planning Commission before we begin our meeting I just want to go over just a few housekeeping items first um if you are interested in speaking to the commission about one of the items on the agenda please fill out one of these forms that's located on the desk just outside of the chambers um if you are not an applicant if you're an applicant we're going to call on you to speak anyway um please remember that to uh give us your name and address for the record whenever you come up to the microphone uh limit your comments to five minutes and please avoid any repetitious comments if your neighbors bringing up the your concern about drainage there's no need for you to also bring up the concern about drainage because we've heard that concern um I would encourage you if you have a a large group of neighbors who are here to to speak about the same issue that you get one person to tell us all of the issues that the neighbors share so that we can and I promise I'll give them a little bit extra time to make sure that we've we've covered all those issues but it makes it easier for us to all process those uh those concerns um we follow the golden rule of uh treating each other as you'd like to be treated and respecting the process that we have and so just ask the ask for your patience as we as we move forward um so with that being said we're ready to begin our agenda and we'll start with receipt of the uh minutes from the January 25th meeting Mr chairman I'll move to receive the January 25th meeting minutes commissioner CLA moves to receive the minutes of the January 25th meeting that motion's been seged by commissioner privet please cast your votes can I just v i I think so bear with us on the technology let's see if we there we go okay now we can vote all right and the motion pass passes we're now in line for continuance requests and we'll begin with uncontested requests item 15 case PC 10898 defer to February 22nd item 16 case PC 10914 defer to February 22nd item 17 uh Spud 1598 toer of February 22nd item 18 case PC 10904 toer of March 28 item 19 Spud 1597 deferred to March 28th item 20 KPC 108 91 has been withdrawn and item 21 case PC 10909 has also been withdrawn thank you is there anyone here who wanted to be heard on any of those items all right then we're just looking for a motion I'll move to approve the uh uncontested continuance requests as read commissioner CLA moves to approve the uncontested continuance requests as read that motion is seconded by commissioner Meek please cast your votes I did yes there we go and the motion passes um are there any new requests I have a coule let's get we I think I've got them all so I'll read through them and then we'll see if they additions so I have number nine Spud 1590 a requested defer to February 22nd item 10 s Spud 1593 requested defer to February 22nd item 12 case Bey 1588 deferred to February 22nd and item 13 Spud 1596 also to February 22nd is there anything else commissioner Powers that's it all right is there anyone here wishing to be heard on any of those items items 9 10 12 or 13 on your agenda then we're just looking for a motion uh I'll move to approve the new continuance request is read commissioner CLA moves to approve the new continuance request as read that motion has been seconded by commissioner Meek please cast your votes and the motion passes we're in line for the consent doet um item one is case c769 final plat of winds Gate 3 located north of Southwest 44th Street and East of South County Line Road um just looking for is there anyone here wishing to be heard on on that item item number one right then we just need a motion Mr chairman I'll move to approve the consent docket commissioner CLA moves to approve the consent docket the motion's been seconded by commissioner powers please cast your votes need to update that oh it's all good just need the the moved by should be commissioner Claire if it's possible to switch it say it again oh it's it saying oh I voted I need to vote see y but are we are we able to change it oh okay yeah yeah we were trying to correct the moved by that's sorry just for the record okay did we get it right got to love it it's like we we used to think it was easier with just the you know the manual voting I'm sure it was way harder for you all to keep track though and bet it was way more difficult okay is it I think it's I think if it can be corrected administratively then it's good yeah then I think we're good okay well then we'll move on to items requiring a separate vote and we'll begin with item two item two is PUD 1382 sp02 application for a specific plan pursuant to the approval of P 1382 located at 301 Ironstone Place good afternoon David box 522 call Cord drive this is a specific plan application uh for a Buffalo Wild Wings it is consistent with the Pud happy to answer any questions um this is inward 8 commissioner Noble um looking at the specific plan and it met all the everything for p the Pud and it looks like just the normal Buffalo Wild Wing So I know no problems with it if no other Commissioners have a problem any comments questions from Commissioners I think we're ready for a motion uh like to recommend approval of PUD 1382 sp02 uh is we approving that outright or does it go to city council um commissioner Noble moves to approve of the special special permit number two to PUD 1382 that motion's been seconded by commissioner Meek please cast your votes thank you the motion pass we're in line for item three this is PUD 1885-1886 located at 12024 Northwest Expressway good afternoon kall Dyan craft and toll represent the applicant um specific plan for PUD 1885 um sides there gener at Northwest Expressway in Pont Road it conforms to the Pud and be happy to answer any questions um this is in W one commissioner CLA yeah I don't I don't have anything any other questions concerns think we're just looking for a motion okay uh just for the record I'd like to Note staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with the Pud 1885 master design statement Master development plan and I will make a motion to recommend or to approve uh item PUD 1885 spo1 commission CLA commissioner CLA moves to approve of the special permit number one to PUD 1885 that motion has been seconded by commissioner Meek please cast your votes and the motion passes thank you thank you we're in line for item four item number four is K C 7624 preliminary plat of Lincoln Meadows um this is located south of Northwest 122nd Street and East of North Council Road and variances to sections 5.3.1 Point v.5 5.2 pointa and table 5.1 in section 5.3.2 pointa of the subdivision regulations excellent thank you Kim Cunningham with NAFA engineering we're looking for two variances on this the proposed preliminary plan is 42 houses to be built on this property we're looking for extending the length of the drive in culdesac to 1200 feet versus 800 feet and we're looking for uh a variance for to add 42 houses on this site with the addition that each house be sprinkled to accompany this request and then we've also added a 50ft RightWay easement at the front uh directed by Nate Nate CLA and that's been Incorporated in these drawings okay uh commissioner CLA any comments and we do have one person signed up to speak we can go ahead and and hear from them okay um first we have uh well we only have one person signed up it's Kyle Goodwin thank you all for hearing me today basically we uh I represent the adjacent land land owner 7732 Northwest 122nd uh we we are going to object at the city council level based on the the amount of deviation from the normal regulation we've got 44 Lots including the two common areas that's 140 cents uh 146% of the regulated density you've got a 1250t length requested with a 700 permitted which is 178% of the regulated length you have lack of stub outs in this particular plat which would prevent adjacent property from being developed if you look at the develop just further east on the right side here that one has stub outs and so that the middle lot there is going to end up being landlocked and my client is on the adjacent property on the west which has been a horse farm for over 50 years the the the the natural slope of the land is going to be to drain towards our clients and we believe the lack of a sidewalk plan lack of a landcap plan which should prevent this from being passed in essence the objection is based on the number of variances the Devi amount from the normal regulated variants and the impact that it's going to have on my client's property and the de the impact on the development of the two adjacent properties due to a lack of Stouts several questions for you one well just one for your information this is not going to city council I'm sorry just just a couple of things one um this item is not going to city council we are the we are the last stop um but there will be a final plat so are there are some opportunities for us to make some adjustments so um as far as I know this level of density is consistent with the zoning that this property already is under so as far as the concern of this being too many homes uh this is consistent with the zoning that's already been allowed low Lev density I think and it's this would be a high density plat okay but this is consistent with the zoning correct because the platting stage is now where we determine what the appropriate level of density is that would have been done when it was zoned yeah Jared Martin planning department um yeah it's zoned R1 so the the lot Siz that are shown and the density that's shown is is something within the tolerances of an R1 zoning um I think he is correct there there are more Lots on the culde saac than what we normally allow okay but as far as the overall density it's within the the tolerance gotcha yeah so one of the other concerns that you addressed and I don't know if you and your client have had an opportunity to visit about visit about this is you're saying you do want them to have access they should provide the access to both the west side and the east side should which I I completely agree with you but I guess we'll we'll settle that um question what what did I miss any other concern L the length of you got one Straight Street through here uh the part the regulation is uh 700 feet this is 1,50 Ft again 170 so the street if they provide Street stubs it makes that a nonissue it would yeah cool anything else for us uh no that would be all all right thank you thank you and you remember you're going to get another shot at this too if we're going to see where where we end up after we discuss a little bit further appreciate thank okay um you want to come back up for questions from us go ahead Nate so well I'm just gonna I'm gonna say you're you're how in my opinion you're halfway there you've got the street stub coming from the East you need one going west we need two Street stubs I agree I didn't hear the question youve you've provided a street stub to the neighborhood or potential future neighborhood to the east we want to see a street stub to the West okay and then and then that takes care of your the variance that you're looking for for the 1200t Colt sack okay so those should be provided those Street STS should be provided basically so that they don't create uh cold stack longer than 800 feet so they should be probably far enough South to so so am I understanding two two Street stubs east and west side yeah okay that will allow for those properties on either side if and when they should develop as neighborhoods residential then they then there's the ability to connect to them okay I'm sorry on the other uh picture on the other plat map which one was the stub on the East it's not shown here they've provided uh I think that common area they're providing that as an easement so so the East stub would be there yes okay I think that' probably be too far north and it wouldn't allow yeah that doesn't meet the 800 foot uh the thought was that that would that if you go back to the other map that's approximately where it aligns with Northwest 121st Street right okay but the question is could you provide a stub to the West further south they wouldn't align which is okay but if you provided a stub to the West further south if that satisfies the 800 feet so then I guess the question is what what level of specificity like what language needs to be in the preliminary plat to ensure that that variance is not necessary Nate what if the one on the west matched up with with 120th Street so that they're matching the two over there then it be very specific yeah that that would make sense so long as whatever remaining road to the South is less than 800 feet it would be Jared I I guess I would have a question are you are you trying to avoid the culde-sac length variance yes I mean I think the variance is still needed for now because even if with the stub until it connects to something else you're still going to have a a long C AAC until the next development develops so is kind of a temporary Val Vari is isn't the intent of the the culac in order to provide room an area for an apparatus to turn around right or or not have to back up uh an excessive link it has to beet that requirement doesn't it yeah I mean turn yeah the the the radius of the culdesac has has to meet the standard to allow that to happen but we also have the standard for the length of the cack right so um so in my opinion it it still requires the variance you know on the off you know if it doesn't ever develop then you're stuck with a just a really long CLD sack that has Street stubs but if it does then eventually that need for that variance would go away okay right well I mean I I don't have a problem with the with the variant just just trying to there be as efficient as possible yeah yeah I don't know if that yeah well we'd have another opportunity to look at I guess in the final plat seeing exactly where the stub is going to be and consider it from there okay um so we don't need a very we don't need we don't need number two because we're going to go we're going to require it or I guess we don't need to take action they'd be required to take Street steps are required okay or a variance so it's it's fine as is okay and so then we just need to consider variances to the variance to number we need to consider four and five as far as the tees okay all right then I think we're just looking for a motion and then we're going to add a te that street sub or just te2 cover it but we want to we want to that Street St to the West okay I think as long as we if we do oh East and W it says east and west here number two says east and west so as long as we take no action we eliminate te2 they're already required to stub to the east excuse me to the West and East yep okay okay so uh move to approve the variance to section 5.2.8 8.
A of the subdivision regulations relating to the maximum number of lots allowed on a single entrance commissioner Claire moves to uh approve of a variance to section 5.2.8 pointa of the subdivision regulations relating to the maximum number of lots allowed on a single entrance that motion has been sated by commissioner Newman please cast your votes and that motion passes okay then I will move to approve the variance to table 5.1 section 5.3.2 point a is subdivision regulations commissioner CLA moves to approve of the variance to uh to table 5.1 and section 5.3.2 pointa of the subdivision regulation not okay related to the length of the the maximum length of a culde saac looking for a second commissioner po seconds the motion please please cash vot yeah and the motion passes now we're just looking for a vote overall on the item move to approve item C 7624 commissioner CLA moves to approve of c764 and we're good with all the other tees I guess subject yeah subject to the tech to thech technical evaluations that motion has been seconded by commissioner powers please cast your votes the motion passes for Mr Goodwin's benefit I'm not sure we are not sending notice right for the final plat correct where they do send notice so you're G to so your client should be getting notice when the final plat comes so okay and it's it also speaks to the Landscaping plan and everything else and all of that so we'll see more details of that at the final plat stage but thank you thank you to the applicant appreciate it thank you we're in line for item five item five is uh case number SP 585 application um for a special permit to operate use unit 3.68 spectator sports and entertainment high impact in the AA agricultural District located at 4905 North Morgan Road good afternoon Caitlyn Turner 522 call Core drive here on behalf of the applicant the application before you is to allow for a rodeo event to occur on site staff does recommend approval with the te that the rodeo operation shall conform to the hours of operation and conditions of the program description so by conditioning the program description the property owners will only be able to act and operate the site in the confines of the program description so there's limiting language in there maximum of 15 events per year we have the Saturday and Sunday hours of operation from 10: a.m.
to 10 p.m. um I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all have you want to respond to the protest letter the protest letter I did reach out to the protester um I think the main concern was uh the status of Morgan Road of course their site is of course to the South where they are expecting to develop more uh intense commercial uses there uh so spoke to them I have reached out since then with no response um but again based on our conversation the main concern was really just with their potential future access off of Morgan Road if they were to expand that commercial to the east so no no further conversation was had and they didn't have any concern with the actual use there cool commissioner Claire um I have no questions or concerns so I'm ready to make a motion if there's no further discussion there's no one signed up appreciate the effort um from attorney the attorney that did outstanding work on this um because we were concerned about um this getting out of hand um but I it's already been in existing use which is comforting and I think we put a lot of good limiting language in it so I'm good unless there's other questions I'll move to approve item SP 585 uh commissioner CLA moves to approve of SP 585 excuse me recommend approval of special permit 585 that motion has been seged by commissioner Meek please cast your votes and the motion passes thank you we're in line for item six item six is case PC 10916 application reone 4228 Northeast 20th Street from R1 to R2 good afternoon I'm Chris harand representing nmo Investments uh we are looking to reone uh two lots in the Garden Oaks District um to from R1 to R2 to build duplexes on a duplex on each lot but I'll be happy to answer any questions th excellent and thank you for taking some time and visiting with the neighbors you want to tell us about how that went uh so yes I uh reached out to Joyce Willis and she set up a meeting with the neighborhood association and a few key players uh mainly they just had questions on what was going to be done we I was able to pull up the plans they were a to look the plans uh questions about tree removal sidewalks uh things of that that nature uh I was I felt I was able to answer those uh how much is going to be for and things of that that nature obviously that's still kind of to be settled uh later as far as Bill calls but I believe I answered all of their concerns um that they had I felt they went well um it's a good sign that they're not here because if they were not happy trust me they would they would be here so because they're a very active neighborhood association but I appreciate you taking the time and visiting with them because I know you wanted us to vote on this last U meeting so appreciate that and I'm in I'm in support I wanted to make sure that the neighbors were in support before I before we voted and so I'm glad that Community conversation happened and I'm satisfied if the neighbors are satisfied so any questions from you all and I think we just need a motion to approve uh Mr chairman I'll move to approve PC 10916 commissioner CLA moves to recommend to city council approval of PC 10916 the motion has been seconded by commissioner privet please cast your votes the motion passes good luck we're in line for item seven this is case number PC 10918 application to reone 8000 South Shields Boulevard from i1 to I2 hi everyone my name is Dakota Desai with SRB I'm here on behalf of the applicant um this is a application to reone from i1 to I2 we did have a protest letter sent in and the applicant did go and discuss with the residents or the affected resident and other residents in the area to discuss the application um from my understanding they were under the um understanding that this was going to be some kind of heavier industrial use in terms of like an oil Derek or other existing uses that are over there however this is just for a used auto sales lot yeah and and my concern on that is what it could be not what you want to put on there right um my understanding is that it does fall within the comprehensive plan um the land use area but also some of those heavier industrial uses would require a special permit or another form of permit or application that would require a future owner to come back here one thing that might might help us in this and Sarah if you don't mind letting us know the limitations um of I2 located directly next to R1 uh Sarah Welch planning department um I2 next to a residential district requires a step down and height Landscaping screening um and the buffer is 25 ft right the buffer in I2 would be 25 ft with and a landscape buffer I'm sorry a 25 foot set back with a landscape buffer so so right off the bat you look like it's a much narrower portion of the site and it would require the sight proof screening right correct or do we require Spud on this one commissioner PO is shaking her head thoughts on this commiss Noble I it's already i1 so the outdoor storage does that change I I too would allow outdoor storage yes outdoor storage in work whereas an i1 it's conditional um in this case they were request in it for auto Sal correct um so they are unable to meet the conditions of Auto Sales in i1 not because of the residential to their South but because of the residential across Shields to the West interesting but again we be if it's straight zoning we're not limiting them to having an auto park it can be whatever is allowed in I2 it it could and um and then the other factor that we looked at in our review is it's in an area that the comprehensive plan designates as heavy Industrial and it front shields for like 100 feet other thoughts the use I don't have a problem with shields is pretty much a car lot in itself anyway I don't have an an issue with their use I just am concerned about what's going to be there potentially in the future some of the other uses that are allowed I think wouldn't be appropriate so it sounds like so at least there's some of us sounds like some of us are with Spud on this would you consider that I'm curious as to how this would change anything regarding the use that we're proposing because essentially we're still going to meet all the base zoning requirements we've spoken with the neighbors they understand that we're doing a used car lot if there are is a heavier industrial use in the future then that applicant would have to come back here before the commission that's the issue the the only difference that I mean I'm not I don't work for OKC planning the only difference that I noticed between i1 and I2 is some of the construction services in terms of storage not necessarily like actual construction going on on the site or manufacturing um I know there is like a Custom Manufacturing in there but that's not the intent with this application we're going to meet all the screening requirements so I mean I'm not really sure what an Spud would change in this case the only things that I can think of right off the bat is our ability to limit your uses to just the car lot correct and then any additional buffers that we want to put to protect the neighbors to your North and to your South that are currently in use as residential so those are the things that just right off the bat stick out to me but I don't know where what else are we thinking yeah that's pretty much it you got it I mean I will note that um originally these neighbors that were affected were planning to come to this meeting after Mr fiser went and spoke with them they decided not to come because they're comfortable with his operation that currently exists and they've known him for decades and so my understanding is that they were comfortable with him coming before the commission and getting this approved um so I'll just add that in there as well well then another choice of yours if you feel confident that the neighbors are in support would be to take a recommendation of denial from us and then and and then just let the city council see if you can convince the council to go ahead and approve it despite us recommending denial I think is that where we are without Spud yeah probably so I might be the only one in favor of it with just straight I2 if I'm understanding being adjacent to R1 already limits some of the I2 uses and other things in this spot facing Shields I'm okay with the I2 I mean I can just be a vote against if you want to deny it I think we're just ready to I think we've talked about it so why don't we just get a motion um on this okay um yeah if you don't want to switch to Spud that's or take the continuance you could either it sounds like we're either going to be for Spud so you prefer anpd yes for sure just if anything to protect that uh one person that's living there okay just so we could do the continuance deny but still get the vote by city council yeah true okay so we'll go ahead and um I guess the move would be to withdraw this application and resubmit with the Spud or continuance um or take the continuance maybe if the neighbors want to come in and say they're they understand all these implications or you know or you can consider that would still give you time to consider an Spud so you want to just say take two weeks and think about it if you need more time you can ask for more time okay that sounds good okay commissioner privet I'll make a motion to continue to February 22nd commissioner privet moves to continue this item to the next meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission thank you thank you the motion is seconded by commissioner powers please cast your V the motion passes we're in line for item 8 item 8 is Spud 1577 application to reone 2141 Southwest 21st Street from Spud 110 is there an applicant presid I I'm representing the araas properties and uh we want to develop this in accordance to our for and we want to spot for this because we want to put 16 units instead of four and this is going to be a small apartments one bedroom apartment so we're going to improve the area immensely uh we're going to follow the IBC on every sector that we're going to be building we're going to have a um landscaping for barriers on on the on the east side and also we have plenty of room for the damster because we have Alle with 20 ft so we going to have more than 35 ft those are the varas that we want to get approved okay thank you um any questions comments from Commissioners we have no one signed up to speak here we'll end up with 16 units on three lots is that right I think it's yeah I think it's four five lot five Lots so 16 units on five Lots yep I think the cons consensus is four and a half I guess five I'm okay you're okay with it commissioner Powers any other thoughts on this just curious I think we're just ready for a motion if no one has any objections I think we or um I know staff did some great work on this to get it um a little bit more organized I know it's a little it's a different kind of site so appreciate you taking the time to do the Spud because I think this is a better outcome than than it just being straight R3 zoning um my my quick question was anything we approve on this Bud doesn't alleviate them from having to meet uh code requirements like for uh they're 5 foot away from an existing twostory building and you know fire rating Etc no they'll have to meet Building Code Council is telling me we have to meet building code right so and we don't need to require it any further they'll be sprinkled okay then I think we just need a motion Commissioners Mr chairman I'll move to recommend approval City Council of Spud 1577 Comm subject to technical evaluations excellent commission there aren't any oh there aren't any okay commissioner Claire moves to uh recommend to city council approval of spud1 1577 that motion has been seconded by commissioner privet please cast your votes thank you the motion passes thank you we're in line for item 11 item 11 is Spud 1595 application to rezone 1107 North Purdue Avenue from R1 is there an applicant present is there an applicant present for item 11 this one is to reone uh existing R1 to an I2 that's it um okay well based on when I initially looked at this I was I panicked because of how many houses are here but maybe commissioner me you might explain the current uses around this property I went and visited the site and uh visited with the uh support letter uh business which is the next Lumber who owns the majority of all the property that surrounds this uh resoning application um the only concern I had was the residents to the north when I when you see it it's really a tree trimming company so um at first I didn't understand the zero lot line on the South but now I understand it would be because it's it would be I to ey which is a zero so I'm fine with the application unless any other Commissioners have any comments this whole yes all the way back um again context is everything so based on the current uses I'm I'm okay with it because the other the property adjacent is not being used residentially whether it's zon residential it's non-conforming but they're not there no protest either any other questions Commissioners if not think we're ready I'd like to recommend approval to Spud 1595 uh commissioner Meek moves to recommend city council approval of Spud 1595 that motion has been seged by commissioner CLA please cast your votes and the motion passes we're in line for item 14 item 14 is Spud 1581 application to rezone 408 Northwest 30th Street from R2 and HL and also UC oh just one look at that crowd the last one crazy good afternoon David box 522 call Core drive here on behalf of the applicant who's also here with us uh you will recall this application from the meeting last time we deferred it to have additional discussions with the neighbors we were able to have that meeting and as well we were able to revise the design of the project so what is being handed out to you I also have on on large exhibit boards uh and the neighbors have also been provided a copy of this so if you'll recall uh we first started this application at the stort preservation commission they provided a unanimous recommendation of approval at the time we were at 40 feet uh 5ft setback on the North and 40 ft in height fast forward to today we are now at 30 feet in total height um 30 feet is 5 feet less than what traditional R1 or R2 would allow so we're below even what HP would allow in a in an R1 um type of development additionally we're now at 15 ft for a setback on the North and why that's important is there was a lot of discussion about where we were in terms of the line alignment with the structure to the west and although when we were at 10 previously we were in line with many of the porches that exist we w weren't in line with the buildings that also Orient towards the north so at 15 ft we are now in line with almost everything on um the 30th Street except two buildings exceed the setback that we have and importantly we are actually setback more than historically the church experienced on 30th so we now have a greater setback than the historic structure on that site had as it relates to the Hudson setback we are now at 10 feet it is worth noting that the Hudson um Hudson has a extraordinary large rideway so we're 35 fet from curb and you'll see that in an image later but we're 10 feet which is greater setb back than what historically the site experience when it was the church so now we have a greater setback on both the North and the East our building is oriented to the north I think that's an important piece of this so yes we are slightly in front of the structures that exist to our South but of course those structures Orient to the east we Orient to the north um and again there'll be a pretty good amount of Green Space the perhaps the most important change is the way that you see it now it's designed to appear to be three separate buildings um there is 15 ft between these two buildings and although this is one building there is a separation on the Frontage of 10 ft so from a design standpoint it will have the appearance of three separate structures which we believe is important we believe that is more Bungalow style development which is consistent with what you see in the area at 30 feet in height notably we are now shorter than the multif family building that exist immediately east of Hudson our top is 30 the building to the east of Hudson which is an existing multif family is taller than 30 so we're now shorter than that uh we did make a few other changes um a lot of what we talked about was um density and open space you may recall that conversation at the last Planning Commission meeting so the zoning code defines open space so what our architect has done and you can see it on here it's the first page of the packet I handed out using the way that the code defines open space R4 requires a minimum of 40% we are at 63% using how the code defines it it's important to look one of the problems you have with the calculation of Open Spaces of course you don't get to use the uh rideway and as I mentioned along Hudson there is a massive amount of rideway so although it's not ours to count as open space it will be planted with trees and grass and sidewalk that is what I think Open Space is really intended to do so I think we check that box when you look at your staff report they detail beginning on page 11 all of the various changes that we have made to this application since the start you will also note that there's not a single technical evaluation we have made some 15 or 16 changes I have no doubt you're going to hear a lot about density when the neighbors get up so I think it's important we look to what staff said about density on page 12 or excuse me page 10 the proposal to increase density in the urban medium Luda is in conformance with the comprensive plans goals to provide a mixture of residental housing types in the urban medium Luda areas this is exactly what the conference of plan is encouraging us to do with infill sites like this great effort has been made by my client and his team to ensure that this development is compatible um I of the belief that the Neighbors at least are more accepting of these designs as you flip through the packet I've handed out what you'll see is a development that frankly looks like it fits into either edmir or Jefferson Park they look to be more Bungalow so 30 feet two and a half stories um the the the half story you may hear about almost all residential development allows two and a half story that half story is important for functionality my house is two and half story we have a playroom where my kids get to enjoy it's also important because of architecturally you can add Dormers and add interesting features that almost all historic preservation neighborhoods have so that half story is important but again we're lower than the height that you would expect to see in a normal single family neighborhood that would have a two-story house and again we're less in height than what exists immediately to our East um in terms of open space and setbacks the other thing I would add the staff report takes a look at the analysis of of the historic church that was on site and what they say on page nine is the church which existed on the lot since around 1960s appears to have covered 75% of the parcel so we're setb more than the church on both the North and the East and we cover less space than the church did so all of that I think is important as to why this is a compatible development so I don't want to rehash the lengthy discussion we had I wanted to give you those those changes show you these new images and give you the numbers that we have and we're happy to answer any questions but we would urge you to support this application as we think it represents a great compromise between my client and the neighbors all those commitments we made last time are still applicable including the limitation of the 16 one-bedroom units I have no doubt that commissioner powers in a not so subtle way on the last application was intending to highlight 16 units on four Lots notably there was no discussion whatsoever on what those 16 unit units would uh would be here we have 20 units 16 of which are single bedroom units you're also going to see uh a plan that was drawn U from an architect that is a neighbor actually she's not a neighbor she doesn't live in either of these neighborhoods uh it's important to note that the square footage that she has is actually greater than what the square footage is that we have drawn um that with the limitation that we have on the single bedroom units we think what we have here is less impactful than what we could build today under the R2 zoning the last thing I'll say is you're going to hear a lot of discussion about parking there's a lot of discussion last time about meeting code and what that really means the zoning code allows you to reduce your parking count by adding landcaping adding by cracks and doing those things our architect calculates that if we were to use the reductions that are available in the code 24 parking spaces is what would be required we have revised our document to not allow us any reductions 30 parking spaces are what will be required with no reductions we'll still have bike racks but the P excuse me the Spud as written would require a minimum of 30 no reductions possible the 30 also has to be counted on site we don't get to use on street parking to count our 30 so 30 means 30 period with that I'm happy to answer any questions you might have and we'd ask for your approval before we get to questions and thank you um first thing and I know I'm going to call on staff I know Katie friddle's here with historic preservation um can you address because I'd love for the neighbors to be able to respond and they are going to get a chance to speak I'd love for them to respond from where we are so can you address um the authority of the uh HP commission with regard to the final design yeah the specific items that will be left to their Authority as written versus you know what our Authority is right now in this s we do not seek to take any Authority from the HP commission right now the site is zoned with an HL overlay we retain the HL overlay in this PUD they have full authority to hear our case and issue a CA consistent with the guidelines that exist for historic preservation we can't turn a shovel of dirt until we have a CA from the HP commission we don't seek to take any Authority whatsoever from the HP Commission so outside of the height and the setback and I hope that Katie Sarah between the two of you somebody can come and give us this verification so that our neighbors will he hear what the City of Oklahoma City says about where we are on this and I will call on commissioner power so I apologize yeah I I just want to be clear so besides the height which would be put in the Spud the facade materials which I don't even know how we're addressing that in the Spud the setbacks we would determine right now outside of that and I guess we we would enter this exhibit as we want as um with a with the goal of it meeting um this exhibit as it's as laid out correct um besides that this design would go all of those would be the only thing that we could mandate in um this Spud and everything else design wise would go to the HP commission correct correct in fact it's even more stringent than that um in the architecture section of the Spud instead of just saying it'll be x% this x% that we say that the architectural design will be based on and conform with Styles found in Jefferson Park and edmir park and will not cause harm to the general features that Define this historic district further we say any new building or exterior Renovations Beyond ordinary maintenance and repair as defined in Oklahoma City Municipal Code 2020 if installed shall meet the regulations outlined within the municipal code in reference to the Historic Landmark overlay and shall be subject to review and approval of a certificate of appropriateness by the historic preservation Commission in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations okay now perhaps M frle will disagree with something I said but commissioner Powers I'm I'm sorry I I just started on questions do you want mind if we hear from them first you want to make a comment okay um could we talk about the HP commission's Authority because in my conversations with the neighbors and I am not pretending to speak for you you have great representation who I know will be given plenty of an opportunity to speak but character is the number one is not the number one is a major concern we would like for the design of this to be consistent with edmir with Jefferson Park with HP and so my concern and question is is the language that's in this Spud sufficient to give the HP commission authority to be able to act in a way that gives them the the ability to make sure that this design the final look of this design outside of the height the setbacks Etc Etc um meets the character concerns of the neighborhood um yeah I think it certainly does I I would say that the guidelines that already exist um already get us there this gets more specific to the particular neighborhoods that the property is located within but yes I think the combination of this language and the existing guidelines that the HP commission would already use to review the design of a new building um give them everything that the commission would need to make sure the design is compatible okay any questions from Commissioners for for uh Miss riddle commissioner Powers sorry I I stole the stole the mic neighbors okay I get there there's one one point when we're talking about about design there was there was a commitment made that Dormers would be limited to the Hudson Frontage East and West that's right so I mean other than that uh there wasn't too much discussion about design other than the um I kind of like Bungalow style development I like that um label but um that that they would be that really is the purview of the HP commission I think our concern is not so much to empower them they're already as empowered as they need to be but simply to prevent any any inference that we've decided something that we think they need to follow our our lead on this so um I but I'd like to hear from the neighbors okay all right first we have uh Ken Chancellor do you want to address the commission or we going to give okay please your name and address for the record and you have 5 minutes to address the commission Ken Chancellor 3703 North McKinley Avenue and uh I'm in putam Heights historic district and wanted to go on record as we are took a vote and are against this proposal okay because if you grant this one you guarantee you'll get another one okay thank you thank you um next next we have Eric grov morning Mr chairman members of the commission I represent uh the white family who resides on North Harvey Parkway William Mr Mrs William white who are opposed to this application any application like this has to be subjected to a series of governing rules and those include the following the Pud statute which allows zoning by puds and spuds in the first place the Pud and split ordinance of the city the comprehensive plan the HP ordinance and then the HP standards and guidelines with particular reference to section four of those guidelines which covers new construction this proposal does not comply with any of those rules in one respect or another there is a lack of compatibility and spuds are required to provide for compatibility with a new project and its surroundings it doesn't exist here that's not to say that there are not apartments in Jefferson Park there are but not like this it does not minimize adverse effects on Jefferson Park or edmir although Spud Law requires it to uh in the comprehensive plan there's a lack of compliance because this differs in material respects from adjacent properties in terms of height and lot coverage and the HP ordinance requires Harmony between a new project and the existing uh neighborhood that's not not here HP guidelines on their new construction section 4 4.2.5 requires a match with existing architecture we don't see that uh I didn't see the sketches that Mr Box provided until this morning but even at a glance uh they bear no aesthetic relationship to what's already there in Jefferson Park much less edgmere at 4.2.6 there must be a relation ship between the new project and the height of the buildings next door or close by it's not there they're little Bungalows and U this is a twostory building or two and a half story building as they've proposed it the Spud law in our city says that it may not be used to circumvent other policies of the city well our HP ordinance and our HP guidelines are policies and what we asking the commission to do simply is enforce them not allow a spud to come in and circumvent those policies but that's what will happen here if this is approved the bottom line is that my clients and uh whose position is congruent with the neighborhood we're not opposed to infill development we're not opposed to multi family uh we welcome new people to our neighborhoods but we are opposed to projects that do not comply with existing law the city has established a public policy of preservation of historic preservation and all we insist on is that this project uh comply with that policy which it does not as presently designed unfortunately that's not to say that it can't be redesigned uh but I don't regard the concessions made by the developer is sufficient to meet the standards set by the city so we have to ask that you deny it uh and uh and hope that you will thanks so much for your attention Eric I've got to ask you a few questions because I know you know this the code and all of these issues have dealt with them more than me certainly I hope that you have heard our best effort to try as far as your concern about the architectural elements I hope you've heard our best effort to ensure that the HP commission has the authority to make those ultimate design concerns outside of the very specific items such as height setback parking requirements Etc the way what are your thoughts on that language and and if it's not sufficient to you why the way the way I regard it is that this commission has the duty to see that the architectural Architects architecture is compatible with the existing area and what's been submitted to you uh obviously is not I think the HP commission's duty is to apply the guidelines and greater detail they're going to have to go back to the HP Commission of course and we'll see them there and and that is where I think that is the form to hammer out the details in terms of the facade and other architectural touches that uh that render the project more compatible with the Jefferson Park but uh in a spud or a PUD everything's on the table everything's negotiable I think this commission has the power to review everything associated with this project project but this project is distinct you see because there's overlay or infield development all over town and it's a good thing uh and this applicant is doing some of it but this case is distinct because in neighborhoods such as north of Crown Heights where a lot of it's going on all you need is a building permit and if you have R1 zoning get R2 zoning go ahead but this overlay District makes this distinctive and it add a another layer of Regulation and they just are not there yet not to say they can't get there but they're not there yet and because they're not there we have to ask you to deny it okay so I guess I'm wanting to make sure that I've heard you completely and I don't know that I'm I'm completely following at this point um I'm wanting to understand what because you're saying you'd like the the commission to make this commit mission to make the final decision on architectural elements and I'm not sure I'm not sure that I agree on that we you and I agree on where the line is of where the planning commission's Authority should end as far as those designed decisions and where the HP commission's um Authority should begin and so so my goal in all of this questioning is to make sure I I think we lack the uh knowledge and skill frankly to be the ones who make this real decision and I serve on HP commission for the Capital Medical zoning commission and I can tell you that the way that we analyze those things is much more specific and much more closely aligned and so our goal is to give the HP commission ensure that they have the right authority to make these more detailed decisions that will align this final design with the with the neighborhood and so I guess I'm just wanting to understand where you're seeing the language that we have in the Spud is not going to get us there with with the goal that I just named there's no fine line commissioner it's a good question and it's a hard question and and this case fairly presents that question there is no bright line distinction that I can give you all I can all I can give you is common sense you are a zoning body a recommending zoning body so and this is a spud that's a negotiated zoning District a standalone independent snowflake districts not like any others so you have to handle it like any other bud but it's distinctive because there's an overlay District on it so to some greater or lesser extent you have to apply the rules of the overlay District as well now my instinct tells me that if if there's some uh fine details that need to be worked out I think that's where the HP commission comes in but our ordinance structure is not such to make a fine line distinction commissioner maybe that's something we should take up in the future as to where your Authority ends and where HPS begins you know I don't have an easy answer for that okay thank you yeah you're welcome thank you thank you members uh next we have Samuel day it's been a while since I've been here I'm Samuel day I live at 1620 Northwest 17th Street um I'm an architect and local infill developer and I'm here partly to speak in support of the project but also saying that I think some of the concessions they made don't render this enough like high enough land use really so I'm here on behalf of not the neighborhood but the public I'm here on behalf of young people who can't afford to buy a house and want a place that they can rent within walking distance of bars and restaurants and their jobs you know Oklahoma City has designated 4% of our residential land use area for things other than R1 that means I need a 5,000 foot lot to build a house and 96% of the city and there's like 4% of it where I can build some a duplex even um and I'm here on behalf of the schools who have seen their their enrollment dwindling and have seen property taxes declining in these areas we've seen Edge mirre cloes on behalf of neighborhood protests like this we've seen Gatewood close on behalf of it as the populations of these neighborhoods decline because household size household size is going down in these rich neighborhoods will not allow any more infill in their neighborhood any multif family at all I want to I want to contradict Mr White's Point here that this project is special it's not it's the same as the Lynwood project that was the three-unit project that Nathan cow had a few years ago that was denied because a bunch of people showed up it's the same as the project this developer doing in Crown Heights that's been the denied because a bunch of people showed up it's the same as the um project in Helm's Farm that's denied because a bunch of people show up I want to read from the neighborhood association letter that was sent out that says the call to action for everyone to show up you know and everyone to write in and and protest departments it says here right it asks everyone to send official letters um and turn out it says large turnouts at these meetings have proven to be the single most impactful way to influence the commission we saw recently right here the one on Southwest 21st more density flies through no protest it's a poor neighborhood it's a less organized neighborhood people don't show up people show up the council time and time again bends backwards or the commission does in deference to the rich organized neighborhood and acts in against the interest of the public against the half of Oklahoma City residents that rent against small local businesses that depend on people living within walking distance against the county that depends on the collection of property taxes in the city that depends on the collection of sales taxes we deny these units we ask for more people living further away more driving more an and less property tax collection um I also want to say that I agree with with what Kamal was saying it's it's pretty clear that the commission is not a design review board it's a land use board it determines land use decisions not individual design decisions it's really impossible for us to determine like go through every time someone wants to build a fourplex and make land use decisions here and we've seen before where developers have come in showed renderings and then oh it changes and the neighborhoods up in arms we unsure on how to deforce enforce it at development services development services is not equipped to enforce renderings um specifically I also want to point out that 30 ft for three floors that's ends up with 8ft ceilings for all the units which is really cramming these residents this building isn't casting Shadow on anyone it's on the south side of Northwest 30th so it just cast a shadow on the street I think the 30ft height restriction is inappropriate I think the parking ratios of like over 1.5 per bedroom is way too much in an urban neighborhood like this and I also think that um it's it becomes more of a nuisance for the Neighbors especially to the South to have a larger parking lot um I and I I think by the um zoning this lot is gross 3/4 of an acre so with our land use the density allowed is 10 to 40 units an acre at 3/4 of an acre the maximum density set for this parcel should be 29 units which I think is completely appropriate at an urban infill site like this so that's if we have questions I'd love to take them I imagine Janice might have no I think I'll hold my tongue okay okay appreciate appreciate your comment thank you all right next we have uh Lindy peber good afternoon so if you are here to support um the neighborhoods in in their their negotiations with the developer for this Spud please stand thank you so since we've been here before I will save you a lot of what you've already heard um but I do want to open with a few comments about the process uh while we are here to speak about this particular project you have likely seen that its implications go far beyond just the number on this Spud you received a letter uh probably today or yesterday signed by each of the presidents of the HP neighborhoods because this Spud is very concerning to them I understand that spuds and puds have come to allow people to customize their own zoning although that is not why they were created but the ability to customize one's own zoning in an HP District creates an inequitable two-tiered system all HP dwellers must adhere strictly to the guidelines driveways and windows are forcibly torn out sometimes due to mistakes but developers can come in and craft their own zoning right next door so I do want to note that 101 pages of community objections were submitted on out of your 345 page document um the the packet that's over that's almost 30% of the whole packet taken up with people from the community who have taken a moment to voice their objections for this one case um so as I promised last time we were we've worked in good faith and really diligently with the developers to come closer together and as Mr box has Illustrated earlier we are closer together um we wanted to make it as easy on you as possible so we created a chart where we are still Divergent in what we hope to achieve um I do want to just note a few things that were said the church while it was there for you know a number of decades was built subject to a variance so we don't really think those setbacks should be um measured against and we do have the sandborn Maps if if anyone's interested in those um okay we're going to pass out the chart so you all have that right in front of you um so okay the chart illustrates a solid counter proposal and a lot of negotiation I really think we all believe that we would be somewhere closer to an agreement today but we are here before you again and we're not quite there um however no one is really happy no one is celebrating and I think that's a good sign that we're we're getting pretty close one thing we have not been able to reach agreement on as you heard before is density um the way this is currently zoned six dwelling units on these three lots by right is what should be there um that would include open space which you know you lack in these larger buildings and then even if each of those three dwelling units had a garage apartment then you've got you're up to nine and then even if you which is more difficult to get through an HP but even if you added each of these three units to have an Adu then we're now up to 12 so 12 units if they had just followed the code the other thing that you all were discussing with Mr Groves that I wanted to Circle back to is the setbacks and the only way we can empower the HP commission to um make sure that this project is built in an appropriate way is to ensure that they begin with the appropriate setbacks and so if if this passes today just how it is the setbacks are wrong in historic preservation the setbacks should follow what is already in the built environment and um as you see we have that on our chart where we are and where they are where we are is actually having gone out and measured and surveyed and those are the actual setbacks surrounding this proposed development we have also asked for 16 even though I just went through with you that it would be 12 so we you know again feel like 16 is you know even more we it shows that we're trying to meet them somewhere in the middle so the setbacks and the height HP doesn't allow for you know three stories or two and a half stories um and so if they could meet us at 16 units with those setbacks there but in front of you and um you know I don't I my copy was given to you so um I won't read it to you but if you have questions on those I would be glad to to go through those and answer any questions you have yep I think my first question um is one let me say this thank you for the effort that's been made um I don't want us to lose sight so often in these these are hard issues what happens at someone's home in their neighborhood is deeply personal and so I appreciate the effort that's been made to try to get to a consensus and I know it's challenging so bear with us while we today try to do our best um which is never perfect despite our best effort um to to try to get to a good conclusion here um first let's talk about the setback um I'm looking at this chart on the setback that the attorney for the applicant submitted um it looks like this is with it's showing the the porches nearby is your point that you want you you want it to go to move back just a little bit further so that it's in line with that even though it's oriented to the to uh Hudson yes just to match the setbacks that are there that is exactly how we laid that out okay existing setbacks so if I recall their design the parking lot goes into the setbacks yeah okay um and and obviously that's to meet the 30 parking lot minimum that I thought the neighbors wanted to I think the neighbors so the neighbors wanted them to follow the parking code which they initially agreed to but I think people didn't understand there was a percentage deduction that would have gotten them far below so 30 is a negotiation point where they you know I don't know does 30 include Ada parking if not then it's probably 28 spaces plus right so then 20 28 spaces with Ada yes the par will never be on the same page with parking and so they agreed to 30 without deductions and I think we' agreed to call that a day okay so then so naturally you understand that if we stick to that that is going to create some problems with the physical amount of space to place parking lots in buildings yes so I think that one of the questions then is is conceding some of the space in the setback off 30th excuse me off Hudson um appropriate in order to accommodate having more parking spaces yep and part of that question could be answered if they would just agree to 16 units okay but you'd still want the 30 parking spaces even if they went to 16 units right yes so see I don't know that that that's that's the concern is is I'm I'm not under I don't know if how we can do both I think this the setback is it more a concern with respect to the actual building the building not necessarily the lot okay is that accurate yes for you okay y okay um then my next question is about the language regarding the um authority of the HP commission I hope I've been as clear as I possibly can be we don't want the authority to make the final decision about what it actually looks like we just want to give the general parameters so that there there's a minimum standard that the uh that the applicant has to adhere to and then you all and the HP commission would get to work out the very detailed specifics I I agree with that completely we don't want to task you with that they've agreed to a shet and we know that we have a lot of work still ahead I was just suggesting that if it's going to you know live within the HP guidelines then the setbacks are wrong and they'll be wrong in the Spud if it gets gets past the way it is right now with the setback correct okay um then let's talk about the half story um the the argument as I understand it from the applicant is that the additional half story will add value from an architectural standpoint do you your thoughts on that what what I've put before you is what has you know come from dozens of people you know giving and taking and so that's just Where We Are so it's it's a two foot difference from what I understand and there were arguments about whether it be to the ridgel line and that is all over my head I'm not an architect so um 28 feet to the ridg line is our ask and 30 feet is currently what the Spud would allow them to do okay um that's tough go ahead commission p G leap here you know I think that really where we are in this negotiation and I I have to give credit where it's due and to both sides that you know there's been a lot of negotiation there's been a lot of back and forth um it's a little easier for the developer to reach consensus than it is for a couple of neighborhoods to reach consensus um the one thing that has been a sticking point from the very beginning and in my view Remains the sticking point today is the D density and in terms of all these other issues of design and setbacks and parking and all of those things they all swam around it and they were chipped away in the in the effort to reach consensus and I think even though and I I want to be fair I don't mean to dismiss this chart any part of it uh but I think the reason that the 16 units total is at the top of the list is because it's at the top of the list um I think that is the one thing that remains it it affects virtually everything else it will affect what it looks like when it's done it'll affect how much space there is it'll affect everything and they've they've agreed to setbacks they've agreed to uh various things that are all going to get built into the Spud whether they actually use them or not I'm sure it's going to have a some uh dependency on that number of units this is not an area this is an area of Oklahoma City uh that is already dense these are not single family lots they're duplex Lots if uh what was built on them um matched the historical uh plating and Zoning of the there would be six units there uh if they each had an Adu there would be nine units there if they each had two duplex units on them there would be 12 units there that's dense but the neighborhood's counter proposal was not the 12 it was 16 which I thought was very generous and would probably have eliminated the need for all of this discussion so I think that's a hard number I think it is you know the neighbors have worked really really hard there's a lot of eye rolling about rich people and HP and I think the people who lived in this city before we had those designations and saw what those neighborhoods had turned into and what they would have likely turned into if they hadn't had the help of those ordinances to save them and to um induce investment in those neighborhoods uh is it's scary to think about now but they're there and yes democracy in action means that people who are interested in the topic get to come down to City Hall and voice their opinion unfortunately messy and time consuming uh but it's the way it works and I I don't think it's appropriate to just dismiss their concerns is you know trying to keep the Riff Raff out there's no question that this lot is not going to be that these lots are not going to be developed R1 they they were never designated as that and nobody's asking for that so um I think when people care about things they put in the time and effort that time and effort's been put in here um to keep going back to what the church was is really to deny kind of the reality churches get built wherever they get built they always have um and they're not really what you look back to once once they're gone and you're developing that piece of property what would have been built here uh and you know what would have been designated on the sandborn maps as you you see here were duplexes they were you know um in accordance with the zoning that they had so I I think it's a bit of a false equivalent you know to talk about uh greater density like there's not already greater density here what we're talking about is what level of density is appropriate and yes it is a bit odd to me that in an area that doesn't have any HP or HL um you know we were putting 16 units on five lots and there's all this uproar about narrowing 16 on three lots here which does have HP protection HL protection so can can I say something about the density and and what we went and talked about two weeks ago was the single bedroom apartments against two bedroom three-bedroom apartment so to me the density is more about how many people will be on the property than just the dwelling unit itself okay so if you do that math it's really not that dense you know there were a lot there are a lot of single bedroom duplexes in Crestwood and south of Crestwood whatever it is south of Crestwood so Miller is that Miller Miller maybe yes and so you know the the designation the zoning doesn't account for that I you know I can't rewrite the ordinance um I think that the the units as they have agreed they want to reduce the number of single bedrooms down to 14 or whatever to preserve the opportunity to build some of these out as more than single bed one-bedroom things then yeah I think that's appropriate if they're reducing the density so but are they reducing the density that's what I don't really understand here if if there's 16 two-bedroom you have 32 people living there I didn't say 16 two-bedrooms well you said you were okay with 16 dwelling units I'm just saying if he made it 162 bedroom I would not be okay with that it's too dense they've they've agreed to what they've agreed to in terms of limiting the number and this is a it's a spud so that that we can get into the details and that's just where I'm trying to get into the details of how many people are going to live there more than just the number of units well we can't write that into the Spud how many people are going to live there but they have don't have way we limit the number of bedrooms which is which is more precise and that's that's commissioner Noble's point I think is yeah it's more precise to say bedrooms than it is and that doesn't even that's not even controlling because you could live in a two-bedroom place and be a single person too but you know um okay um I think you know there's been an awful lot of uh you got in your packet letters from um other HP neighborhoods and I think the HP neighborhoods are feeling very much sort of under assault uh this push to increase density in the core which I I think everybody agrees with is a good idea uh but but it has to be done nonetheless in a way that is consistent with these areas and this is one of those areas I'm trying to find the point of compromise here so I'm gonna go back to the I'm G to go back to the height and how important this sticking point is over the half story yeah so I would just say I mean in HP district is different than everywhere else in the city I mean this could be built anywhere but it's being built in HP and so these asks were crafted based on please follow the rules we have to follow and so that's why it says 16 total units with with 14 one bedroom units because there's a lot of arguments for density that are based on lowincome developments that that is not this no one has said that it this is not going to be a lower income place to live the chance that couples or roommates will have to live in one bedrooms that there's there's that chance to what your point was we don't know how many people will live there but if it's expensive then more people will have to live there to make the rent work so the the asks are really based on please follow the same rules we have to follow so just Katie if you don't mind coming to the microphone please okay so what is the so we're at 28 feet versus 30 what would the HP guidelines say so HP says the height of new these are in the yeah the guidelines the HP the height of new buildings should should relate to the height roof form and cornice line of adjacent structures and to those of other buildings on the streetcape the height of new buildings should conform to the following unless historical development patterns are doc otherwise in streets Scapes with uniform building Heights new buildings should match this height for example on a streetcape of all one-story residential structures any new building should also be one story in height in streetscapes with varying building Heights the height of new buildings should align with the existing buildings on the streetscape with particular attention paid to the predominant height of the adjacent structures and other structures on the streetcape my understanding is that directly across the street from Hudson is a building is a multif family building that is taller than than 30t F feet is that true I don't know the exact height of the building across the street it sits up on a hill and it is two stories 2 and a half stories I don't know the measurement of the height of the building so then what's the analysis then there's obviously a single family one-story house that's on one side and then on the other side across the street there's a multif family building that we're assuming is consistent with you know R1 which would generally be you know 35 ft and two and a half stories yeah so HP would look at the surrounding buildings would look at usually we were going to ask an architect to do a streetcape comparing the heights of the adjacent structures to the proposed structure and then we're going to expect them to make their case for why in this case on this site is it appropriate for the building to be taller than what's next to it if that is the predominant height along the block okay Mr chairman please there was a study done by Mr White and I I don't know if Mr Groves could speak to it but there there were pretty extensive studies done as to the number of multif family units and the heights of those if that it didn't make it into your packet I know but it was sent to you uh separately it got missed okay on accident I I think I don't think I've seen that one um okay it seems like if we're arguing over two feet I hear you so I'm I'm trying to figure out how to get there should we just say 29 ft and leave it you know I I was hoping to have the chance to just ask the developer if they'll please give us 2 feet if they'll please give us 5et on the setback and if they'll please just go down by four units okay um Commissioners thoughts I uh I've heard Mr Gro say that they don't have a problem with multifam um I believe if anything on this lot 16 units or 20 units if it's if it's too story I think with the width of this property and the size of this property that trying to limit in today's building environment where most ceilings aren't 8 foot anymore when you put a twostory 9 foot uh upper and lower floors with truss and then you set Rafters and you're trying to limit them to the 28 foot um it's going to severely reduce the roof slope uh chairman uh commissioner Newman can probably speak to that also I don't I think of all of the issues there arguing over 28 versus 30 is the least of the problems that I see okay suppose we were to um get require that the East setback be consistent with the setbacks um along Hudson and allow the HP commission to decide where that line is because I'm sure we could calculate it based on porches or not and then we were to um require the 28 ft and a maximum height of two stories and then we were to limit the minimum number of of one bedrooms down to 10 that would mean that the building itself and the setbacks of the building will be consistent with the neighborhood the architectural character of the buildings will be consistent with the neighborhood but it concedes some of the density to the ne to the developer not all of it because we'd be in a maximum unit of 16 so character is respected which is has been a top priority of mine I live in a historic neighborhood in Oklahoma City so I understand that so if we were able to get there could we concede some units how many have they conceived or I mean conceived already was there 40 originally David or 27 27 and we're down to 16 or 20 now 20 Commissioners my thoughts are the the the the developer conceded enough as the application and I'm I'm in favor of it as it is 30 foot 16 or 20 units again even what commissioner Meek said you take it to 28 you're just shrinking the Box these people would live live in I personally would take that deal The Proposal I made yeah other thoughts Commissioners and the applicant applicant shaking his head no no we I mean to to commissioner Noble's point we have negotiated down a a tremendous amount um we were at 40 feet now we're at 30 feet we were at 27 units now we're at 20 units with more definition as to what those 20 units are we're at five feet set back on the north now we're at 15 we were at three stories with a single building now we're at the visual a you know three building Bungalow style um we believe that we have conceited enough as is and this idea that that HP feels under assault respectfully I live in Heritage Hills most of my social network is in Heritage Hills I can tell you no one that I know feels under assault because of an infield development at 30th in Hudson HP neighborhoods have a tendency to come out of the woodwork because it's you know one forall type of mentality so anytime there's a change happening they all come together an individual from putam Heights which is west of Classen was here like we have to meet the guidelines HP commission is ultimately going to force us to meet the guidelines that's how they're not under attack is that the HP commission still has Authority and control over the design of this project but with all your concessions you still don't meet the guidelines that's the problem well we don't know because it's not designed the HP commission will tell us if we do or don't meet the guidelines this body is not set up to say whether someone does or doesn't meet the historic preservation guidelines only the HP commission could do that we tell you in our Spud we have to meet the guidelines so HP commission once there's a full design in front of them will tell us we either do or don't miss Friddle and her staff will make a det detailed analysis whenever an application comes in for a CA that's when we'll know whether we do or don't meet the guidelines if we don't meet the guidelines I can tell you what typically happens at HP commission is you're either continued or you're denied the fear though and I think you understand this is if we so for example if we decided that um we're going to let the uh HP commission decide on the final decision on height we're going to let them decide on the number of St on the whether it's 2.5 stor are not consistent with the guidelines and just say that we want them to make that final call the concern from the neighbors and I think it's very reasonable is can they rely on how much of a how much protection will they have from the HP commission versus what we could offer them now from the Planning Commission and so that's where I'm trying to figure out how to how to get there so that we can there can be comfort in knowing that when they get to the HP commission they're going to have full Authority because even with this to me as someone who doesn't live in the neighborhood again it seems like a very slight difference and I want the design to look good uh so I I'd be perfectly fine saying this last two feet or half story gets decided by the HP commission once they see a final design I'm perfectly fine with that but I want the neighbors to have assurances that suddenly the design is not going to be 40 fet if we send it back to HP commission right well so the half story doesn't add height right that the height is set at a Max of 30 the half story adds Dormers and architectural Intrigue it doesn't add any height adds massing it add G massing I think you know it it's easy enough to State what all the developer believes he has given up in this process but to look at it the other way the neighbors started off with three duplex Lots so you know you know it's it's they've come just as far if not farther I think than the developer has in the negotiation process and this is not really a contest in that way I think what we're here to decide is not who's given up the most or or who's given up enough but what is an appropriate use for this piece of property and that includes the density okay okay um thoughts on the setback if we match the setback on Hudson can we at least get there does anybody know the existing RightWay width of Hudson 70 feet 70 that's pretty I believe it is they're quite wide both I think both 30th and uh Hudson if I recall correctly Maryland's not here I don't have a drafting table here but with the current site plan that the applicant has passed out to everybody on Hudson if you line a straight line up with the porch That's to the South this proposal is set back further than the front of that porch would you disagree with that I I don't have that right in front of me but I I know Big Board we uh the reason for the numbered setback on your chart is that in historic preservation they don't let you set back to the porch they make you set back to the actual structure in fact they even make people remove some of their porch if if it were built outside of guidelines so that that's the reason for that but of course that deals with orientation right so we're oriented to the north if we were oriented to the east then yes we potentially have a setback problem but that's the side of our building right so that's not how the orientation deals with whereas the homes to our South are oriented East it's it's apples and oranges at that point what's the sub Subdivision plat call for who knows that plat is going to be it's going to be an old one 100 years old F paper yeah just curious yourself because it's an historic district David so I asked the architect that the the issue becomes to meet that setback on Hudson it pushes it back to one building we lose the ability to have that feel of multiple buildings that's the issue we think the multiple buildings for a couple of feet that you're really not going to be able to tell the difference is important for the functionality of the building to feel and look like traditional Bungalow style development in this neighborhood I that's why I said that in this process of the back and forth um you know things have have been given and taken away and and give and get and and so on I myself am not as concerned about the setback along Hudson because I think it does affect how many buildings there could be and what they'll end up looking like I think that's more important I think maintaining the orientation on toward 30th is more important the Dormer on H limited to Hudson that's more important where we are is at the density that's what we're here to to decide okay Lindsay I'll make a comment it may not help get us there or not um interestingly agree with just about everybody I do think we're really close and I agree with what Janice was saying it's down to the density um the 20 seemed like a lot to me on this size I think the 40 somebody was remembering that was like the per acre I think so we're we're down to 20 units I still think it's pressing it it's Unique to me we haven't dealt with it a lot this limitation to one bedroom that's what allows me to get comfortable with the 20 now to to frame that up a little bit more I think I said last time too it is partly because this is not just the corner lot it is because it's was a church for a long time the neighbors came to know it as at least a former church I'm glad we're not talking about traffic I don't think we should be talking about a lot of that stuff because this is a unique spot in this neighborhood it was a church for a long time it will be more dense than if it was just a corner lot with a house on it so we've come all this way uh I hate that maybe both sides wouldn't be happy but I think down to 20 was 16 to 20 is the last thing I had um and my concern limiting it to the one bedroom makes me comfortable with the 20 units um that's where I so when you say that what are you saying you're saying all 20 units need to be one bedroom no sorry they did enough of them this the fact that they limited almost all the 20 the 16 of them were limited to one bedroom um if they were just saying 20 units regardless of bedroom it would be too much but that um that offer of limiting 16 of them into one bedroom is what gets me there commissioner Powers thoughts on it I'd like to hear from the the Commissioners I mean I everybody knows what I think so I I feel like with the 20 and the limiting to one bedrooms that the 30 parking meets the calculations that that follow that requirement to meet Oklahoma City parking requirements you're saying that it's sufficient to have that with the 20 units you're saying and the uh requirement that there be 30 at least 30 parking spaces is sufficient that are all off Street meets the requirement okay I personally think that's too many parking spaces but you know here we are in this area specifically the say a lot of people walk ride bikes you know it's it's a really walkable neighborhood yeah I kind of agree I mean when I saw the latest sight plan I was like that looks like Walmart's parking lot I I understand the push for uh parking off street but at the same time I kind of almost feel like it created another issue but um to me I think limiting the the number of of bedrooms versus just having whatever number of units we're down to the bedroom unit talk uh it persuades me more to support it with the single bedrooms versus um not having that defined um I I know you guys talked about 16 units um was that 16 units still contingent upon a certain amount of single bedrooms yeah it was 16 units with 14 one bedrooms and I'm hearing you all so what I would ask is if if 20 units is what you end up deciding on this says 16 they would agree to 161 beds and up to four bedroom units for the other four and we would just ask could those be limited to two bedrooms if 20 is where you end up it's already that's already in the Spud that the other four have a Max of two-bedroom why parking that's why the parking calculations work out that I ran it's it exceeds them so you're saying just so I'm clear you're saying do 16 that the 16 singles four but the remaining four would be limited to oh no more than two just to be clear I'm saying 16 units 14 one bedrooms but um yeah I just didn't want but I hear you all leaning a lot closer to 20 um and I just didn't want those other four non1 bedroom units to be three or four bedroom units okay let me ask this we're talking 16 and 20 is anyone open to 18 we we need the 20 yes yes yes 18 again and that's already in the Spud though it it's 16 one bed for Max two bed and perhaps they end up being one bedroom um but there could be no more than four two-bedroom units um then if we were to go with the that proposal I mean of the 20 units 16 one bedroom and then limiting the rest to no more than two bedrooms um then perhaps we would say we could also say that um the building height um will be um consistent with the HP guidelines and no and no more than 30t so that it gives the designed discretion to the HP commission to say if they like 26 feet and that's consistent they can go ahead and do it um we could do the same thing for the number of stories and say consistent with the HP guidelines and no more than 2.5 so that way you could look at the design and say it has to follow the guidelines and just can't be more than two and a half stories what do you think about that it would give the HP commission the authority to decide ultimately so they could end up deciding and this is to the you know developers detriment perhaps they could say it all has to be one story you know I I don't know but doesn't the application already say that though yes it it already says subject to we're we're setting a Max height but we're also saying it's subject to review and approval by HP commission but so we're happy with that and we agree to that that it's no more than 30 subject to the review of the HP commission but I I then you'll go to the HP commission and tell them well planning said I can have 30 well they're going to say but our guidelines tell us this but whatever whatever you said we fine with we just think it already says that yeah so far what you guys have said is is their side of the chart I guess I just want to still make sure that the design is something you'll like and if if the design is something if it's if the Dormers and Gables are attractive even if it's 30t versus 28 and it still looks good as consistent with the neighborhood why wouldn't we give HP commission the authority to do that that's my That's My worry is if it looks good and everybody's happy with the look then is that a problem I don't no I mean we're still on you know just some squishy guidelines is the problem and we saw when we went through HP the first time that they did not stay within their own guidelines for this so that's why we are here asking you all to make these sorts of decisions that's a whole another issue well in respect to that HP commission has guidelines when they're reviewing a design of a building so to say that they failed at their job and they didn't apply the guidelines is just simply not true because there was no design before them to apply their guidelines to that will come after Adam designs a final product then they will employ the guidelines as exist for Oklahoma City to get their but no one's talking about about the design yet we're talking about setbacks height density right so that's not design in terms of oh they use the wrong facade material or the wrong you know the Dormers stick out too far that's that's not where we are we're just setting a matx I do want to make the point I guess that this this idea that you know the the limitation of some of these units to one bedrooms is a huge concession point it's just simply not true true this is their business model so what they're conceding is what they want to build it's not like oh we could do three or four bedrooms and that'd be great because they don't want to build three or four bedrooms they want to build one-bedroom units predominantly it may all end up being one-bedroom units if that's what the market uh wants so I it's not a huge concession point my only point I'm going to stop talking now so it's their business model because that's what the market demands the city spent a significant amount of money on the housing and affordability study the biggest thing we lack were single bedroom units so yes it's their business model but that's because our city is woefully lacking in those units in the core not in Jefferson Park it is a very dense neighborhood trying to get to the best place that allows us to move forward in a healthy way and um yeah uh perhaps um we just need to just go ahead and see where we are and maybe that's the best thing thoughts I would defer to Janice if she want to make a motion to deny but if she'd rather not go through that I'd make a motion to approve I'm just afraid I wouldn't get it precisely right but I can try if we're ready for that it'll be subject to some things I don't hear a second so I I have I was just I was checking with first and I appreciate that well so I you know we we'll see if I get a second I was I was checking with you first okay um I'll make a motion to approve subject to maybe nothing I I don't think there were any technical valuations we do need to add One require that if Dormers are used they are only allowed on the east and west elevation on East and West okay um and sorry a bit of commentary in here during my motion but to the point of your chart and you said we're going with his chart there's also I have a column on the right which is all the concessions so yes I believe um it was the current Spud language column in yours is that the applicant's current proposal today so this 20 units consisting of 16 one-bedroom four two-bedroom 30 foot 2 and A2 all this is that already in the Spud today so I can just make a motion for that um can I wait a second sorry yeah setback that's what I was wondering do we want to address that and say that we would like it to at least be consistent with the rest of Hudson if we if we move the set back to the West it becomes a single build is the problem again that right away on Hudson is massively wide as designed we are 35t from the curb so what I thought i' understood all that the reason I was going to move forward with the way I see it right here is I believe the attempts to increase the setback further was really just to try to make the footprint smaller to allow less units I think it was down to um being appropriate so I'm going to make a motion for the Spud as it was presented today subject to One technical evaluation if the Dormers are used they are only allowed on the East and the West is if that works that's my motion okay uh commissioner la Forge moves to recommend to city council approval of Spud 1581 uh subject to the uh amended technical evaluation um limiting Dormers to only the east and west elevation that motion is seconded by commissioner Claire uh please cast your votes if we can at least thank you and the motion passes what I will say is that the process will continue and I would strongly encourage that the developer um because we've know where it's going to city council and this whole conversation is going to be renewed about what changes are required I think it would be to your benefit to continue to have discussions and continue to refine the design so that our neighbors can be more and more assured that the final output is going to be closer with the in matching with the character of the existing neighborhood and so the conversation is not over it's still going to continue I think conversations between both sides should continue so that we can get closer and closer to it matching so that's that's and I'm happy to be a part of those discussions if that's helpful at all so um that concludes our items requiring a separate vote we're now in line for additional items are there any additional items then we're on to Communications and reports Planning Commission committees are there any committee reports and I know we need to nominate and affirm members of the development regulations committee um I think does anyone want to talk about that Sarah Jeff what all is required uh we just need three members at least um and I believe we have n CLA already and commissioner Goen um we just need one more does anybody want the job Mr Mr Board of of adjustment wants the job I nominate Don Noble uh bo Don do you want it sure all right he got um okay do we need to have actually I guess we need a for do we have to formally vote to affirm all three of them or as long as he accepts it we're good I think we would appreciate having all three or four members stated for the record and I'm so sorry is it Mr Noble that you're I'm nominated no I want to make sure M we all know Mr Noble currently comes down here every Thursday and helps us on the board of adjustment he just doesn't spend enough time at say all okay okay just making sure is Dan already on it I guess well typically to the to the development regulations committee which how often do they meet I think twice a week we're times not very often but next Thursday yeah not very often 7:30 in the morning um okay why don't we get a single motion to nominate all three and then we'll we'll vote on that so commissioner Meek would you revise your motion to recommend to nominate um uh don Noble Dan Goen and who's Earth Nate Claire okay I nominate Don Noble Dan Goen and Nate CLA excellent the Motions to nominate those three is there a second second let's see if we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna official sorry j that's right beat you too um I guess it's seconded by Commissioners privet and uh powers please cast your votes thank you thank you Don for your service he just does more he just does more than the rest of us he is an overachiever indeed I had like three um Planning Commission members commissioner Claire all three of them nothing for me commissioner Powers okay commissioner meate commissioner privet commissioner Newman nothing for me commissioner Noble any comments commissioner will Forge I'll make a comment I'm never happy when neighbors leave here unhappy I take it personal I know I should not um I hope that I hope that further discussions continue because I do believe we're really close to having something good I will not accept this idea that just because there's rezoning that requires greater density it automatically means that histor neighborhoods are under threat or that there is some larger issue in the city as a result of that I think we've got to embrace the fact that we're a growing city and we have to find healthy ways to be able to let to grow and I I hope that we can have continue to have more constructive conversations about how our neighbors in HP neighborhoods can feel respected and at the same time we can recognize market demand and the and the fact that we're a growing city and I know it's a fine line but I think I applaud the effort from both sides to try to get us closer to an agreement that was mutually acceptable and I hate that we did not and so I hope that um we can continue with maybe perhaps with the code update and other efforts to improve our process so that we can get to a better consensus with our neighbors I hate to see us against each other because I know that all of our intentions are good and so um I want to be a part of whatever that is I don't know if it's the code update is the solution I don't know if it's better Community engagement as the solution I'm just committed to it so I hope we can figure that out and um I hope that commissioner powers that the discussions with neighbors will continue and I think it will require our leadership to keep steering people in the direction of let's keep talking because I do think we're really really close to having a satisfactory product and we shouldn't let the outcome whether we have gone totally with what the neighbors wanted or totally what the applicant wanted I would have said we still need to keep going until we get to a good place so um we live in a great City because of our character as people the Oklahoma standard and I think that's going to be required of us as we continue to go through Growing Pains so let's just let's just keep fighting to be together as much of a struggle as it is at times um so that's my my plea for Unity at the end of of today um planning department uh just one thing um we were hoping to postpone we we were thinking of having a development re review committee meeting on the 22nd however uh we'd like to move that a little bit to March 14th but I don't know if that's a spring break problem wanted to check calendars of what day 14th March 14 Sarah didn't didn't Dan say he was he was gonna be gone another day besides yeah when was that I think it's 22nd oh he said the 22nd I think it's today in the 22nd if if we're not sure we can we can email my kids spring break is the week after April it's April 11th April 11th oh April 11th so I was so whether he'll be back by the 14th I guess question we can we can ask him okay okay all right we we'll plan on that tentatively and we'll ask we'll ask him okay anything else plan department Municipal council's office citizens to be heard seeing none we've reached the end of our agenda and we adjourned