e e e e e well good afternoon and welcome to the Oklahoma City Planning Commission we appreciate you all being here today uh before we start I just want to go over just a couple of ground rules and and the explanation of our process um number one uh please take this moment to silence your uh cell phones at this time and if you are interested in speaking to the Planning Commission regarding um any issue and you are not an applicant we require you to fill out one of these forms that are located on the desk just outside of the chambers and if you get that form and just bring that right up here to the desk we can make sure that we call on you um when you get called on you have five minutes to address the commission and um we do ask that you avoid any um repetitious comments so if your neighbor is concerned about drainage and you are also and they mentioned it before you get the chance to speak we ask that you bring an additional issue or concern because we have already heard that issue before and if you are here with the group which doesn't appear like that's today um we do ask that you consider appointing one person to represent all of the issues that you and your neighbors may have um as like anywhere else we we ask that you please follow the goals Rule and uh treat each other with respect and the applicants with respect and and the process with respect so um that being having been said we'll move forward with um the receipt of the minutes from the previous meeting Mr chairman I'll move to receive the minutes of the April 11th Planning Commission meeting uh commissioner CLA moves to receive the minutes from the April 11th 2024 meeting motion seconded by commissioner powers please cast your votes and the motion passes we're now in line for continuance requests and we'll begin with uncontested requests we have several uncontested requests for continuance today starting under B in your on your agenda item 20 PUD 2006 request to defer to May 9th item 21 PC 10913 defer to May 9th item 22 PUD 2004 defer to May 9th item 23 Spud 1 1616 defer to May 9th item 24 case number c 7615 defer to May 23rd item 25 Spud 1617 deferred to May 23rd and item 26 PC 11898 has been withdrawn is there anyone here that was wishing to be heard on any of those items that's items 20 and 26 on the agenda all right then we're just looking for a motion move to Grant the uncontested continuance requests as read commissioner CLA moves to Grant the uncontested continuance requests as read that motion's been seconded by commissioner Goen please cast your votes and the motion passes um we are now in line for new requests we have five new requests for continuances item B1 PC 10928 defer to June 13th item 15 case number C 7639 a request to defer to May 9th item 16 C 7643 defer to May 9th item 17 SV 000025 has been withdrawn and case number 18 uh PUD 2003 a requested affer to June 27th excellent we do have one person signed up to speak for item 18 um this item is being continued to the June 27th 2024 meeting but I don't know if Mr John Adcock if you'd like to just so we're not going to we're actually not going to hear this case until the 27th understood underst any questions or anything we can do no I thought uh might take a chance to make some comments about the application um or we could wait until June uh 27th however there are problems with the current application that put it out of compliance with city code it is a non-starters application this Commission could not possibly recommend it to the city council so I have a proposal that I believe is the only solution to everyone's problem with this going forward that might be solved before the June 27th hearing so if you would allow me a few minutes I might tell you what I think what I in my estimation is the only solution to the many problems with this current PUD and the application my my recommendation would be that since the applicant's attorney is present that the two of you visit between now and the meeting on the 27th and then that and once you all have if you reach some sort of resolution I'm happy to be a part of those conversations that would be most helpful so that we can hear all of those recommendations when we actually are going to vote on it okay Mish P would you like to be part of those conversations today sure happy to okay uh and so David box is representing the applicant on item 18 so I'm sure he can assist you you can talk to him about getting that schedule okay all right thank you thank you is there anyone else wishing to be heard um is anyone else wishing to be heard on this item on any of these then we're looking for a motion Mr chairman I'll move to approve the new requests as read uh the motion is to continue the new requests as read the motion is seconded by commissioner privet please cast your votes and the motion passes and we're now in line for the consent docket we have five items on the consent docket today number one is C 7647 the final plat of Mustang Creek Crossing Phase 2 located north of Southwest 15th and west of South Mustang Road item two is C 7648 the final plat of Savannah Estates phase five located north of Memorial Road and West of North County Line Road item three is C 7649 the final PL of Highland Ranch Phase 2 located south of West Britain Road and East of North Mustang Road item four is C 7632 the preliminary plat of colonade um of country colonade Phase 6 located north of Northwest 192nd and east of Portland and then item five is PUD 1995 an application to rezone 1 19619 Thomas at drive from R1 to PUD 1995 okay we do have one person signed up to speak on item five so we may just want to just go ahead and hear and and approve the rest and then we can just hear item five Mr chairman I'll move to approve the consent docket with the exception of item five to be heard separately commissioner CLA moves to approve the consent docket with the exception of item five the motion seconded by commissioner Meek please cast your votes and the motion passes and so we will move on to items requiring a separate vote and we'll start with item five is oh you can okay do you want but you still need to read the item okay again item five is PUD 1995 and application to reone 19619 Thomas drive from R1 single family residential to PUD 1995 thank you and Sarah you might do you mind sharing the a little bit of background on this before we ask Mr Perez to speak sure the Planning Commission heard this item a couple of meetings ago along with the associated preliminary plat as we are moving this item to council we identified uh that the address list was just one shy of the required 10 they have to go out multiple 100 foot increments so we have placed it back on the agenda um including all changes as previously approved by the commission so the commission did recommend approval they recommended approval with one te and that's already been incorp ated into the version you have today okay um any comments from commissioners before we hear from Mr Perez okay Mr Perez you're becoming a regular these days do we need to save a seat for you I I'm thankful that I live in the area so kind of helps it's easier for you good afternoon everybody my name is Jason perz I'm the superintendent for Deer Creek schools and uh I as uh commissioner Pennington said I've spoke here a few times uh not been super successful but I'm hoping maybe today might be a little bit different as we're talking about a resoning situation here um I recognize that with this particular item that we're just talking about 49 Lots which doesn't seem like a major deal uh however there has been a lot of resoning in the Deer Creek area that has led to significant amounts of building without really considering the ramifications that it has on the community and on my part for the school district and I wanted to uh put into context some numbers from a demographic study we just completed last month through Z they looked at our whole Deer Creek area and the the growth not just now but also the projected growth too and I think it paints a better picture as to what we're really dealing with in our district and uh how any type of rezoning can can be detrimental to us at this point uh Deer Creek District uh has 28 actively building subdivisions as of right now we have groundwork underway on more than 20 100 Lots within 11 subdivisions so when you consider that much growth we basically have a subdivision opening up at least once a year um Deer Creek Public Schools territory closed more than 1,200 homes by the end of 2023 and the district has more than 3,500 future Lots in the planning stages right now and we're forecasted to close roughly 6 to 700 new homes annually for the next 3 to 5 years now we're not Edmund Public Schools we don't have the bonded capacity to run a bond issue every year we're lucky if we can run them every five years and this type of growth requires more building uh of of schools and we don't we can't build in that that kind of a rate we're trying to keep up with the building that's already been predetermined for us every time that an area gets rezoned that puts more of a burden on us and it puts more of a burden on the community as well because we're looking at uh traffic situations that we're having to deal with infrastructure that I know the city doesn't have the funding to be able to to deal with right away and we also run into these situations with the county as well our current enrollment in Deer Creek is 8,111 students we grew by 475 students this year which is kind of a growing trend for us our five-year enrollment trend is heading toward 10,300 students we have one high school and that's all we're going to have for probably the next two decades and at that point I don't know what happens I'm going to retire um but Deer Creek High School will likely reach its capacity next school year this is what we're dealing with right now and I again I know it's 49 lots and we look at it like that's not that big of a deal it's a big deal every time we rezone it's more of a burden on us and I just really have to ask when a rezoning request comes like this who is this for it's not for the community we have a variety of housing in our area the thought of Deer Creek being well this is just a place for 2 acre lots is doesn't exist anymore we have Apartments we have Cottages we have uh Halfacre Lots one acre lots 2 acre lots we keep growing we have a variety of lots so housing is not an issue for us our community isn't asking for this either and as much as I enjoy the ADV valorum I have to be realistic about how often we can actually build and what's going to be really best for my students and so I would ask you to please consider the numbers I presented you today and reject this this uh this request because it doesn't benefit anybody but the developer thank you thank you Mr Perez and um always appreciate hearing from you and and I think I've said numerous times and I'm going to keep on saying it I'm going to go with you to the capital whenever you're ready because this is a problem of the way that the legislature funds our Public School System it's inadequate it does not allow us to scale up quickly it does not allow you to be able to make adjustments more quickly um and I I think that that's awful um I think you're to be commended because clearly people want to build in this area because the great job doing running the school system so people want to be where there's Great Schools um I I think I empathize uh for sure but I I feel like our role is to decide land use and for me this fits as something that's appropriate land use for this area um I too share the the infrastructure concerns I share the school concerns just like I do in pretty much every uh Suburban part of Oklahoma City so I think we're going to need a comprehensive solution to the school funding issue and it's beyond our scope in my view but we've we have talked about this a lot so other thoughts I I guess I feel some need to um speak on behalf of uh my fellow Commissioners and just the commission as a whole I I I can agree with Mr Perez that that we approve these uh residential subdivisions with no thought given to infrastructure rure or impact on schools I mean I just don't think that's accurate I think we think about those things a lot um I think you know we would be more than happy to exercise more control and Authority than we currently have but that's the point you know there's a limit to what we can do um also when we're looking at what's best for the community it's not just this little area you know you can hear on any uh given NPR program uh how short we are of housing uh across the country certainly across the city and so um you know the idea that we're going to stop building residential um housing is just I mean that's just that's not going to happen so I agree that the method that we have in the state for funding uh School expansion and retraction is is outrageous it's you know it's uh completely inadequate and it is uh only um uh exceeded in in that aspect by how Byzantine it is and how uh wildly difficult it is to correct or amend or um work within so I mean it is it is a big problem it's not one we can solve around this horseshoe so but what I will say to to your point uh also commissioner Powers is we have had a more intentional effort of having better conversations with the school districts and that started a few years ago and I think that is a good thing um but I I think we need to continue to find ways to advocate for an improvement to that and again I I'll go with Mr Perez to the capital too I'm I'm all for it it needs to change call me up when you go I'll be glad you join you'll join too okay well then I think we're just looking for a motion and the applicant's here oh the applicant is here okay excellent I know that we've we have heard this before I don't know Dean if you want to Dean K civil environmental Consultants 4700 Gardia Parkway um you know as dense as this is I don't think it's going to impact the schools as much as as he says overall the community yeah I'm sure there's a concern but but for this I don't think it's going to impact and how many residents are going to go to school you know we don't know um but I don't feel like this is going to impact the schools in a negative way I think planning for the school district you know needs to come on a bigger level you know they really need to do that on a wide scale look ahead um and kind of do it in their own in their own way so it's a challenge and very much so I mean the Deer Creek Public School System the demographic the area is is it's large and there's a tremendous amount of developable land still available in the City of Oklahoma City in Deer Creek schools so it it's not going to stop so but with that we we if if no one else has anything on this it was approved a couple weeks ago um I'm ready to make a motion make a motion to approve PUD 1995 uh commissioner Noble moves to recommend the city council approval of PUD 1995 there are no tees and there are no tees the motion seconded by commissioner Meek please cast your votes and the motion passes appreci we're now in line for item six item six item six is Case C hear me that's okay sorry about that item six is Case C 7646 is the preliminary plat of Mustang Lake section one Revis located south of Southwest 44th Street and West of South County Line and a variance request to um table in section 5.3.2 point a of the subdivision regulations good after afternoon kindall Dylan with crafts and toll representing the applicant this is um this is a 12 acre parcel um that sits on the west side of County Line you can see they just north of the Kilpatrick Turnpike a few years ago um the OTA actually owned this and I'm sure you all saw a lot of applications when they decided to sell a lot of inessence left over tracks when that they didn't need any more after they constructed the turnpike my client bought this back in 2021 we made an application you all approved the plat as well as the Pud back then um since then we're trying to figure out a way to develop it and actually make it reforma um running into a few struggles there but then so that's this is a preliminary plat or a revised plinary plat um in relationship to what it was that you all previously approved it's really very similar with the exception of the culdesac has been extended a little bit further to the West just to try to make a little better use of that area that you know back to the West in doing so kind of um it creates a CLD Dey that's a little longer than your subdivision regulations so if you look at the tees there are seven tees six of them are standard tees te number two is a variance request for the culdesac um again we really need that variance to help I think the difference in lot count is like seven so it helps us a little bit there um the um if you look at the staff report there's no adverse comments from in your staff again it's a very difficult project or shape project the topology and everything sets up and I think subdivision regulations this is kind of the reason that it implements the variance so we'd request a variance on te number two and be happy to answer any questions you have thank you Kendall do you know exactly how much that variance is 460 ft okay believe this is in w three commissioner Meek yes sir I uh I did look into this and it to me it uh they just like Kendall said extended into the Green Space uh common area um states that they're supposed to have 38 acres of open space with .17 devoted to recreational and they still have 3.39 um I uh unless any other Commissioners have anything regarding this I don't we don't have any protesters here signed up to speak no okay um with the uh stub Street and the extra 460 we'd have to vote on the variance first if nobody has anything else ready to make a motion Okay I uh like to make a motion move to approve variance uh 5.3.2 pointa commissioner Meek moves to approve a variance to table 5.
.1 in section 5.3.2 point a of the subdivision regulations that motion has been seconded by commissioner Newman please C your votes and the motion passes all right uh now I'm ready to uh move to approve case number c 7646 commissioner uh Meek moves to approve of c76 646 with te as show with the tees um that are currently in the staff report that motion's been seconded by commissioner Newman please cast your votes and the motion passes thank you all thank you we are now in line for item seven item seven is case PUD 1700 sp01 which is an application for a specific plan um pursuant to the approval of PUD 1700 located at 904 Northeast 4th Street good afternoon David box 522 call Cord drive here on behalf of the applicant this is a specific plan application for the jewel theater um this is a building that has long been in disrepair and this application will allow us to move forward for the restoration of that I know there's a lot of excitement about it in the community um so we're excited to get your approval today and be able to move forward happy to answer any questions thank you this is in my ward um I'm very excited to see that this is being redeveloped um what's the timeline David I I think as soon as you guys can say yes and the city's computer system can process that the yes occurred we can move forward awesome well I think it's great I'm in full support it's iconic um it'll be an improvement to Fourth Street to go along with all the great things that are happening um with Paige Woodson so it's exciting time and I'm in full support any questions from Commissioners I think we're just looking for a motion to approve uh happy to make a motion I'd like to note that staff's review of the specific plan for the development indicates the proposal is consistent with PUD 1700 master design statement and the master development plan so I'll make a motion to approve uh PUD 1700 spo1 uh commissioner CLA moves to recommend approval of the uh specific plan number one for PUD 1700 that motion has been seconded by commissioner Goen please cast your votes the motion passes good luck thank you we're in line for item 8 item8 is Spud 1607 an application to reone 11765 North Morgan Road from PUD 1872 top 1607 good afternoon Mark zit out with Johnson and Associates address is one e Sheran Avenue before you is a PUD within PUD 1872 which is an industrial development uh there's a headquarter company that is looking to locate here with their temporary batch plant uh if this looks familiar that's because it was on your docket a little over a month ago uh we spoke to the adjacent property owner that's what led us to defer the item so that we can Ren notice we actually slid this operation over a couple lots to create the buffer with that uh Mr farha uh was agreeable to the application we've received no other protests or comments uh happy to answer any questions but staff recommends approval and there no tees thank you um this is in W one commissioner CLA and we do have one person signed up to speak okay let's hear from okay um Jordan short Mr short please give give us your name and address for the record and you have five minutes to address the commission yes my name is Jordan short um my address is 11605 North Morgan Road um if you look on here you can see that my home is um just to the southeast there um done a lot of research and stuff about what this batch plant means for my family um for my livestock for my children things on there um bear with me I'm a little bit nervous today it's my first time here um but the batch plan on there um promotes a lot of concerns for us um from a health standpoint um as well as a nuisance and all the rest on there um air pollution is a large thing that goes along with these con badge plants on there there's a 38% increase um for risk for children on respiratory illnesses and things like that um as well as issues with silicosis lung cancer COPD kidney disease um as far as the noise goes on there um trucks and things like that um will produce an excess of 70 DB on there um and so to be able to comply with what Oklahoma City says um the Max on there would be 70 DB and so I don't even know how this would be possible um for this area to be able to comply with the noise um restrictions for Oklahoma City um in addition to that this area does not have um traditional sewer plants and things like that and so any kind of Wastewater and things would be put into the ground um which would be a concern for um livestock as well as um us as my family um because we do have well water and things um in this area as well um and so it would be my recommendation um on behalf of myself and my family um like to um get this denied all right well it's unfair for you to bring a cute baby into the chambers I apologize for that I mean that is just not right because we get very persuaded by adorable babies but um let's have the applicant explain talk about the pollution and any of those concerns so we can figure this out okay I do have documentation if that would be sure help you can provide it to us you can be you can start there you can pass it to commissioner CLA I might first ask if there's a baby that I can borrow for my application um ultimately the the site right now has I2 zoning a lot of the issues that he's talking uh about about sewer water those have been worked out they private systems on there uh I'm agreeable to a deferral I can meet with the uh the ab budding neighbor uh I think this property has been rezoned I think this is the third or fourth time for similar operations temporary batch plants are allowed as an accessory use for the development that's happening out there today this one is a specific operation with a headquarter company which is why we're here uh but happy to take a deferral if that's the will of the commission and we'll have a conversation and come back in a couple weeks I think that'd be helpful and and yeah they'll they'll bring that cute baby back so hopefully you you resolve it then BR of cute babies how many puppies puppies and babies is is is is there anything that you could say though just on air pollution noise and water or the three you you kind of address water as as that's taken care of but sure I wouldn't I wouldn't mind if you touch on the others because I think if we're going to hear this again then then come up again so I haven't seen the documentation that he's provided ultimately our client is the operator we can bring them back and they can address all of those items they're the day-to-day operators of it and they'll be able to speak to it much better than I can okay the the other thing that could be helpful is we hear temporary concrete batch plant so um if you have an idea of the duration that it's going to be an operation sure be helpful yep we'll do that that's good all right so we're going to we're going to continue this item it sounds like two weeks to the May 9th meeting between the May 9th meeting let's make sure that works for the May yeah are you going to be able to come back on May 9th potentially our hope is that we resolve it so that you don't feel compelled to have to come back we're hoping that's the case but it may not be I believe that should be fine yes okay so on May we're going to between now and May 9th um we're going to encourage Mr zitzow to meet with you and your family address those concerns see if we can find a way to resolve those concerns then bring the application back in a way hopefully that is mutually agreeable between everybody okay okay commissioner CLA uh make a a motion to um defer this item to the May 9th commission meeting uh commissioner CLA moves to continue item 8 to the May 9th meeting of the Planning Commission the motion has been seconded by commissioner Meek please cast your votes and the motion passes thank you and you all let us know what we can do to help with those conversations excellent we're on to item nine item nine is Spud 1614 an application to rezone 1591 North Rockwell Avenue from AA to Spud 1614 good afternoon Mark sit out Johnson and Associates W Sheran Avenue uh before you is a case that allows very Light commercial and office for this track our client uh owns the property immediately to the north as you go up uh they've been developing out a nursery and some office warehouse type uses uh this parcel was kind of a leftover piece between the residential neighborhood and the development to the north there's a oil well that's active on the site uh staff recommends approval there are no tees I was handed a packet uh I'd like to hear from uh the person who shown up just so I can better understand understand what their concern is uh relative to what they provided you all I don't have any I don't have the copy of this one yeah I gave my copy away I think now there we go okay so anybody I don't have any questions about it I don't know if anybody else does but I know we do have one person signed up to speak which say that again I was just noticing some pipelines drawn on it assume that's Focus okay my name is Thomas Thompson um 1594 North Rockwell um I am a former Deer Creek teacher uh disabled combat vet I live in the neighborhood directly behind this particular area um in a I get I apologize I didn't have a chance to put together a better presentation I just got the notice about four days ago um I put together seven pages to talk with you about and this covers my concerns with the different things in this area and I'm strongly opposed to this being reclassified to daycare in particular um not so much as uh like commercial but for daycare and and I'll tell you why um looking at the uh original and the revised uh maps that they put into the original application um the original map um shows uh and I've added the pipeline that ran right through there they had put a a parking lot right in the middle of that pipeline uh easement right over the top of it and the pipeline company that owns that energy transfer wasn't aware that they had thought to do that but I noticed that they caught it uh and put out a revised uh which is Page to put out a revised page now the the only problem with this particular revision is that they've backed those buildings up against the O oil storage tanks that are inside the pump jack area um and they're within actually 50 ft of the storage tanks there um and if they make those buildings 35 ft tall which is what they had put in there they would be twice as tall as your oil storage tanks and they would need lightning protection um added to them like a 50ft rolling ball of lightning uh to keep them from uh causing a transfer lightning bolt hitting those storage tanks and exploding um they do have lightning protection on them now um but if they put a building right back up against that so they actually need a 50 foot gap between the storage tanks in the beginning of the first building uh for the lightning protection there uh you guys are more familiar with the oil and gas stuff than I am so I'm sure you already knew that um also the um if you go to page three here for just a moment there is right along the top edge of the area there is an oil site right of way road that is not shown on their map here now they they did show their entrance coming in where that oil site right away road is um the problem with that is that they're blocking that oil site the stor tanks and the pumpjack um last December this uh was the oil rig that was back there in that site and so they need room to get through on that road um and that road is the only Road you'll notice coming in off off of Rockwell that doesn't cross over the pipeline the oil pipeline there the weight uh limit is the problem with crossing over that pipeline in any other place uh they can't get the oil rig to the pump jack without crossing over the oil pipeline which would cause damage to it you you already know this I'm I wouldn't be so sure sir but please go ahead um so the oil storage problems and the the different uh pipelines that do cross right there actually do create several problems obviously um and they they fixed that with the oil site right away Road it doesn't cross those pipelines except in one place and it's only the liquid uh liquid gas pipeline that crosses which doesn't get damaged by the weight the same way the oil pipeline would um in in this case they need to move a building out of the way of the RightWay road so that it can get to that oil site um and they need to make sure they're not back up against those oil tanks with that 50 foot space there for safety protection on the on Lightning for that in particular case um that's uh the majority of my safety issues with the location of this for a daycare in particular but I think normal commercial buildings would be fine there um I have other reasons uh for not putting a day here though and the number one reason is the traffic congestion on that road already um Rockwell is an artial Road that's high traffic area it is a two-lane road four-way stops on both ends of it in this particular section that are uh twice a day Paycom pays off duty police officers to come out there and that's in picture six I believe um twice a day they pay off duty police officers to go out there and block the traffic so that it gets through it's still backed up from one four-way stop on 150th to the four-way stop at 164th all the way back twice a day uh in the morning when school is in and when paycom changes sh gifts um and in the afternoon when school gets out it's backed up again and they don't pay for a police officer but they do when their paycom Chef changes again so paycom is paying for five intersections in this area at at five different areas around there two of them have lights on them already four-way lights uh the other three are just stop signs and they're still backing up uh quite a bit around this area so the traffic congestion is very bad 30 seconds remaining yes I I you know I'm sorry um the the area the site that they picked to put this particular thing in would only have one entrance in and out um because of the pipeline which is going to cause problems if it's a daycare with drop off and pickup and this also I I'm not sure from the revised map which one was uh supposed to be a daycare the 12,000 or the 9,000 square foot um 12,000 Square ft would actually be the largest daycare in Oklahoma County so that's a big daycare to put in the middle of a road with one entrance and exit um on a hight trffic Road already so I I had to look quite a ways to find another daycare that was actually larger in Oklahoma County um and there's one in proposed but not actually built yet so this would be a large daycare capable of up to 200 kids um 200 kids dropped off during the day could be quite a bit of traffic added to this okay okay Mr Thompson your your time has expired but can I just ask quickly so you're saying there is a concern about the safety of the storage or use of the of the oil operation to the West yes and there is a concern about the traffic flow on Rockwell yes okay and and the oil would be a concern for the daycare obviously too okay yeah thank you very much thank you did I answer your question okay yeah you gave them plenty to answer for so yeah so a you things uh when we submitted the application the survey hadn't been back yet that's why a site plan was provided that did not show the easement the moment it was caught the site plan was revised like most applications that involve some sort of oil well or equipment we work with the operator through the development process that's typically post zoning on access changing easements as necessary uh we use the existing drive because it's fairly common place so when we caught the easement we redid the drive they'll be provided access however they need to ultimately That's A Private Matter uh but they are guaranteed access to their well and if that means shrinking buildings reducing buildings uh that will be done and worked out uh with them in terms of the offset we'll meet all corporation commission requirements in terms of building placement next to the storage tanks just looking at it it does look like we're slightly over 50 fet it's a 40 scale drawing we're over an inch away from the oil tank so I believe we already meet the 50 ft that was me mentioned uh and then if it appeases the commission when we file the application there was a buyer that was seeking to do a daycare uh that is no longer the case that buyer has walked away so if a daycare use is is a concern we're happy to remove It ultimately I think there is a way to configure the site to properly protect an outdoor play area uh if somebody does choose to put a daycare there I mean for me child there's a child care crisis in this city um we need child care um the other thing is we are also Oklahomans last I checked pretty much every you can go to any neighborhood and be next to any an oil and gas operation so I'm a little I'm a little less concerned about that personally but I'm open to hearing what the commission thinks about it now the traffic issue I mean that's always a concern um especially in this area I would hope that this is one of the areas being targeted in the bond projects for expansion of Rockwell um Comm chairman I did look it up so they're going to widen Rockwell from Memorial to 150th which is just south of this and then from 150th to 164 is only a resurfacing of the two lanes that are there yeah in the in the current Bond but in the next Bond it's on the radar to be on radar too and then and then commissioner Claire can you put on your traffic former traffic commissioner hat for one second for if for the community to request like signalized you know intersections and that sort of thing what's what's the next step if you're a neighbor you're Mr Thompson and you want to make sure that they're doing what they can to address those uh traffic issues they can go to traffic commission and request uh a signal uh they're going to do their their due diligence and determine if the counts are there if it's needed if it is determined that it's needed uh they can put it on it's likely identified as an unfunded project so it goes on the list without funding and I mean it could be years before it comes and differ is Public Works is well aware paycom and the traffic situation up there and so it it's all being looked at for 2025 bond issue projects so it's it's all it's serious I mean and it's not going to be fun until that's fully resolved I I think that um it's better to have we're thinking about our duty um thinking about the highest and best use of land is it consistent with the comprehensive plan all of those considerations it makes sense to me that we find a way to make the land useful um again I'm personally don't have any objection to the child care use because I know that that is needed wherever it can go um so and it's just one of multiple uses on this Spud it's with the C1 base and neighborhood commercial District I'd add that on a major route to a major employer in this city it's also an appropriate spot for a daycare of course any daycare operator is going to look at the the operations of the oil and gas and screen it and protect it as they need to and any parent that's seeking to enroll a child is going to see what is in the backyard of the facility so but if we need to add a 50ft buffer from The Back Fence where an outdoor play area can be amable to that and lightning protection we'll meet the light the lighting code and then in terms of lightning prot protection that's the corporation commission governs all of that because yeah I don't I don't know how we would have Authority or or frankly the expertise um to know what would be appropriate for that um okay yes there's also a petroleum above ground petroleum uh storage tank division that looks at every one of these permits and makes sure that like energy transfer would be in compliance with their damn dying you know to hold the amount of the storage tanks that are on site they're uh I I can promise you they're also watching from the from the well head there's a believe a 250t radius for workover rig tie downs that they're not going to let encroach and that well head's further back to the West so uh of of the storage area so I'm sure that I know they would require that to remain clear um I the biggest thing I see and as Mark addressed is that building that blocks the uh access wouldn't be allowed by the operator they'd have to modify the site plan in some sort and I understand that this is just a very preliminary uh site plan okay then I think we're just looking for a motion if there's no other changes I'm ready to make motion if there's no one else to speak or no U Mr chair I'd like to make a motion to approve Spud 1614 uh commissioner Noble moves to recommend approval of Spud 1614 to city council there are no tees and there are no tees in the staff report the motion has been seconded by commissioner CLA please cast your votes and the motion passes and I'll Mr Thompson this is going to the city council so there is still another opportunity for you to to share your concerns with them as well before final approval um we are in line for item 10 item 10 is Spud 1618 an application to rezone 1310 Northwest 10th street from the AA agricultural District to Spud 1618 David box 522 call Cord drive here in behalf of the applicant this is for an SPD that would allow commercial development uh to the West the Spud 1578 was recently approved uh to the east you have a combination of some i1 commercial and then to the north although it's Yukon you have a very large commercial track there so we believe it to be compatible consistent with the area I think anytime you can have commercial On The Fringe of the city across the street from Yukon it's a a benefit to the city to generate sales tax that would otherwise go to the City of Yukon uh there are there is one te and we agree with it okay uh commissioner mink yes sir uh I looked through all this spoke to the applicant I I don't see any issue with this one if uh unless any other Commissioners have anything regarding it I'm ready to make a motion any questions from Commissioners the only question I had one question was the setback to the South was only 5T and that property Zone residential so if you if you look at the aerial um although it may be Zone residential it's got a very large two very large what look like commercial barn structures it like asphalt trucks or something like that yeah and you have that tree line there so I it's an interesting area when you zoom in on Google and look through all that there's a lot of outdoor storage that looks unpermitted there are large tanker trucks that are parked in front yards um so I'm not sure we we have a compatibility issue it looks like a commercial use frankly that was what gave me some reassurance that um it was less of a concern um but I mean we can we can certainly address it if that's I did have that highlighted and when we went through the zoom meeting it was pretty pretty uh commercially there and so and the existing use appears to be very much so I just for the future I was wondering yeah yeah we're talking about a difference of is it 10 ft they're at five but it would be 15 so 10 okay and those buildings to the East are frankly closer than what we would be yeah that's the other thing is the ones that are besided are at least 20 ft further back so if uh there's nothing else I'd uh like to uh recommend approval for Spud 16 18 ask will you be will you be preserving the tree line of the South so we could it looks like it straddles the property line um to the extent that they're on our site I'm not sure it's a problem but looking at the aerial and that survey before you I think that the base of the trees are actually south of us right it looks like they're the neighbors's bases it looks like just part of the canopy comes over to our property line based on the survey you see this one should we have a te that says the trees shall be retained if they're on if they're within the 5 foot setback I just say trees will remain no matter what what why don't we say the trees will be retained within the 5 ft to the maximum extent possible which is kind of the standard length for trees I'm good with that okay adding that to as David read into the record uh commissioner Meek moves to recommend approval of Spud 1618 um adding an additional technical evaluation requiring the retention of trees on the south side to the greatest extent on the south property line to the greatest extent possible um that motion has been seconded by commissioner powers please cast your votes and the motion passes we're now in line for item 12 item 11 was deferred item 12 is PUD 2002 an application to rezone 1103 lifestyle drive from PUD 20a and PUD 20b to PUD 2002 once again David box 522 call Core drive this is an existing manufactured home Community it's old as you can tell by the Pud number PUD 20 um there is a new HUD approved product that my client desires to put on the site that the current pod would not allow under the language so uh the Pud is simply allowing that P excuse me that HUD approved duplex product to be uh phased into this existing development and there are no technical evaluations excellent is in word one commissioner CLA yeah I I really don't have any questions um I think this could greatly enhance the area with this this development um I would like to note that there's no changes the lot sizes or setbacks or contemplated or needed to allow uh the lots to be converted to duplex homes um so I'm I'm good with it I'm good with it as well any other questions from Commissioners I think we're ready for a motion Mr chairman I'd like to move to recommend approval city council PUD 2002 commissioner CLA moves to recommend the city council approval of PUD 2002 that motion has been seconded by commissioner Meek please cast your votes motion passes and we are in line for item 13 item 13 is PUD 2005 an application to rezone 10627 Southwest 29th Street from the AA agricultural District to PUD 2005 once again David box 522 call CT Drive uh this is an application that would allow for a mixture of commercial as well as multif family um you may recall Spud 1555 that was for an enq that came through not too long ago right there at the corner of Sarah and 29th uh Sarah and 29th is a bit of unique intersection in that it has a full interchange for the turnpike but it's not right there on the actual um kind of where the intersection meets um and talking to commissioner me his he requested that if we could limit the multif family to the north half of the site that would ease some of his conc concerns and we are happy uh to add that there are no tees but we'll add a te that would limit multif family to the north half of the site additionally if you look at the survey and look at the site plan you can tell we've backed off of uh that tree line and the floodway so all those trees to the west of that bold black line uh will be preserved because they're not within the the Pud boundary so with that I'm happy to answer any questions um commissioner M yes sir thank you chairman um yeah I spoke with David this is a difficult area we've had a lot of protests in this area regarding multifam small we've dumped a lot of small uh lot housing in this area this area is a nightmare for traffic um and uh it lacks services I don't think on the on the use um uses being requested to be permitted the only one that stuck out to me was the multif family and it was 12 acres and um I called David had some concern he spoke with his client and he called back and and offered the north half only which takes it rough uh roughly down to where they could still do about at a R4 being 34 units per acre could still be about 200 uh units units so um this was something he and I worked on but I'm really looking for Thoughts with you for any of you uh other Commissioners that if that's acceptable if so we you know we tried to reel it in some as far as the other uses I believe people in that area are looking for services um thoughts I mean more rooftops means more access to Services I also get really concerned about I understand I don't live in this area but I would also be frustrated if it was very difficult for me to leave my neighborhood or get on the highway Etc so I'm sensitive to that because that makes sense my other concern though is when we make decisions to limit the ability for people to live in areas that are highly desirable because of a temporary problem of the street infrastructure and so I I'm just more hesitant to say absolutely no when I know that we can fix the problem it's a solvable problem by building bigger roads by building better infrastructure I also know that you'll again have better Services when there's more people there so I'm just I'm hesitant to to total eliminate um multif family but curious to hear what everybody else thinks as well but the proposal was not to totally eliminate it yeah but I think he was just ask getting a feel for where we were with multif family and again if I were Jeremy and I had to take the phone calls from my neighbors I would feel differently perhaps but right this is this is worth noting there is no protest you know when zitzow came came through west of the creek he had a bunch I heard Mark was making babies cry at the at the Planning Commission meetings yeah yeah you know what here we are quiet that's why he passed it off to you um yeah the noticing I did check out and there's not that many multif family available residences in this area so it's kind of a we've released one caddy Corner that's giant um like 12 or, 1400 Mr Meek's favorite 30ft lots are are just west no I'm talking about another multif family another one okay yes uh cadd corner from the intersection of Sarah and 29th the opposite from the enq there was a multif family that was released there hasn't I don't believe been built yet I don't think so correct me if I'm wrong you yeah no so the southeast corner of Sarah 29th was a large PUD PUD that we did for um Anthony mzi that was totally disrupted once the uh Turnpike came through it bisected okay he had a 320 and it completely bisected it um and the p p 1735 I don't know what we came back with but I don't believe it's not there there's nothing I've done that is at the level of 1,200 units maybe it was the original one before the I don't know but then to the Northeast you obviously have a residential single family residential subdivision um but there's nothing of the density that that that I I heard you say okay one of the main problems in this area is the approximate location to the intersection I mean if it was further back none of this would be an issue but the stacking um even with the road being widened um you know I have to go on record and say this is going to be a problem these people south of this uh they just can't get out of their neighborhood you can't turn left for any anything and to turn right you're at the will of friendly Oklahomans letting you out I've done it three times um they do have two access points they access both 29th and Sarah right but the access on Sarah has the whole school another school scenario issue problem further down but yeah I'm happy I I do know that there were I know staff worked with you limited a lot of uses or removed a lot of uses I know the 100 foot setback on uh on the west was very helpful in limiting the half was uh was very helpful if there's any other comments all right with that uh I'd like to recommend approval of PUD 2005 there are no tees we're adding adding one te of uh limiting the multif family to the north half of the proposed PUD of the property uh commissioner Meek moves to recommend to city council approval of PUD 2005 subject to the additional technical evaluation as read into the record that motion's been seconded by commissioner privet please cast your votes and the motion passes we're now in line for item 14 item 14 is PED 2007 a request to Res Zone 340 e Root Road from i1 I2 ae1 a 22 P 2007 One Last Time David box 522 call Core Drive uh this is an existing Industrial Development that has part of it as i1 part of it as I2 the goal here is to put it all as I2 um the area is massively in transition everything you see as R1 is transitioning to Industrial um those homes that are south of fourth north of eighth um are all owned by a single entity that also owns all the property to the West all of the leases that exist will not be renewed uh my office is working on an application for an I2 uh submittal on all of the things that you see as R1 so uh and worth noting um just about 34 of a mile to the South is that area where the uh proposed okahoma County Detention Facility is so if you recall it's I3 I2 this area is significantly industrialized okay and there are no technical evaluations um this is in my ward um that totally makes sense to me um especially given the current uses and the plans so I'm in full support of that um and I don't have any questions any questions from Commissioners we have no one signed up to speak Mr chairman I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval city council PUD 2007 commission CLA moves to recommend approval to City Council of PUD 2007 that motion's been seconded by commissioner Noble please cast your votes and the motion passes thank you thank you we're now in line for item 19 item 19 is a request to introduce and set for recommendation at a public hearing on May 23rd 2024 and or propose ordinance to chapter 59 of the municipal code this is related to um amending our downtown design districts to add additional types of signs uh that would be prohibited within an area defined around the Oklahoma City National Memorial I think we're waiting for Katie might expect it to be a little bit later in the afternoon and Katie fle is here if you have any questions about this item you guys just zipped on through um Sarah did you already introduce okay yes I'm so so sorry um okay here to H and happy to answer any questions that you guys have about the ordinance I have a question yes but I thought we were going to hear a little bit of maybe a primer on on this but yeah you want me to kind of give my a little I don't I don't know what Sarah said but um if she just introduced the item she didn't explain it yeah she didn't explain it would you just explain kind of way yes so um since it's Inception the downtown design districts have had uh language restricting signage around the Oklahoma City Memorial um that's been updated over time to address new sign types new terminology um with the adoption of the new sign code we realized we needed to go back and do some additional cleanup to line up with the terminology used in the new sign code and also to address the new sign types um we now allow signs in the right of way as a thing so we are specifically addressing that and we also changed um the way in which you do permitting for murals so we've added murals to that list of prohibited sign types in the area around the memorial um it's just that one little blurb uh it was recommended for approval by downtown design Review Committee um at their most recent meeting and we're hoping you will um schedule it for a final recommendation on May 23rd so okay well my one question and I I apologize I'm not I haven't gone and reviewed the downtown design review board's notes or conversation that happened there my first reaction when I saw this was does it really make sense to extend it to Broadway um and actually incorporate one side of Broadway in automobile alley as opposed to the line being drawn in the alley of the block behind because in my mind Broadway and automobile alley kind of is one thing and the memorial perimeter where this would be drawn is there's a bit of a a mental separation there in my mind yeah I think um we definitely could um have some discussions about those boundaries that's not proposed to change they've been that way since 2007 okay so this is an existing boundary it's not being bound not changing it's just that wording about the the sign types okay well I'm probably barking up the wrong tree then yeah I know yeah it I just I kind of was like huh it's you got one side of a street that's really a corridor that is is its own um thing but that's probably a conversation for another another time so sure anyways thank you very much cool I don't have I kind of have a question regarding murals I mean I understand in the immediate vicinity of the the memorial that there I could see the need um the desire for some murals that might be appropriate content um but definitely outside you know the view shed of the memorial basically out are not allowing any murals i' kind of like to understand the the reasoning behind that when you're talking about you know Northwest 7th and and Broadway area sure I mean I think that the um the concern with murals is that we don't have the ability to review content of murals we are content nutral on where murals go so if a mural gets permitted and approved then we don't have a whole lot of control over what that looks like and whether it's um sensitive to the memorial appropriate to that setting and it's just trying to overall protect um the memorial and the vicinity of the memorial and keep the kind of serene feeling there but there there is a process to get a memorial within there it or it's just a matter of going through a variance right right this is a regulation so you could seek a variance um yeah that's good to know yeah I'm not going to have issues with this I just I really think in in an urban context which this is and is increasingly densifying the real perimeter around a memorial is a immediately what's visible from the memorial as soon as you're one block away and there's no View Corridor to that location like I just think this boundary should be smaller um but that was decisions made uh long ago and I don't know what how that would be Revisited now so um that's just a comment I I have a I have a tendency to agree with you about Broadway and I'm not suggesting that but I think it's something for consideration or at least thought because I think I think Broadway when know Broadway I don't think anything about the memorial I mean Broadway is a completely different in in the city to me so I guess I'll follow up that question then is there an opportunity at this point to revise that boundary in in any way in relation to this even if it's just for the signage and mural application yes I mean we can revise we can revise away anything and everything in the code um I think at this time in the interest of getting that language updated so that it is consistent with the sign code we would hope to move forward with the ordinance as proposed osed and then we can certainly explore um whether that boundary is still appropriate or whether things have changed in this area since 2007 and we want to reconsider um what that boundary captures so I'm comforted by the fact that they can seek a variance though so there is a remedy that's not a good one though yeah variance is not a good way to be doing sign approvals and that's not that's not a good idea um I I I do think I I think your point is well taken Comm goine um and I think maybe it would be a good idea for us to give some thought to this are there other things that would be affected by a determination to change the boundaries of the memorial besides things like the sign code this is the only the signs are the only thing that are addressed specific to this boundary there's no other restrictions regulations guidelines that this boundary pertains to so and and while I fully appreciate the um uh desire to move ahead with what we have and the work that's already gone into it and the discussion and so on and so forth once we do things like this it's kind of hard to back them up people get invested in them um I think if if we have a strong feeling that the eastern boundary in particular but maybe others I don't I maybe we should maybe we should think about this a little bit I guess we can think about it between now and May 23rd but um I i' I'd like for us to give some thought to what the actual Sidelines are um you know that where your proximity to the to the memorial is really um I I I think it's a good idea I think your Point's well taken I also would would ask though uh Commissioners that as we consider this and and when it comes back for you know public hearing um we we get the language clarified that we would need to enact that because I'm already immediately concerned about just how we describe the boundaries so just getting Clarity other people besides us can decide all that oh I just let's just bring it with us to the AG whatever that is let's bring it we want to be clear about it I know our our C Municipal Council can just work miracles you know right before a meeting I've seen that happen over very important issues so certainly they can come up with this boundary but still I have something real quick uh I'd like to thank you for pulling this up and figuring out that it needed fixed with the new sign ordinance um I lost my aunt the bombing she was a vice president of the Federal Employee Credit Union I know in the 17 years since this was passed that uh 17 years ago was very protective of this area and I but I do agree with the comments here that especially on Broadway if if it was pulled back to that Alleyway um mhm it would it I I believe the footprint has shrunk over the years of the sensitivity in the area and and as long as as as long as everyone else agrees I'm I'm good with that I think it's a good idea so so that you wouldn't have to go through a variance process on automobile alley and Broadway and it's a very heavily traveled area that's kind of the the the issue that I would would if I was going to pick one that would be the hill I'd climb onto but right the rest of it I think it's a simple kind of one block radius I wouldn't make an issue of of that either but um and I don't want to diminish uh in any way that the or have that comment being construed that the memorial is not important and it doesn't matter that's not this that's not what I mean at all in fact it's it's become a more important part of the urban fabric of the city in which case the you know the sensitivity about it is less it's it's part of Oklahoma City so that's really where it's coming from not not out of lack of respect for the memorial so my thought as staff for downtown design review is that um we would need to consider whether they need to weigh in on a different boundary for this I think it does make sense to look at the extent to which those sight lines have changed as we have a lot of new construction that's happened in downtown over the last 14 years um um so we can I mean I would I would hope we could perhaps go ahead and schedule it for the 23rd and we can evaluate between now and then what other information we can pull together for you all that would be helpful in contemplating those decisions and if this moves forward and we come back with a more thorough assessment of the boundary as a part of a separate effort but yeah hear what say Ka um in agreement with everybody who's all the comments and where you got there then just making sure it would be I think we could if you brought the information be ready that next meeting we can do both the boundary and the sign here starting at the Planning Commission it doesn't have to first like if the city council already approved the boundary we can just start from there and change both the boundary and the restrictions I'm going to look at I'm just afraid that um we can't do both in one fail swoop can we well um I almost said sah well um this is a it's strictly a text Amendment so if you look at your um on the back of in your packet on the back of the map is it's just a two-page ordinance and that's where it is both defining the rules and the boundary so and so we can start here by amending both and then take that to the city council you I'm in agreement with everything I think we should I think we should be looking at both um yes yours yours will be a recommendation to city council but it may also become a recommendation to the to the downtown design Review Committee that Katie may have to take back is that what you're thinking yeah I'm thinking it might need to go back to downtown design I think we may also want to ask the memorial yep themselves what they think about the boundary um and what concerns they might have um that that was my concern is if we just start here I'm afraid there might have been a foundation to be laid Yeah my my my impression is that they were very involved in this at the beginning so I would be hesitant to just shrink the boundary without them weighing in and saying that they felt comfortable with that and so the reason I sell and so maybe not just setting this for May whatever you said I'm 2 unless we're in a rush let's make sure the rush is simply that we have some sign types that are now allowed that are not addressed in this um and we have we have language that doesn't match which I think we can work through that it's kind of a technicality but we have signs in the right of way that were previously not allowed and now they're allowed uh and this would prohibit those with that the should we not approve today the Restriction I'm I was with you commissioner but I think the action for us is to set it for hearing that's the action oh we can't even finalize any way okay and if it's not ready by that time to change both I think we should change the sign restriction and be sure we follow up with the boundary yeah yeah that Mak we can do both great but if not let's move forward on the Restriction before somebody sneaks in some signs right and Katie when I when I made reference to the sidelines wasn't suggesting that as a way to define the boundary but simply just the information that I think would be helpful to have yes I agree I think getting some really good photo documentation of when you are at and around the memorial what can you see now based on what's been built up in that area I think that would be helpful for everybody involved so it sounds like we can go move forward with setting it for hearing between now and then there need to be some conversations um with staff about how we might go about this and ensuring that the proper parties are at least involved are going to be set to speak to us at least on the on the 25th about or the 23rd about this I can tell you now that I will not be present on the 23rd just saying so I hope commissioner Claire is going to be here but um and what what I would say if I wasn't clear maybe y'all don't agree but if we're ready to do both then let's do it if we're not let's let's do the restrictions unless none of us will forget to come back on the boundary and that's just that that would be amending a Design District on the comprehensive plan right the boundaries of one so it's not actually a zoning District it's it's it's not a rezoning if we change that boundary because that's just a defined area within an existing zoning District but it would just be another layer of revision to the existing regulations that we would want to take back to other entities and get them to weigh in on okay well just to be clear then I think what we're saying is um or what I at least what I'm saying is I would propose Shifting the easternmost boundary uh to release the west side of Broadway and moving that to the alley and the logic in that being that those buildings don't face the memorial anyway so any signage on that side of Broadway really is not going to be visible or imp it's not going to have an impact on uh people that are experiencing the memorial so why regulate signs on a quarter that you might want to match Aesthetics on either side or something in the future I guess sure cool okay so are you going to move to have and I will yeah I guess with with that then we're the motion is to hear this item a set ordinance set the ordinance for recommendation at the Planning Commission on May 23rd okay so I I move to uh set ordinance for recommendations at the May 23rd Planning Commission meeting for uh item number 19 excellent commissioner Goen uh moves to set the ordinance for recommendation at the Planning Commission meeting on May 23rd 2024 thank you all thanks the motion's been seconded by commissioner la Forge please cast your votes you do not want to set it for hearing H and the motion passes unanimously um that brings us to the end of separate items um for consideration we're now at are there any additional items uh Communications and reports Planning Commission committees any reports from our committees seeing none uh reports from Planning Commission members commissioner CLA nothing for me commissioner Powers commissioner meek I'd just like to comment on the wonderful job Sarah did today yes great job Sarah you're not gonna live that one down Sarah uh commissioner privet commissioner Newman I'm good commissioner Goen some great legislating there commissioner Goen you ready to go to the capital I'll go to the capital on the school okay point we're Gathering a grp group here for that um commissioner Noble commissioner Forge I also for once don't have a comment um planning department uh just just that uh we are planning on having a study session on May 9th I just wanted to see if there's anyone that already knows they won't be available we have about four different topics okay I'm good okay I don't have I will not be able to attend that but don't let that stop us uh we have um four potential topics currently they are what we think are minor amendments to the downtown Design District which if we get there and our um development regulations committee thinks otherwise will'll hold another one but we believe them to be minor uh we have our transportation planners who want to come talk to you a little bit about traffic counts and some other it items and then um our heat um Island study information cool I definitely want to hear the traffic thing too um all right uh Municipal counselor's office keep the capital campaign to under Quorum if you don't mind we'll be sure to we'll watch that we'll be careful um citizens to be heard no one's here Barry okay um he hasn't gotten to speak today that's a rarity oh you're you want to you want to come up and tell us about drainage you sure all right soon as we reach the end of our agenda we're adjourned