[1. Call to Order:]
[00:00:07]
TIME WE WILL CALL TOGETHER, UH, CALL TO ORDER THE TUESDAY, MAY 16TH, 2023.
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[2. Approval of Minutes: May2, 2023]
UH, FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL.THE MINUTES FROM MAY 2ND, 2023.
HAS EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE? DO WE HAVE ANY CHANGES, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS? IF NOT, DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SECOND, UH, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO.
IT BRINGS US TO ITEM THREE, OUR CONTINUANCE DOCKET, AND THERE IS NOTHING ON THAT.
NUMBER FOUR, OUR CONSENT DOCKET.
NOTHING ON THE CONSENT DOCKET TAKES US TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[A. Case #Z23-00006 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “A” Single-Family to “PUD” Planned Unit Development for 133 W Thatcher PUD, located just east of Thatcher and Chalk Hill. (Grit Real Estate Investment Team LLC) (Ward 1)]
DOCKET CASE NUMBER FIVE.A, UH, ACTUAL THE CASE NUMBER IS Z 23 DASH 0 0 0 6.
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR A REZONING FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO P U D PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 1 33 THATCHER, P U D LOCATED JUST EAST OF THATCHER IN CHALK.
GRIT, REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TEAM IS THE APPLICANT.
AND IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT MR. ENDS? OKAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A P U D LOCATED AT 1 33 WEST THATCHER, WHICH IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THATCHER BETWEEN SANTA FE DRIVE AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED A SINGLE FAMILY AND THE P U D WILL ALLOW DUPLEX ON THAT PROPERTY.
UH, THE LOT IS 6,969 SQUARE FEET, JUST SHY.
OF THE 7,000 SQUARE FEET THAT IS REQUIRED, UH, REQUIRED FOR STRAIGHT B TWO FAMILY ZONING, WHICH IS THE REASON FOR THE P U D.
UH, THE AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY NORTH OF THATCHER, BUT A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX AND MULTIFAMILY ZONING IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THATCHER.
UH, THE P U D ALLOWS FOR THE TWO FAMILY USE ON THE LOT AND COMMENCES TO MEETING THE EDMOND STANDARDS.
OTHERWISE, UH, THE EDMOND PLAN 2018 DESIGNATES THE AREA'S URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH SHOWS TWO FAMILY AND LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY USES AS APPROPRIATE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
MR. EDS, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT WANT TO SPEAK TO CITY STAFF ABOUT THIS MATTER ANY FURTHER? UH, IF NOT, DOES THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING? UH, NO, SIR.
DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OR ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT WISH TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? YES, SIR.
WITH YOUR HAND UP, IF YOU'LL PLEASE COME FORWARD, IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
I HATE COMING UP, SO APOLOGIES THAT I'M A LITTLE JITTERY OR WHATNOT, BUT, UH, UM, SO I LIVE ON THATCHER.
I ACTUALLY LIVE THREE DOORS DOWN.
UM, CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND, OH, YEAH, SORRY.
MY NAME'S BRENT TELSON, UH, LIVE ON THATCHER, ABOUT THREE DOORS DOWN.
AND THEN YOU LIVE WHERE? UH, 2 0 1.
FIRST OF ALL, THE LOT IS TOO SMALL FOR THE RULES, SO WHY DO WE HAVE THE RULES IF WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE AN EXCEPTION? UM, I HA I DO HAVE KIND OF A MAP HERE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE, BUT THE BLUE IS ALL SINGLE FAMILY, AND THE YELLOW IS ARE DUPLEXES.
UM, SO IT'S A DUPLEX IN THE MIDDLE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY ISN'T, UH, ISN'T DUPLEXES.
AND SO MY WIFE AND I WERE TALKING, WE'RE KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH THIS.
AND, AND HONESTLY, AS, AS LAWYERS LIKE TO SAY, UH, ONCE WE START PRECEDENT, THEN WE START TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT CAN KIND OF, UH, PERMEATE THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WE KIND OF START THIS PROCESS OF MORE AND MORE INVESTORS COMING IN AND WANTING TO, UM, TAKE THESE PROPERTIES, DEMOLISH WHAT'S ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEY'LL DUPLEXES.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IS IF THE RULE'S THERE, WHY SHOULDN'T IT STAND FIRST? UM, AND THEN, SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT QUESTION GETS ANSWERED OR IF WANT ME TO MOVE ON WITH MY, PLEASE MOVE ON.
UM, SO THE OTHER THING TOO HERE IS WE'RE CHANGING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO, TO P MULTI-FAMILY, UHHUH
UM, AND IN MY LINE OF WORK, WE HAD KIND OF TWO, TWO NOTIONS OF DECISIONS.
WE CALL 'EM ONE WAY, ONE WAY DOORS AND TWO-WAY DOORS.
THEY'RE PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY.
UM, WHEN YOU'RE CONVERTING THIS TO MULTI-FAMILY, IT'S A ONE WAY DOOR
UM, IT CAN BE NOTHING ELSE BUT A DUPLEX.
IF THE INVESTOR WANTS TO DIVEST THAT PROPERTY, THEY SELL IT TO ANOTHER INVESTOR, AND IT BECOMES SHORT TERM RENTALS FOREVER.
IN EDMOND, MY WIFE AND I LIVE HERE WITH OUR DAUGHTER, AND WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL HOME, AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY, BUT THESE THINGS ARE STARTING TO PERMEATE A LITTLE BIT MORE.
AND THERE'S PLENTY OF THIS AROUND.
WE HAVE THE APARTMENTS GOING UP, WE HAVE THE LARK, WE HAVE OTHER THINGS, AND WE JUST THINK THAT THIS WAS STILL A GREAT PART OF EDMOND TO LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND IF THE INVESTOR, IF HE WANTS TO, IF HE WANTS TO DIVEST
[00:05:01]
OF IT LATER, HE CAN SELL IT TO A FAMILY.AND SO LIKE, THAT'S, THAT'S THE CONSIDERATION I WANT TO TAKE HERE.
I THINK IT'S, I THINK THE DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING ARE PRETTY, AGAIN, ONE WAY DOORS IN, IN NATURE.
AND SO I, I JUST WANT THE, THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LIKE THINK ABOUT THIS AND, AND REALLY LOOK LIKE, AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT A MAP, IT REALLY DOES LOOK, IT, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THESE STREETS WHERE THE DUPLEXES ARE, WERE DESIGNED FOR IT.
AND THEN LASTLY, I JUST PRINT OUT THIS PICTURES JUST A, IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE.
MY WIFE AND I RECOGNIZE THIS, BUT WE, WE HAD A PICTURE FROM GOOGLE MAPS FROM WHAT WAS ACROSS OUR STREET BEFORE VERSUS AFTER.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU AND YOU ALL KNEW, KNEW JUDD, THE, THE HORSES OVER THERE.
UM, AND UH, WE, WE MISS HIM, BUT, UH, BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'S PROGRESS AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND LIKE WE LIVED IN THOSE DUPLEXES FOR SIX YEARS OFF OF STERLING POINT.
AND SO WE RECOGNIZE THE BENEFIT OF THEM AND THEY HELP YOUNG FAMILIES BE IN PLACES WHERE THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FOR RENTING, BUT WE'RE ALSO AT, BUT WE ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT EXISTED AND THERE WEREN'T INVESTORS COMING IN AND CHANGING THE, THE ZONING TYPE ESSENTIALLY.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? OBJECT I VOICE.
IF, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD CARE TO ADDRESS, UH, THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED.
UH, ONE, I THINK HE INDICATED THE LOT IS TOO SMALL.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I BELIEVE ONE FOOT.
UM, AND THEN THE ISSUE REGARDING, UH, THE, THE TYPE OF NATURE OF THE, THE PROJECT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT DOING IN REGARD TO THE P U D.
SO, UM, THE COMMISSION APPROVED, I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO 13 WEST STATURE TO BUILD, UH, TWO DIFFERENT DUPLEXES THERE LAST YEAR.
SO THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR THE, THE COMMISSION TO, TO APPROVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
UM, UH, I, I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT, UH, EDMOND IS A COMMUNITY FOR EVERYONE, AND SO THE MORE DENSITY WE HAVE, MORE PEOPLE WILL GET TO EXPERIENCE EDMOND.
I'M NOT, UM, CONGLOMERATE BY ANY MEANS.
I'M JUST A SMALL FRY, UH, LOOKING TO, UM, UH, BUILD GENERATIONAL WEALTH FOR MY FAMILY THROUGH REAL ESTATE.
AND I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR, UH, COMMUNITIES THAT WANT TO BE A PART OF EDMOND, BUT HAVE BEEN PRICED OUT OF IT.
SO THAT'S REALLY MY IMPETUS TO CHANGE THIS FROM, UH, SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTI-FAMILY, TO SERVE A GREATER PURPOSE, UH, FOR PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE MAYBE COULDN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN EDMOND.
UH, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? I MIGHT ASK A QUICK QUESTION.
WHAT, UH, UH, WHAT'S YOUR DESIGN OF THIS, UH, THIS DUPLEX? BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I, I'M NOT AGAINST DUPLEXES, BUT I AM AGAINST ONES THAT FILL UP THE WHOLE LOT WITH JUST A GARAGE.
YEAH, I REMEMBER YOU VOICED YES.
OBJECTION TO THE, THE ONE THAT'S FURTHER DOWN THE STREET.
SO I WANTED TO CROSS THIS BRIDGE BEFORE I, UM, INVESTED IN DESIGN, BUT TO YOUR POINT, I, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE AESTHETIC OF DRIVING DOWN A STREET AND JUST SEEING GARAGES.
SO, UM, MY ULTIMATE PLAN WAS PROBABLY TO NOT EVEN HAVE, UH, GARAGES FOR THESE.
AND IF THEY ARE, THEY'RE, THEY WOULD BE DETACHED IN THE BACK TO CREATE, CREATE SOME OF THAT MORE CHARACTER THAT, UH, PORCHES AND, UH, SOME OF THOSE THINGS BRING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DO NOT HAVE A DI DESIGNED QUITE YET, BUT MY INTENTION IS TO NOT HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE FRONTING THATCHER STREET.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? JUST TO KINDA ECHO WHAT CHIP MENTIONED.
SO WHEN YOU COME BACK FOR CYCLING, IF THIS IS APPROVED, KEEP THAT IN MIND, BEN.
THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR ZERO AND IT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE THE 12TH.
AND, UH, YOU CAN VISIT WITH THEM AGAIN THERE AT THAT POINT IN TIME IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
[B. Case #ES23-00004 Public Hearing and Consideration of closing a utility easement for The Ember, a residential development, located south of 8th Street and west of Boulevard. (Ember Development, LLC) (Ward 1)]
IT BRINGS US TO CASE NUMBER ES 23 DASH 0 0 0 0 4 PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF A CLOSING ON A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE EMBER, UH, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH OF EIGHTH STREET IN WEST OF BOULEVARD, EMBER DEVELOPMENT, LLC AS THE APPLICANT.[C. Case #ES23-00005 Public Hearing and Consideration of closing a public utility easement for The Ember, a residential development, located east of Littler Ave. and north of Ninth Street. (Ember Development, LLC) (Ward 1)]
IS AN ACCOMPANY ITEM THAT IS A, NOT THE SAME EASEMENT, BUT ON THE SAME PROPERTY.CASE NUMBER S 23 DASH 0 0 0 5 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE CLOSING OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR EMBER, A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED EAST OF WHITTLER AVENUE IN NORTH OF NINTH STREET, UH, EMBER DEVELOPMENT LLC.
AGAIN, THE APPLICANT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS NO PROBLEM WITH HEARING BOTH OF THOSE TOGETHER.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CLOSE TWO EASEMENTS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
[00:10:01]
EMBER.UH, A NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLOCK THAT WAS APPROVED AS A P U D AND RECENTLY PLATTED.
UH, THE EASEMENTS ARE OUTLINED IN YELLOW AND BLUE RIGHT THERE.
UH, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE NECESSITATED THE MOVING TO SOME SANITARY SEWER LINES, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AND NEW EASEMENTS TO COVER.
THOSE, UH, NEW LINES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OR, OR WILL BE ON THE PLAT.
UH, THERE ARE NO OTHER UTILITIES EXISTING IN THOSE EASEMENTS AS FAR AS WE KNOW.
UH, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
UH, DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS FROM A TIMING STANDPOINT, DO THOSE NOT DO NEED TO BE DONE PRETTY SIMULTANEOUSLY? THE NEW EASEMENTS WITH THE RELEASING OF THESE? OR IS THERE, I BELIEVE THE NEW EASEMENT'S ALREADY IN, IS IT ALREADY? OKAY, I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS IN REVIEW.
I WOULDN'T SURE IF IT WAS ACTUALLY DONE.
DEAN CLETA IS THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.
I WAS CLOSEST TO THE PODIUM, SO I SAID WE DIDN'T MIND PUTTING THESE TWO TOGETHER,
UH, SO YEAH, THE PLATTING PROCESS IS GOING ON AND DEAN CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT HIDING THE BALL WITH THE CITY ON EASEMENTS GOING FORWARD FOR OUR UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
YEAH, NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT.
MY COMMENT WAS MORE OF IS THAT NOT A TIMING MECHANISM TO WHERE IT SHOULD BE DONE? WELL, NOW YOU'RE GONNA GET MY ANSWER.
SO
AND SO, BUT UH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SOMEBODY IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FELT LIKE WE NEEDED TO DO THAT.
AND SO WE THOUGHT, HEY, WE'RE EASY GUYS TO GET ALONG WITH, SO LET'S DO THAT.
SO, UH, SO THE ANSWER IS YOU HAVE ALL THE EASEMENTS.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN CORRECTED BY THE REPLAT, BUT WE WANTED TO HAVE BELT AND SUSPENDERS AND MR. ANS IS SO GRACIOUS TO US, WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS A WAY TO GO.
DID I SAY ANYTHING WRONG? JUST CORRECT ME ON THAT.
UH, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT BEYOND THOSE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED? DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR AGAINST? YES, SIR.
IF YOU WILL, PLEASE COME FORWARD, IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND PROVIDE US WITH YOUR ADDRESS.
I'M A RESIDENT OF CAPITAL VIEW FOR THE LAST 28 YEARS, UH, TWO 10 EAST EIGHTH.
UM, THERE IS ANOTHER EMBER EASEMENT CLOSING TRIPLE OFF SEVEN THAT WE GOT A NOTICE ON THAT, UH, IS NOT ON THE DOCKET TODAY APPARENTLY.
AND THERE'S, UH, APPARENTLY ONE IN BETWEEN FOUR, FIVE AND SEVEN THAT IS NON-EXISTENT, OR WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY INFORMATION ON IT.
SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO POSTPONE IT UNTIL ALL, UM, ALL EASEMENT CLOSINGS CONCERNING THIS ONE PROPERTY WOULD BE ON, UH, DAY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND, UH, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, THE CREEK BEING CLOSED IF THAT'S WE'RE NOT, OR NOT INFORMED AS TO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CREEK, WHETHER IT'S GONNA BE, UH, PART OF THE SEWER OR THIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UH, AND DO AWAY WITH THE CREEK.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT OR THESE PROJECTS? WOULD SOMEONE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED BY MR. BURANO? DEAN, CO CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS? 40 45 NORTHWEST 64 STREET.
SO THESE EASEMENTS ARE FOR SANITARY SEWER OR NOT FOR DRAINAGE? SO THERE IS, UH, TWO SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS THAT BECAUSE OF THE RELOCATION OF THE, OF THE NEW CITY SEWER LINES, BASICALLY THOSE WOULD BASICALLY GO AWAY AND WE'RE GONNA BE ABANDONED.
UM, SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
AND THE ONE THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE THERE, THE UE, THAT'S JUST THE UTILITY EASEMENT THAT WAS, UM, PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT AND SAYS WE'RE RELOTTING AND IT'S BASICALLY GONNA BE REDONE.
ALL THE UTILITY IS GONNA BE REROUTED TO SERVE THE NEW COMMUNITY, UM, THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN THERE.
SO, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DRAIN, IT'S JUST, IT'S SANITARY SEWER UNDERGROUND.
AND THE CREEK REMAINS AS PART OF YOUR OPEN SPACE ON THE PLAT, SO, CORRECT.
AND THERE'LL BE A DRAIN EASEMENT ON THAT, AND WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THE CREEK, WE'RE STAYING OUTTA THE TREE LINE, SO THAT WON'T BE AFFECTED, SO.
UH, DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS THAT NO.
IF, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD, USUALLY WE GIVE EVERYBODY ONE CHANCE, SO YOU'RE GONNA GET A SECOND ONE.
[00:15:01]
BUT IS, IS THERE NOT A TRIPLE LOCK SEVEN EASEMENT CLOSING? WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THESE, THESE APPLICANT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHAT THEY ARE PRESENTING TODAY ON THESE TWO EASEMENTS.AND THEY ARE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS THAT ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY OR NEEDED.
AND BASED UPON THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, WE WOULD ASSUME IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, THAT THAT SHOULD NOT IMPACT YOUR SEWER SERVICE IN ANY WAY.
SO THIS IS BASICALLY AN EASEMENT THAT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
IT'S JUST THERE AND NEEDS TO BE ABANDONED FOR TITLE PURPOSES.
THE QUESTION'S STILL THE SAME.
IS THERE NOT A, UH, TRIPLE, A TRIPLE OR QUADRUPLE O SEVEN OR SIX? WE WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT YET BEFORE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEFORE US, SO WE WOULDN'T KNOW.
THAT'S WHY I WAS SUGGESTING WAITING TILL DO ALL OF THEM CONCERNING THE SAME PROPERTY, POSTPONING THAT TO ANOTHER MEETING.
AND I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE ASKING AND SO WE WENT AHEAD AND MOVED ON AND WE ARE CONSIDERING THE EMOTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR, AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SCENE? NONE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM B? UH, CASE NUMBER ES 2,304? I'LL MAKE MOTION SECOND.
THAT IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO.
THAT WILL BE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON SIX 12.
AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM C DUE TO APPROVE? SECOND.
THAT IS APPROVED BY VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO.
AND AGAIN, THAT WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE THE 12TH AS WELL.
[D. Case #SP22-00040 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Site Plan for The Oaks at Covell, located north of Sooner & Covell. (Covell 35 Development LLC) (Ward 2)]
THAT BRINGS US TO CASE NUMBER S P 22 DASH 0 0 40 PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION FOR A SITE PLAN FOR THE OAKS AT COVE LOCATED NORTH OF SUN IN COVELL.AND IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT DAVID? MR. ENS? OKAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THE, ON, UH, SOONER NORTH OF COVELL AS A PART OF THE LEGACY AT COVE DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE P U D FOR THE LEGACY AT COVELL ALLOWED SEVERAL MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ACROSS THE SITE.
UH, THIS IS ONE TRACK THAT ALLOWS C3 DENSITIES OR 16 UNITS PER ACRE.
UH, THE PROJECT ANTICIPATES 102 LUXURY UNITS IN 15 BUILDINGS.
UH, THE UNITS ARE TWO AND THREE STORIES RANGING FROM 30 TO 40 FEET TALL.
EACH UNIT HAS A GARAGE AND DRIVE WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO SPACES PER UNIT.
UH, THE BUILDINGS WILL BE A COMBINATION OF SIDING AND STUCCO WITH, UH, PARTIAL STONE VENEERS.
UH, ONE DRIVE ONTO SOONER IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE WITH THE FUTURE CONNECTION, UH, TO THE NORTH WHERE, UH, PLAIN STREET WILL BE.
UH, THE LANDSCAPING IS COMPLIANT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF, MR. ANS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SAY NONE.
WOULD THE APPLICANT CARRIED OUT ANYTHING? DAVID JONES WITH THE ORION GROUP? UH, 2201 WOODHILL ROAD, EDMOND, OKLAHOMA, UH, I THINK REALLY, UH, MR. ELOQUENTLY DESCRIBED WHAT WE HAVE, UH, EXPECTED AND ANTICIPATED HERE.
IT'S A, UH, LARGE OVERALL PARENT TRACK DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS A, UH, 7.2 ACRE TRACT OF THAT, UM, VERY HIGH END, VERY NICE, UM, RESIDENTIAL, UM, USE.
SO ANY QUESTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OR EXCUSE ME OF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER.
AND ALSO I HAVE WITH ME THE DEVELOPER AND THE ARCHITECT.
UH, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME? I HAVE, UH, ONE QUICK QUESTION.
UM, I W I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED AT THE, UH, AT THE FENCE THAT WAS, UH, PROPOSED BEING A CHAINLINK FENCE, UH, IN THIS HIGH QUALITY, UH, APARTMENT COMPLEX.
AND JUST LOOKING AT THE FUTURE, THERE'LL BE DEVELOPMENTS ALL AROUND IT.
UH, YOU PUT IN A, UH, A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE GONNA PUT UP ANOTHER FENCE.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE, I, I JUST DON'T LIKE THAT IDEA.
UH, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? IS THERE ANY REASON, UH, YOU KNOW, A SITE PROOF? I KNOW THAT IN THE, UH, IN THE PUT THERE WASN'T ANY DETAIL ABOUT THE FENCING THERE.
AND UH, IS THERE ANY PLAN TO, UH, WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO IMPROVE IT? YEAH, APPROVE THAT FENCING.
I'LL LOOK TO THE, UH, LAND PLANNER AND THE ARCHITECT REAL QUICK TO ADDRESS.
UH, TIM HOBERG AND S P G ARCHITECTS, 35 15 WEST 75TH STREET, PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANSAS.
UM, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS
[00:20:01]
BECAUSE I THINK HAVING THAT GREAT FRONT DOOR WITH THIS LUXURY DEVELOPMENT IS IMPORTANT.AND I THINK WE COULD CONSIDER HAVING A NICE FRONT DOOR WITH KIND OF THAT IRON LOOK KIND OF PICKETED FRONT FENCE ALONG SOONER ROAD AND MAYBE TURN IT AND MAYBE TAKE IT BACK LIKE, YOU KNOW, 50 FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO THEN IT COULD TRANSITION TO MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LESSER.
CUZ OBVIOUSLY THE COST OF HAVING THAT HIGH LEVEL FENCE ON SIDES OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY SEEN.
BUT I THINK WHEN WE GET TO, UM, WE CAN MAYBE LOOK AT IT AS A STIPULATION TO TAKE FORWARD A COUNCIL TO GIVE US A LITTLE CHANCE TO STUDY A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THEN LOOK AT COST IMPLICATIONS POTENTIALLY.
BUT WE WOULD, UH, WE'D DEFINITELY CONSIDER IT.
DO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS, MR. HUMBERG AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SO TO CLARIFY YOUR COMMENTS YOU'RE GOING TO DO, REMIND ME, I MEAN YOU DIDN'T MENTION SITE PROOF.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING THERE? I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S, WE'VE JUST ASKED YOU THE QUESTION TONIGHT SO I UNDERSTAND.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE COMMENT THAT I WOULD'VE IS WE TYPICALLY HAVE SITE PROOF FENCE, WHICH IS SIX FOOT STOCK, EIGHT AT A MINIMUM.
BUT TELL, I MEAN, JUST REITERATE WHAT YOU WERE PROPOSING THERE SO WE KNOW SURE.
KIND OF WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON, I GUESS I WOULD SAY.
UM, AT A MINIMUM WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE IS ALONG THE SUN ROAD HAVING A SIX FOOT HIGH, UM, IT WOULD BE AN ALUMINUM IRON LOOK, PICKETED FENCE, SIX FOOT HIGH WITH KIND OF THE, THE BARS BLACK IRON, BLACK IRON LOOKING OKAY.
AT LEAST ALONG SOONER ROAD MAYBE TURNING, GOING 50 FOOT BACK.
CHANGING TO A SECONDARY LOOKING FENCE ALONG THE, THE SECONDARY SIDES IN THE BACK, UM, TO BE STUDIED.
I THINK DEPENDING ON WHAT WE HAVE ON THE SECONDARY SIDES.
UM, BUT IT COULD MAYBE EVENTUALLY MAYBE BE A HIGHER QUALITY FENCE THAN A CHAIN LINK.
UM, BUT I THINK WE JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO STUDY.
BUT OBVIOUSLY HAVING A CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG SUN ROAD WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO IMPROVE.
BUT I THINK THE STIPULATION THAT WE WOULD, UM, DEFINITELY ENTERTAIN IS THAT DEFINITELY A HIGH QUALITY FENCE ALONG SUN ROAD TURNING ALONG THE SIDES WITHIN A SL INVESTIGATING A HIGHER QUALITY ALTERNATE ALONG THE REMAINING SIDES IN THE BACK.
I MEAN THE, THE CHALLENGE I HAVE A LITTLE BIT IS GOING TO LET, GIVE SOME LEEWAY.
EXCEPT FOR WE DON'T GET ANOTHER SHOT.
CAUSE ON THE SITE PLAN BASICAL, THAT'S BASICALLY WE'RE DONE HERE.
IT DOESN'T END UP GOING ON TO COUNCIL.
SO I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE SOME OTHER, UM, FENCE TYPES THAT YOU GUYS WOULD CONSIDER AS, I THINK CIPRO GIVES YOU A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY AS MY COMPACT.
THAT'S CUZ THAT, THAT, THAT MEANS IT CAN'T BE CHAINLINK.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THERE.
INCLUDING PRICE POINT, BASICALLY OBVIOUSLY OIL IN STOCK AGE
I I DO THIS FOR A LIVING TOO, SO I NO, NO, NO.
I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK, I THINK LIKE A NICE PRIVACY SI OFFENSE.
I GUESS MY COMMENT WOULD BE IF YOU DID A SITE PROOF DEAL, THEN IF YOU DECIDED DOWN THE ROAD YOU DIDN'T WANT TO, THEN YOU'D COME BACK FOR VARIANCE.
SO, BUT, BUT I THINK ALONG SOONER WOULD BE FINE FOR AWR IRON FENCE.
DON'T BUT AROUND IT AS, AS THAT SITE PROOF BEGINS TO DEVELOP, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A SITE PROOF.
SO NO, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
SO YOU'D BE WILLING TO GO AHEAD AND DO A WOOD TYPE SITE PROOF FENCE? UH, DO THE ROD IRON, THE ROD IRON LOOK AROUND THE FRONT WITH, WITH THE WOOD YES.
CAUSE THAT GIVES FLEXIBILITY ON MATERIAL.
YEAH, I WAS JUST TALKING TO THE, A LOT EASIER TO MAINTAIN THE FENCE WOULD BE, UH, FOUNDED ON LIKE TWO BY TWO MASONRY, UH, POST TO GIVE IT A BETTER AESTHETIC ON THAT FRONT TOO.
WHICH IS PRETTY COMMON WHAT WE SEE IN THAT, THAT WE SEE.
AND AS, AS YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, THE WHOLE SOUTH END OF THAT PROJECT IS A TREE PRESERVATION AREA.
SO THERE WON'T BE DEVELOPMENT GOING ON THAT SOUTH END.
THE EAST SIDE IS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT DETENTION FACILITY FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE WE'VE GOT THAT, UH, FUTURE PROJECTED ROAD FOR A POTENTIAL CITY ABANDONMENT PROJECT THAT, UH, WILL BE SERVICING EAST AND WEST OFF CENTER ROAD.
BUT UPGRADED FANS AND UH, AND THE MASONRY COLUMNS ALONG, UH, SUN ROAD FOR IMPROVEMENT.
WELL, UH, REAL QUICK, AND I I HATE TO, SINCE YOU ALL ARE, UH, WILLING TO BASICALLY TALK ABOUT DOING THE SITE PROOF FENCE AROUND THE REST OF IT.
I MEAN, THE QUESTION I WOULD BASICALLY POSE IS, AGAIN, FROM A MAINTENANCE STANDPOINT TO THE COMMISSION WITH THE UPGRADED FENCE ALONG THE FRONT AND THEN HAVING THE BLACK VINYL CHAINLINK FENCE, THE ADVANTAGE TO THAT BLACK VINYL CHAINLINK CENT FENCE IS, UH, MAINTENANCE ISSUE.
AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF WOODEN FENCES THAT ARE PUT UP AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME THAT REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY ATTRACTIVE AS, AS MUCH AS A, A BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WOULD BE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FEEL ABOUT THAT OR DOES THAT FALL UNDER THE SITE PROOF THOUGH? NO, I DON'T THINK WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DETERMINING MATERIAL.
WE'RE JUST DETERMINING WELL, BUT A BLACK
[00:25:01]
VINYL CHAIN LINK IS WHAT THEY HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND THEY'VE OFFERED TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE SITE PROOF FENCE.I MEAN, I'M JUST, I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT AND SAYING, WOULD WE, I, I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT, UH, TRYING AND, AND SAYING YES, WE'LL DO SITE PROOF, BUT WHEN THEY DO SITE PROOF FENCE, WE'RE PROBABLY, LIKE I SAID, GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A WOODEN TYPE FENCE, WHICH MAY NOT LOOK AS ATTRACTIVE AS THE BLACK VINYL FENCE WOULD LOOK IN THE FUTURE.
I DON'T KNOW, I FALL BACK TO THE APPLICANT, THEY CAN TELL US WHAT THEY THINK.
HOWEVER, I DON'T, THERE'S NO PROPOSED PROJECTS RIGHT.
ODDS ARE THERE'S GONNA BE OTHER MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS OR RETAIL PROJECTS BY THIS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE P U D ALLOWS.
SO I GUESS WE CAN JUST WAIT AND REQUIRE IT BY THEM.
WOULD YOU MAYBE CONSIDER, UM, I THINK OBVIOUSLY AS THE DEVELOPMENT COMES ALONG, I THINK THERE'S OBVIOUSLY ANOTHER MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO, UM, TO THE NORTH OF THIS.
SO EVENTUALLY THE ROAD'S GONNA BE BISECTING A MAIN, A MAIN AVENUE COMING IN.
SO ALONG SUN ROAD, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE ROAD THAT BISEX IS TO THE NORTH, MAYBE WE DO THE HIGHER QUALITY FENCE ALONG THOSE TWO FACES, OBVIOUSLY THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, THAT'S GONNA BE VERY HEAVILY TREE ALIGNED THAT'S NOT GONNA BE VISIBLE AS WELL AS OUR, UM, SOUTH BOUNDARY WE GO TO MORE OF THE LESS MAINTENANCE NOT GONNA BE SEEN, UM, VINYL COVERAGE CHAIN LINK.
SO WE, OUR VISIBLE STUFF LOOKS REALLY NICE.
AND THEN OUR NON-VISIBLE STUFF IS LOW MAINTENANCE.
SO AGAIN, IF YOU SEE IT, IT'S NOT GONNA LOOK RICKETY AFTER A SEVERAL YEARS OR YOU'RE HAVE TO, DIDN'T NECESSARILY SPEND A LOT OF TIME, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINING IT.
EAST WOULD BE THE, UH, THE DRAINAGE.
THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA, DRAINAGE EAST BEEN ALONG THAT BACK EDGE OF IT.
WE'RE NOT THE SIDE EDGE OF IT.
PROPOSED WHAT
WE, WHAT HE OFFERED WHAT HE OFFERED.
UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE, THERE'LL BE THE RO IRON ALONG SOONER IN THE ROAD TO THE NORTH AND THEN THE BLACK OR THE VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK ON THE EAST AND SOUTH SIDE.
THAT IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, TO, TO BE CONSIDERED.
I, I THINK THAT THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT AND GRAND SOLUTION.
ALTHOUGH I LIKE THAT, I LIKE THE BRICK COLUMNS.
YOU SAID YOU'RE GONNA DO THOSE EVERY 12 INCHES ALL THE WAY AROUND
A LITTLE BIT OF BARRIER GOING ON THERE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO WHAT RANDY JUST SAID.
AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE P UD? YEAH, EXACTLY, PLEASE.
AND THE PROJECT IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR 20 AND THAT IS DONE HERE TONIGHT.
[E. Case #Z23-00004 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “PUD Z13-00009” Planned Unit Development to “PUD Z23-00004” Planned Unit Development for the property located on the northwest corner of Broadway Avenue and Covell Road. (Trinity Breaktime, Inc.) (Ward 1)]
UH, THAT BRINGS US TO CASE NUMBER Z 23 DASH 0 0 0 4 PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING FROM P D Z 13 0 0 0 9.PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TWO P U D Z 23 DASH 0 0 0 4.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER, A BROADWAY AVENUE IN COVELL ROAD TRINITY BREAK TIME INC.
IS THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT MR. ADAMS. OKAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A P U D THAT WILL EXPAND THE NUMBER OF USES IN THE TRINITY PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BROADWAY AND COVELL.
UH, THE SITE WAS ZONED AS A P U D IN 2013 TO ALLOW FOR THE CENTER, UH, GENERALLY ALLOWING D ONE RESTRICTED RETAIL USES AND THEN THE P U D FURTHER LIMITED, UH, FURTHER LIMITED IT TO A HANDFUL OF RETAIL USES.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO AMEND THE DOCUMENT TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING USES, THE GROCERY STORE, LIQUOR STORE, SPECIALTY FOOD STORE, HOME IMPROVEMENT, RETAIL STORE, AND PERSONAL SERVICE.
UH, THESE USES WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTHWEST, SOUTH AND EAST WITH THE EXISTING ZONING.
UH, ASIDE FROM THE ADDITION OF USES, THE REMAINDER OF THE P E D REMAINS THE SAME AS TO DESIGN AND LAYOUT, UH, CAUSE OF THE OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE AREA.
UH, DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SCENE NONE WITH THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING AS BEFORE MR. IN ELOQUENTLY DESCRIBED WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TO DO HERE, SO I'LL JUST, UH, OPEN MYSELF UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SCENE NONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? YES SIR.
IF YOU'LL PLEASE COME FORWARD AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
LARRY PINAU, 29 12 NORTH BROADWAY.
[00:30:01]
LIVED, UH, JUST NORTH OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR ABOUT 45 YEARS NOW, ACROSS THE STREET.WE WERE HERE IN 13 WHEN THEY, YOU, UH, CONSIDERED THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FOR THIS BUSINESS, WHICH, WHICH WE HAD NO OBJECTION TO AT THAT TIME.
HOWEVER, WE DID VOICE AN OPINION THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE A LIQUOR STORE OR A VAPE SHOP OR A BAR GO IN THERE EVENTUALLY.
UH, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I HAVE NO IN IDEA WHAT THE OWNER'S INTENT IS FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT AT LAWYER STILL WANT THE PROTEST.
THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE FROM WHAT LITTLE BIT OF A INVESTIGATION I COULD DO INTO, INTO THE LAW OR THE STATUTE THERE, IS THAT THESE, THIS REZONING WOULD ALLOW ANY ONE OF THOSE THREE BUSINESSES TO BE PUT IN THAT NEW BUILDING, NOT OPPOSED TO THE BUILDING OR OPPOSED TO THE TYPE OF BUSINESS BUSINESSES TO PUT IN.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF US THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA.
THERE'S THREE FAMILIES, THERE ARE THREE RESIDENTS, ALL ELDERLY.
AND NATURALLY I THINK YOU'D PROBABLY BE THE SAME.
YOU'D BE OPPOSED A BAR OR A LIQUOR STORE OR A VAPE SHOP.
WE'VE GOT ENOUGH OF THEM IN EDMOND, BUT AGAIN, IT'S FOR THE PURPOSE RATHER THAN THE CONSTRUCTION ITSELF.
WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION.
CONSTRUCTION, WE ALWAYS DO THAT CORNER.
WE BECOME BUSINESS AT ONE POINT IN TIME OR ANOTHER AND WE HAVE NO, UH, OBJECTION TO THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT? OKAY, I DO WANNA, I WANNA CORRECT ONE THING I DID SAY.
SO THE D ONE ZONING ALLOWS THE USES THAT THEY'RE ADDING IN, MOST OF WHICH WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
SO THEY WOULD'VE TO GO THROUGH AN EXTRA STEP TO GET THIS.
AND RIGHT NOW THE USE IS THAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO ADD WOULD BE POTENTIALLY GROCERY STORE, LIQUOR STORE, SPECIALTY FOOD STORE SPECIALTY, HOME IMPROVEMENT RETAIL STORE AND PERSONAL SERVICE ORIENTED USES.
SO THAT WOULD NOT ACTUALLY ALLOW A BAR, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
WOULD ALLOW A BAIT SHOP MIGHT ALLOW A VAPE SHOP UNDER, BUT THAT MIGHT BE ALLOWED NOW UNDER JUST THE GENERAL RETAIL.
AND UH, THE ONLY USE, WHICH I HEARD CONCERN ON WAS THE LIQUOR STORE, WHICH THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING THE ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY ADD THE LIQUOR STORE.
NOW ANYWHERE, PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE YOU CAN DO RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE, YOU CAN DO, UH, DISPENSARY.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST THE PROJECT AT THIS POINT IN TIME? AND I THINK I ALREADY ASKED, ASKED THAT.
SO DAVID, JUST TO, UH, ADDRESS THE, THE DEVELOPER IS NOT LOOKING TO PUT A VAPE SHOP, UH, AND OR BAR AT THIS LOCATION.
SO THOSE COULD, UH, BE, UH, INCLUDED IN THE, UH, VOTE TO EXCLUDE.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION OR COMMENTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SO RANDY, DO WE KNOW WHEN THIS CAME THROUGH IN 13, WAS LIQUOR STORE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED ON, I MEAN I KNOW IT'S, WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION MANY A TIMES THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT WE CAN VERIFY, IT'S HARD TO, BUT THE PD, THAT CONVERSATION THE PED DID VERY SPECIFIC TO EXCLUDE THAT YEAH.
ALONG WITH THE, ALL THOSE OTHER USES THEY'RE TRYING TO ADD IN ALL HAVE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? WELL, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS HOW, WHAT OTHER EXCLUSIONS CAN WE ADD TO MAKE APPEAL? THEY INDICATED THEY WOULD, UH, BASICALLY EXCLUDE THE USE OF BAR OR A VAPE STORE.
LET'S, LET'S HAVE EM BACK UP HERE AGAIN AND JUST ASK HIM YEAH.
IF YOU SIR, IF Y'ALL PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SO THEY ARE, UH, THE APPLICANT IS BASICALLY WANTING TO AMEND WHERE THEY WOULD BASICALLY SAY THAT THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW VAPE STORES OR BARS TO BE LOCATED THERE.
WOULD THAT ALLEVIATE YOUR CONCERNS? I KNOW YOU STILL HAD SOME CONCERNS REGARDING A LIQUOR STORE.
I JUST SPENT 25 YEARS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THERE'S TWO PEOP KINDS OF PEOPLE TO GO TO A LIQUOR STORE.
ONE THAT WANTS TO GET A DRINK, ONE'S ALREADY HAD ONE ONCE, ANOTHER ONE.
WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE DRUNKS ON THE ROAD EITHER.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WHY, WHY PUT IT IF IT'S, IF HIS PLANS TO PUT IN A LIQUOR STORE, I'M OPPOSED TO THAT STILL.
AND I AM ASSUMING THAT, UH, YOUR, UH, MODIFICATION GOES
[00:35:01]
SPECIFICALLY AS TO BAR AND OR VAPE? YES, SIR.YEAH, WE WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THE, UH, LIQUOR STORE, LIQUOR STORE IN PLACE AS PART OF THE P D DIVISION.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? OKAY.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GET ON THE TABLE.
UH, THAT IS FAILS BY A VOTE OF THREE TO ONE.
IT WILL MOVE ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON SIX 12.
[F. Case #Z23-00005 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “A” Single-Family to “PUD” Planned Unit Development for The Walnut – West, located on the northwest corner of Walnut and Main (Cameron Johnson) (Ward 1)]
BRINGS US TO CASE NUMBER Z 23 DASH 0 0 0 5 PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION FOR A REZONING FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO P U D PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE WALNUT WEST, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WALNUT AND MAINE.CAMERON JOHNSON IS THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
MR. ENS, UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A P U D THAT WILL ALLOW UP TO FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE LOT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MAIN AND WALNUT.
UH, THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE DENSIFICATION OF THE AREA THAT HAS BEEN OCCURRING, UH, BETWEEN CHITWOOD PARK AND DOWNTOWN.
UH, THE P U D IS A REPLICA OF THE RECENT WALNUT, P U D, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST.
UH, THE LOT CURRENTLY HAS ONE RESIDENCE ON IT AND IS ZONED A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
UH, THE P U D WOULD ALLOW, UH, INDIVIDUAL LOTS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 1200 SQUARE FEET, UH, WITH SIDE YARDS OF THREE FEET WITH EACH LOT FRONTING WALNUT STREET.
UH, THE P U D USES THE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AS IT'S BASED ONLY, BUT LIMITS THE SITE TO RESIDENTIAL ONLY.
UH, THE EDMOND 2018 PLAN DESIGNATES THE AREA IS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS A TRANSITION AREA BETWEEN THE HIGHER INTENSITY USES OF DOWNTOWN AND THE OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY.
HIGHER DENSITY IS SUPPORTED BECAUSE OF THE RELATIVE CLOSENESS TO DOWNTOWN AND ALL ITS SERVICES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL NOW.
DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF MR. ANS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? UH, DOES THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING FURTHER? YES, SIR.
DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK OTHER FOUR AGAINST? YES, SIR.
IN THE GENTLE IN THE BACK, IF YOU'LL PLEASE COME FORWARD AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS.
YOU MUST GET IT ALL DELIVERED.
HE KNOWS THEM AND PARTED DOWN, PARTED DOWN.
GUESS WE'RE ON FARLEY'S TIME AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
UM, I GUESS MY ADDRESS WOULD BE 3 0 9 WEST MAIN.
AND I HAVE TWO CONCERNS ON THIS PROJECT.
UH, MY, UH, ONE IS A QUESTION AND A QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION.
MY QUESTION IS, UH, ARE THERE GOING TO BE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE IF THERE ARE NOT SIDEWALKS? UH, WHAT, WHAT I READ AND THE PLANS THAT WERE SENT TO ME IS THAT THEY WILL MEET ENGINEERING, UH, CITY OF EDMOND CODE AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS.
AND IF THERE'S NOT A SIDEWALK, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ONE IN.
SO MY QUESTION IS, UM, IS THERE ALONG THE WALNUT ROAD, CAN WE HAVE ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS? THAT'S A VERY NARROW ROAD.
THIS HAS, HAS BEEN OPENED UP WITH THE, UH, HOMES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HERD THAT THAT STRIP HAS BEEN CUT THROUGH, HAS BECOME VERY, VERY, VERY BUSY WITH TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY IN, UM, EARLY MORNING AND AFTERNOON HOURS.
SO IF THERE'S NOT SIDEWALKS, CAN WE MAKE THAT A CONSIDERATION? I'M HURRYING AS FAST AS I CAN.
I HAVE A PICTURE HERE OF A MODERATE RAIN, UM, MORE THAN ONCE WE REQUESTED FOR SOME ACCESS AND HELP WITH THIS DRAINAGE.
WE GET, UH, PUDDLING IN FRONT OF THAT PROJECT.
ACTUALLY, MAYBE I SHOULD READ A STATE TO SAY WE GET PONDING IN FRONT OF THAT PROJECT FOR DAYS AFTER A RAIN.
UM, IN, IN A HEAVY RAIN, THE WATER WILL EXCEED THE CURB AND THE HEIGHT OF THE SIDEWALK AND DISSIPATE BACK INTO THE GROUND SLOWLY AND THEN DISSIPATES BACK INTO THE ASPHALT AND THE CONCRETE EVEN SLOWER WHEN YOU WALK THAT SIDEWALK, ESPECIALLY IF A CAR IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET PARKED, UM, WE, WE TAKE AN AGGRESSIVE BATH FROM THE TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH AND IT'S, IT'S UN IT'S UNPLEASANT.
AND, AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT WE CAN'T, UH, WE
[00:40:01]
DON'T HAVE A DRAINAGE FIX FOR THIS AREA.IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE P U D THAT WAS APPROVED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO ON THE EAST SIDE OF WALNUT AND OUT WITH THIS NEW P U D THAT'S COMING ON THE, UH, WEST SIDE OF WALNUT WILL BE EIGHT TOTAL NEW FACILITIES FOR WATERSHED AND EIGHT NEW DRIVEWAYS.
UH, ALL OF THE ELEVATION ON THIS PROJECT RUNS TO THIS INTERSECTION, UH, FROM ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE ALLEY, MAYBE JUST JUST A FEW FEET NORTH OF THE ALLEY.
IT, IT ALL, UH, THE ELEVATION RUNS DOWN TO THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET SO IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH WATER OR MUCH RAIN BEFORE WE HAVE A REAL POND.
UM, SO NOT ONLY IS IT AN AGGRESSIVE DISTRACTION WHEN WE TRY TO CROSS THE SIDEWALK, IT'S, I I BELIEVE IT'S A HEALTH HAZARD AND I ALSO BELIEVE IT'S, UM, NOT ALL TRAFFIC GOES 25 MILE AN HOUR DOWN MAIN STREET.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU BELIEVE THAT
SO THOSE ARE MY, UM, REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION AND THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME TONIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SP SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? MR. BEATIE, COULD YOU ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE DRAINAGE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA? YES, SIR.
THIS KIT SIT IN THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS SOME CONSULTING STUDY IN THAT AREA FROM, UH, FRED'S OUT TO KELLY AND FROM EDMOND ROAD UP TO, UH, DRAWING BLANK ON THE STREET NAME RIGHT NOW, SORRY, BUT UP THERE BY THE DOWNTOWN DETENTION POND IN THE STREET THAT GOES THERE.
AND SO WE'RE STUDYING THAT RIGHT NOW.
IT'S IN A FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT SHOULD BE WRAPPING UP SOMETIME OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
AND ONCE WE KIND OF GET THE INITIAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE WHEN WE MOVE INTO A DESIGN CONTRACT, WE WILL BE DOING SOME COMMUNITY HALL MEETINGS TO GET THE RESIDENTS IN THERE AND FIND OUT WHAT WE HAVEN'T PICKED UP TO THIS POINT TO START LOOKING AT ADDRESSING THE DRAINAGE ISSUES IN THAT AREA.
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AS WELL WHERE BASED UPON THE STREET EASEMENTS AND THE SIZE OF THE LOTS, A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ADJACENT ON WALNUT STREET ACTUALLY IS WITHIN THE STREET EASEMENT THAT LOOKS LIKE YARD.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THAT AREA, BUT THE LOT OF THAT AREA IS OLDER AND HAS WIDER RIGHT OF WAYS.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THE SIDE YARD ON THE EAST SIDE SIDE YARD ON THE EAST SIDE, PART OF IT IS ACTUALLY IS IS STREET OR, OR IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY? YEAH.
YEAH, IT'S, AND UH, YEAH, RIGHT WHERE THE HAND IS.
WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE SIDEWALK? UH, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY PUT SIDEWALKS IN.
THAT'S NO PROBLEM AT ALL AND I APPRECIATE HIM BRINGING UP THE ISSUE OF THE FLOODING.
ANY FIX WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
AND SO YOU ARE, YOU ARE PREPARED THEN TO ADD SIDEWALKS ALONG THE WALNUT STREET AREA AND THE MAIN STREET IN COMPLIANCE OF WHATEVER THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE AND, AND WORK WITH YOU ON THAT? ABSOLUTELY.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, SCENE? NONE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REZONING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF AN ADDITION OF THE SIDEWALKS PER THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND SIDEWALK SITE PLANE? IT WON'T BE A SITE PLANE.
THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO.
IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL AND WE WANT TO THANK, UH, THE PUBLIC AND ALSO THE APPLICANT FOR THE WORK THEY DID TOGETHER ON THIS.
IT MADE LIFE A WHOLE LOT EASIER.
[G. Case #Z22-00034 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “PUD” Planned Unit Development to “PUD” Planned Unit Development for “University Heights Townhouses” to be located at 329 E. Wayne. (Rader Development, LLC) (Ward 1)]
TO CASE NUMBER Z 22 DASH 0 0 0 3 4 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING FROM P U D PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO P U D PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR UNIVERSITY HOUSE TOWN UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, TOWNHOUSES TO BE LOCATED AT 3 29 EAST.DWAYNE, I DO YOU, UH, RADAR DEVELOPMENT IS THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
HEY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A P U D ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF UNIVERSITY IN WAYNE THAT WILL ALLOW OUT 11 UNIT COMPLEX.
P U D WAS APPROVED IN 2021, BUT THE APPLICANT BEGAN FULLY DEVELOPING THE SITE PLAN.
UH, THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT AROSE THAT NEEDED TO BE ADJUSTED TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE CITY'S ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW VARIANCES WITHOUT AMENDING THE P U D, WHICH IS WHY IT IS NOW COMING BACK TO YOU TONIGHT.
[00:45:01]
INCLUDES CHANGES TO THE SETBACKS.SO IT'LL BE 10 FEET IN FRONT AND ZERO ON THE SIDE AND REAR.
UH, THERE WERE LANDSCAPE ADJUSTMENTS TO ELIMINATE THE TERMINAL ISLANDS IN THE PARKING AND THE PERIMETER BUFFER AND OTHER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEN IT ELIMINATED THE DUMPSTER SCREENING, UH, WHICH IS MORE OR LESS PER THE REQUEST OF OUR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TEAM.
UH, THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT IT IS ON HOLD.
UH, THERE IS A LANDSCAPE PLAN INCLUDED WITH IT, WHICH CHRISTIE PULLED UP THERE SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS MAYBE SEE WHAT IS PLANNED.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE MOST RECENT ONE OR NOT.
THE APPLICANT COULD PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, THE STAFF WOULD ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO INCLUDE IT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE P U D BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL.
UH, DUMPSTER IS LOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDING AND A WOOD PRIVACY FENCE, SO WE DON'T SEE MUCH ISSUE WITH THAT.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
UH, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF MR. ENTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? UH, WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING FURTHER? DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT SCENE? NONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SCENE NONE.
UH, THAT PROJECT IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF THREE TO ZERO THAT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE THE 12TH.
[H. An Ordinance amending Title 22 of the Edmond Municipal Code – Zoning Ordinance by modifying Appendix B: - Consolidated List of Development Fees by modifying fees related to a Zoning Map Amendment, Site Plan, Planned Unit Development, and Mailed Notice. (All)]
H, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 22 OF THE UND MUNICIPAL CODE ZONING ORDINANCE BY MODIFYING APPENDIX B, THE CONSOLIDATED LIST DEVELOPMENT FEES BY MODIFYING FEES RELATED TO A ZONING MAP, AMENDMENT SITE PLAN, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND MAIL NOTICE MR. ENS.OKAY, UH, THE CITY IS GOING THROUGH A PROCESS RELATED TO ITS DEVELOPMENT FEES THAT INCLUDES, INCLUDES THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH ENGINEERING AND BUILDING APPLICATIONS AND THE PLANNING FEES IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONTAINS THOSE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND STAFF HAS, UH, RECOMMENDED UPDATES TO THOSE FEES TO HELP COVER THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION.
SO THE TABLE BEFORE YOU SHOWS THE, UH, CURRENT AND THEN THE PROPOSED CHANGES.
SOME OF 'EM AREN'T CHANGING, UH, IN THE TABLE.
UH, THE PROPOSED FEES ARE THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS OR REZONINGS ARE CURRENTLY BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE AREA BEING REZONED AND THE REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT.
UH, THAT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING AND NOT REALLY REFLECTIVE OF THE REVIEW TIME.
SO STAFF HAS JUST RE RECOMMENDED A FLAT FEE OF $600.
UH, PEDS ARE CURRENTLY $150, WHICH IS WOEFULLY UNDER PRICE FOR THE REVIEW THAT IS ENTAILED.
UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, UH, $1,200 THAT, THAT IS QUITE A JUMP, BUT KEEP IN MIND IT HASN'T BEEN ADJUSTED IN 20 YEARS.
AND THE WAY WE HANDLE PEDS IS EXTREMELY DIFFERENT NOW FROM WHEN THEY WERE ESTABLISHED.
UH, FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE, UH, OKLAHOMA CITY CHARGES $2,700 FOR P U D.
UH, SITE PLAN STAFFERS ARE MAKING RECOMMENDING AN INCREASE FROM 890 TO $1,200.
AND THEN THE NOTICE, UH, CURRENTLY IT'S $50 TO DO ALL OUR NOTICE.
WE ARE REQUESTING 75 JUST TO COVER THE RISING COST.
UH, THE ROOM REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS WILL BE THE SAME.
UM, THE FEE CHANGES HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHICH IS A GROUP REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPMENT SECTOR AND THE DIRECT RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THEIR APRIL 19TH MEETING.
UH, WHAT THEY DID RECOMMEND IS THAT MAYBE, UH, WE DEAL WITH THEM MORE THAN ONCE EVERY 20 YEARS, MAYBE ON A LITTLE MORE FREQUENT.
SO IT'S NOT QUITE A QUITE AN ADJUSTMENT THAT'S NEEDED.
SO WE'VE SAID WE WILL LOOK AT IT EVERY TWO YEARS IN DETAIL.
UH, DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SO JUST IN FULL DISCLOSURE, I I, RANDY AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS AND SO I'M ALL FOR KEEPING UP WITH MARKET ON FEES AND ALL THAT STUFF.
MY, MY CONCERN IS HOW DO WE MEASURE AND HOW DO WE GET PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT? BECAUSE WE HEAR MORE, AND I DUNNO IF YOU GUYS, I'M SURE THEY DO TOO.
WE HEAR ABOUT THE DIFFICULTIES AND OF THE SPEED AND THE PROCESS OF GETTING THINGS THROUGH, NOT NECESSARILY PLANNING.
SO THIS IS KIND OF AN OVERALL ARCHING THEME OF GETTING PROJECTS DONE TO THE FINISH LINE IN ADMIN.
UM, SO I DON'T, I MEAN FEES ARE OKAY, BUT HOW DO WE IMPROVE PERFORMANCE TO KEEP UP WITH THAT SO WE CAN ACTUALLY IMPROVE AND, AND GET THIS PROCESS BETTER? CUZ I I HEAR ABOUT IT WEEKLY, RIGHT? AND I MEAN TO, TO THAT END, UH, LIKE OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS ADDING SEVERAL POSITIONS THAT WILL, UH, FREE UP THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND HOPEFULLY DECREASE THAT KIND OF TIME.
ALL THESE FEES GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH THEN PAY FOR THINGS LIKE THE ENGINEERING REVIEW AND THE BUILDING REVIEW IN ESSENCE.
WHEN, UH, WHEN WOULD THESE FEES ACTUALLY GO INTO EFFECT IF WE WERE APPROVED HERE IMMEDIATELY UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVING? OR WOULD IT BE SEVERAL MONTHS DOWN THE LINE? WE'RE GOING TO PUT THEM INTO EFFECT JULY
[00:50:01]
ONE.SO WITH THE NEW BUDGET HERE, JULY ONE MM-HMM.
AND WITH THAT, WELL, WOULD THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY BE SEARCHING FOR NEW EMPLOYEES? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST WAS GETTING THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE JOBS, THOSE JOBS ARE OUT THERE NOW, SO, OKAY.
IF YOU KNOW ANY ENGINEERS WHO ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, DOWN ON THEIR LUCK, I NEED SOME WORK.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE TO THIS GUY? WE THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE.
I DON'T, I THINK ALL ENGINEERS ARE BUSY, SO IT'S GONNA TAKE, WE KNOW IT'S GONNA TAKE CREATIVITY, UH, A NEW CITY HALL, GREAT OFFICE SPACE, UH, A LOT OF THINGS, UH, TO ATTRACT, UH, GREAT EMPLOYEES TO THE CITY OF EDMOND.
SO I, I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT, BUT IT IS, IT IS NEEDED.
I ATTENDED THE WORKSHOP AND WE TALKED ABOUT THESE FEES, UH, AND ALSO ATTENDED THE DIRK COMMITTEE, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER GLENDALE SAID IT VERY WELL.
UM, AND IT WAS SAID IN THE DIRK MEETING, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE IN THIS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION, UM, YOU'RE USED TO PAYING FOR HIGH QUALITY, UM, MYSELF AS A BUILDER, I'LL PAY, I'LL PAY MORE, UH, FOR GREAT SERVICE AND, AND TO PAY FOR WHAT I'M GETTING.
SO I, I DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE AT ALL IN, UH, THE NEED TO, TO INCREASE THE FEES AND, AND KEEP UP WITH, UM, UH, WITH OUR REGION AND, AND, AND BEING COMPETITIVE IN THAT WAY.
UM, WE'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR THOSE AND WHAT IT COSTS, BUT THERE'S ALSO AN EXPECTATION, UM, THAT THAT REASONABLE SERVICE, REASONABLE TIME OF PLAN REVIEW, UH, COMES ALONG WITH THAT AS WELL.
SO JUST AN ENCOURAGEMENT, REALLY NOT A, NOT A, NOT A BATTLE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
JUST AN ENCOURAGEMENT AND A REMINDER, UM, THAT WE'RE WILLING TO PAY THESE FEES TO PAY FOR, UH, EFFICIENT SERVICE AND, AND REALLY HOPE THAT'S WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? ANY COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION? OH, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO DOUBLE OUR FEES SO WE CAN, SO WE CAN BE ASSURED OF GETTING MORE ENGINEERS.
NOT TILL WE DOUBLE PERFORMANCE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW FAST I CAN GET A P U D ON FILE.
UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
AND THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO AND IT ACTUALLY GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY THE 22ND BECAUSE WE ARE FAST TRACKING IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S EITHER THAT OR MAKING AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE IN IT, UM, BRINGS US TO A NEW BUSINESS AND I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.