[1. Call to Order of the Edmond Planning Commission.]
[00:00:06]
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'LL CALL TO ORDER THE APRIL 8TH, 2025 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[2. Consideration of Approval of Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes: March, 04, 2025.]
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 4TH, 2025.HAS EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE? UH, DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF STAFF? IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
AND THE I MOTION WAS CARRIED BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.
[A. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MAY 6TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PER THE APPLICANTS' REQUEST. Case No. Z24-00022; Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “D-3” Office Commercial to “PUD Z24-00022” Planned Unit Development for Edmond Calamar Development, located on the east side of Santa Fe Avenue, south of Mill Valley Boulevard. (800 S. Santa Fe, LLC; Ward 3)]
UH, THAT BRINGS US TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UH, ITEM A HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO MAY 6TH, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, AND WE NEED A MOTION ACTUALLY ON THAT.I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO EXTEND TO THE MAY 6TH MEETING.
HOLD ON NOW VOTE, UH, BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.
THAT ITEM IS CONTINUED TO THE MAY 6TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
[B. Case No. SP24-00009; Public Hearing and Consideration for a Site Plan for Monarch at Honeyfield, located east of Covell and Kelly. (Johnson & Associates; Ward 1)]
UH, THAT BRINGS US TO CASE NUMBER SP 24 DASH 0 0 0 0 9 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR A SITE PLAN FOR MONARCH AT HONEY FIELD LOCATED EAST OF COVE.AND KELLY JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES, IT'S THE APPLICANT AND IF YOU WILL PRESENT PLEASE.
UM, AS INDICATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR A PROJECT REFERRED TO AS MONARCH AT HONEY FIELD.
THE APPROXIMATE 11 ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COVEL ON A QUARTER MILE EAST OF KELLY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED, PUD KELLY CORNER PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN ITSELF, UM, INCLUDES DETAILS REGARDING THE PROVISION OF 288 RESIDENTIAL UNITS DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT EIGHT BUILDINGS.
ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED FROM COVE AT TWO LOCATIONS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
BOTH THREE AND FOUR STORY BUILDINGS ARE INCLUDED AND YOU CAN SEE BY THE FACADES THAT THEY FEATURE A VARIETY OF MATERIALS AND PATTERNS AND HAVE NEUTRAL TANS AS WELL AS LIGHT AND GRAY COLOR.
UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THE OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS DESIGNED TO SERVE THE ENTIRE HONEY FIELD DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED IN JUNE OF 2024.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY COMMISSION QUESTIONS.
UM, DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF? MR. BRIAN SPECIFICALLY AT THIS POINT IN TIME? DO WE KNOW WHICH ONES WERE THE FOUR STORIES WERE PRE AND PROPOSED OR ARE THEY STILL JUST A UM, PRELIMINARY, LIKE I KNOW THEY HAVE DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS THEY PROVIDED US, BUT DO WE KNOW WHERE THEY'RE DESIGNATED ON THE PLANE ITSELF OR IS THAT, HAS THAT BEEN DECIDED AS OF THIS? THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DECIDED.
MAYBE WE COULD GET THE APPLICANT OKAY.
TO COME UP AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UH, SEEING NONE, WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING FURTHER TO THIS INCREDIBLE PRESENTATION BEEN DONE BY CITY STAFF? YES, IT WAS WONDERFUL.
UH, JESSICA BLUE WITH JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT ONE EAST SHERIDAN.
UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REITERATE THAT THIS SITE PLAN IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PUD.
WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCES AND STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE HEIGHT.
THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE FRONTING COVELL WILL BE FOUR STORIES AND THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH WILL BE THREE.
DOES ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME? I JUST WANT TO ASK, UH, WHAT'S YOUR DECISION ABOUT, UH, AND WHY PUT THAT ON THE FRONTAGE AS OPPOSED TO TOWARDS THE BACK FOR THE FOUR STORIES? YEAH.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT IS TO ACTIVATE THE STREET FRONTAGE AND ALSO TO HAVE THE HIGHER BUILDINGS FRONTING COVELL AND UH, FOR THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WILL BE TO THE SOUTH OF THIS ONE, UH, THAT WILL ALSO KIND OF BE KIND OF A STAIR STEP IN HEIGHT, UH, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE PUT TO THE SOUTH HAS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, UH, WOULD MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION SECOND.
[00:05:01]
THAT IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO AND IT WILL END HERE TONIGHT.[C. Case No. Z24-00016; Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “A” Single-Family to “PUD” Planned Unit Development for 330 W 1st Street, located on the southeast corner of Walnut and 1st Street. (Castle Custom Homes; Ward 1)]
THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM THREE C, CASE NUMBER Z 24 0 0 0 1 16 PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THREE 30 WEST FIRST STREET, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WALNUT AND FIRST CASTLE CUSTOM HOMES IS THE APPLICANT.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO PUD PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THE 7,000 SQUARE FOOT SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE, AT THREE 30 WEST FIRST STREET, WHICH IS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WALNUT AND FIRST, UM, NEARBY ZONING AND USES INCLUDE TO THE EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST.
ZONED A SINGLE FAMILY AND DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES NORTH ACROSS FIRST STREET IS ZONED AND DEVELOPED WITH A PUD THAT ALLOWS FOR THREE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THE PUD DESIGN STATEMENT, UM, ALLOWS A FOLLOWING KEY COMPONENTS, A MAXIMUM OF THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CONFIGURED IN A SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING AND A DUPLEX, A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 3000 SQUARE FEET IS, IS ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW TWO LOTS TO BE CREATED IN THE FUTURE IF NEEDED.
SETBACKS INCLUDE 15 FEET ON THE FRONT, WHICH IS FIRST STREET, THREE FEET ON THE REAR TO THE OR BY THE ALLEY, ZERO FEET ON WALNUT, WHICH IS THE WEST SIDE, AND EITHER THREE OR ZERO FEET ON THE INTERIOR.
DEPENDING ON FUTURE LOCK CONFIGURATION ACCESS WILL OCCUR FROM WEST FIRST WALNUT OR THE ALLEY DEPENDING ON THE RESULTING CONFIGURATION AS WELL.
THE EDMOND PLAN, 2018, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THE AREA'S URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SINGLE TWO AND LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS ARE ALL APPROPRIATE IN THIS CATEGORY, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO FUNCTION AS A TRANSITION FROM MORE INTENSE DOWNTOWN AND LESS INTENSE SUBURBAN AREAS.
DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CATEGORY SHOULD SUPPORT ACTIVE MOBILITY AND WALKABILITY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF MR. BRIAN AT THIS POINT IN TIME? THE ONLY QUESTION MR. BRIAN WAS THE, IN REGARDS TO THE SIDEWALK REGULATIONS, REMIND ME, WHAT IS THIS, WHAT'S THE REQUIREMENT ON THIS FOR THE SIDEWALKS WEST SIDE? UM, SO SIDEWALKS WILL HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OR RECONSTRUCTED ON WHERE IT FRONTS A PUBLIC STREET.
OKAY, SO WALNUT AND FIRST WILL BOTH HAVE SIDEWALKS.
YEAH, IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY'RE NOT SUFFICIENT AT THIS TIME.
WILL THE ALLEYWAY BE IMPROVED IN THE BACK? UM, I'M NOT SURE THE CONDITION OF THE ALLEYWAY.
UH, SOMETIMES IT DEPENDS HOW THEY DO THE ACCESS.
MAYBE THE APPLICANT COULD, UM, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE THINKING IN TERMS OF THE ALLEY AND HOW MUCH IMPROVEMENT IT MIGHT NEED.
I KNOW FOR SOMETIMES LARGER DE DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA, WE, WE DO WANNA SEE THAT ALLEY IMPROVE, BUT FOR ONE RIGHT ON THE EDGE, I'M NOT SURE.
AND I THINK THERE'S ALWAYS SOME DRAINAGE IN THIS AREA THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS WELL.
THERE'S A DRAIN, THERE'S A DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE PED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? UH, WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING? NOT UNLESS YOU NEED ME TO ASK.
UH, ANY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? AND DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY DIRECT QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
SECOND, THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY LOAD OF FOUR TO ZERO AND THAT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON 4 28.
[D. Case No. Z24-00023; Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “A” Single-Family to “Z24-00023” 124 W Wayne Planned Unit Development for 124 W Wayne Street, located east of Wayne Street and Santa Fe Street. (Ryjack Strategic Investments; Ward 1)]
UH, BRINGS THIS TO ITEM 3D, CASE NUMBER Z 24 DASH 0 0 0 2 3 PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO THE Z 24 DASH 0 0 0 2 3 1 24 WEST WAYNE PLANS UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 1 24 WEST WAYNE STREET LOCATED EAST OF WAYNE STREET IN SANTA FE STREET.RI JACK STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS IS THE APPLICANT.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HE'S OKAY.
AS INDICATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO PUD PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THE 13,500 SQUARE FOOT SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1 24 WEST WAYNE, WHICH IS THE SOUTH SIDE OF WAYNE, EAST OF SANTA FE.
UH, DRIVE OR STREET DEPENDING ON WHAT MAP YOU'RE READING, BUT DEFINITELY NOT AVENUE NEARBY.
[00:10:01]
INCLUDE A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND A SMALL PUD TO THE SOUTH THAT ALLOWS A DUPLEX.THE PUD DESIGN STATEMENT PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING KEY COMPONENTS, A MAXIMUM OF FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS CONFIGURED IN ONE AND ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS AS TWO DUPLEXES AS A QUADPLEX, ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE OR TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
SETBACKS INCLUDE 20 FEET ON THE FRONT AND REAR AND FIVE FEET ON THE SIDE.
ACCESS WILL OCCUR FROM DRIVEWAYS ON WAYNE.
THE EDMUND PLAN DESIGNATES THE AREA'S URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SINGLE TO AND LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS ARE APPROPRIATE IN THIS PLAN CATEGORY, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO FUNCTION AS A TRANSITION FROM MORE INTENSE DOWNTOWN AREAS TO LESS INTENSE SUBURBAN AREAS.
DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CATEGORY SHOULD SUPPORT ACTIVE MOBILITY AND WALKABILITY.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY COMMISSION QUESTIONS, JAMIE MEMBERS.
DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? NOW THESE ARE TWO STORY, IS THAT RIGHT? UM, I THINK OR A SINGLE STORY.
UH, I BELIEVE THE HEIGHT, UM, RESTRICTION WOULD ALLOW TWO STORY IF DESIRED.
AND SO WITH THIS AREA BEING REDEVELOPED, I KNOW THERE'S NOT SIDEWALKS ON SOME OF THESE AREAS.
WHAT'S THE RULES FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE? JUST AS IT'LL COMPLY, COMPLY WITH EDMOND CODE, BUT WHAT IS, WHAT IS IT ON THIS AREA? I KNOW YOU MENTIONED IT'S SUPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S SUPPOSED TO PROMOTE MOBILITY.
SO YEAH, SIDEWALKS WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AT THE TIME OF, YOU KNOW, INSTRUCTION DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
UM, AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
OKAY, ANYTHING FURTHER BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? UH, WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING? NOT UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? I DO.
WILL YOU GO BACK TO, UM, THE PREVIOUS PICTURE OF THAT RIGHT THERE? SO LOOKING AT THE SCHEMATIC THAT WAS IN THE, UH, PACKET, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT THE, THAT YOU'RE PLANNING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE IT'S GONNA BE, YOU'RE GONNA PULL UP AND IT'S GONNA BE FOUR DOUBLE GARAGES ON THE STREET POTENTIALLY.
AND ARE YOU, WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING NUMBER THREE AND NUMBER FOUR? UH, C AND D, CAN YOU REMIND ME, I THINK I MIGHT HAVE IT HERE.
WHAT WERE THOSE ONE LARGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR TWO SMALLER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE? UH, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS LESS LIKELY.
UM, WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF A TWO STORY ALSO LESS LIKELY? OKAY.
YEAH, MY HESITATION ON THIS IS JUST, I KNOW IT'S AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD AND I I JUST LIKE TO KEEP, UH, UH, AS MUCH AS WE CAN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING LIKE THE, UH, THE HOUSES OR THE DUPLEXES BELOW.
BUT THAT, THAT'S LESS LIKELY IN, IN YOUR PLAN, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING, SIR.
NOT, NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT LESS LIKELY.
AND WHILE THIS ACTUALLY REFERS TO TWO LOTS, TWO CITY LOTS, THESE LOTS WERE ACTUALLY, APPARENTLY THEY WERE PLATTED AT THE 50 FOOT WIDTH VERSUS THE OLD STANDARD 25.
SO IT IS SLIGHTLY LARGER FRONTAGE, SO THE UNITS POTENTIALLY AS DUPLEXES WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE INCREDIBLY CRAMPED AND CORRECT.
SO IT'S A HUNDRED FOOT, IT'S UH, YEAH, IT'S APPROXIMATELY HUNDRED FOR FRONT FRONT.
LIKE THEY'VE GOTTEN OLDED AND OKAY.
WELL, BUT, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE, UH, THERE WOULD BE ONE ON EACH LOT, SO IT'D BE FOUR.
AND YOU, SO YOU'D HAVE FOUR BUILDINGS, FOUR GARAGES, YEAH.
SO TWO FULL STRUCTURES, FOUR UNITS.
COULD YOU SCROLL BACK TO THE VERY FIRST AERIAL? I GUESS I HAVE A DIFFERENT ONE.
THERE'S ONE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ZOOMED OUT THAT SHOWS A PUD IN THE BOTTOM CORNER.
THERE'S THE FIRST AERIAL IN THE ACTUAL PRETTY SIMILAR.
OH, IT'S YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT PUD RYAN, THE Z TWO TWO DASH 0 0 0 1.
IS THAT WHAT IT'S GONNA END UP? I MEAN IS THAT ONLY IN OUR COPY? YEAH.
IS THIS THE INTENTION EVEN THOUGH THOSE ARE SINGLE IT ESSENTIALLY THAT RIGHT.
AND I, I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THAT DARK STRUCTURE RIGHT BEHIND MY OUTLINE ON THATCHER THAT HAS RECENTLY, UM, BEEN APPROVED AND, AND THAT IS A DUPLEX ON A 50 FOOT LOT AS WELL.
[00:15:01]
THAT CITY BLOCK RIGHT THERE, I, I KNOW THAT SOMEBODY HAD A QUESTION OR A CONCERN OF KEEPING THE STRUCTURES SIMILAR TO THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD STYLE, UM, THAT IS STARTING TO, TO CHANGE AND, AND I'VE KIND OF FALLEN IN LINE WITH WHAT IS GOING UP FROM A, A NEW PERSPECTIVE, HOW YOU SEE HIS GARAGE FROM THE, FROM THE STREET, NO AESTHETIC PLEASING.BUT DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME? THANK YOU SIR.
UH, ANY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
UH, THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED BY VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE.
IT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 26TH.
[E. Case No. Z25-00006; Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “G-A” General Agricultural to “R-1” Rural Estate District for a portion of Caspian Lakes, located on the north side of East 33rd Street, approximately one-half mile east of Post Road. (Caspian Lakes Addition, LLC; Ward 2) ]
UH, BRINGS THIS TO CASE NUMBER Z 25 DASH 0 0 0 6 PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING FROM GENERAL, A GENERAL AGRICULTURAL TO R ONE RURAL ESTATE DISTRICT FOR A PORTION OF CASPIAN LAKES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST 33RD, APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE EAST OF POST ROAD CASSIAN LAKE SEDITION.LLC IS THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT VERY GOOD.
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FROM GA, GENERAL AGRICULTURAL TO R ONE RURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, APPROXIMATELY 17.7 ACRE.
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CASPIAN LAKES DRIVE NORTH OF 33RD AND HALF A MILE EAST OF POST ROAD NEARBY ZONING AND USES INCLUDE UH, NORTH AND EAST, WHICH IS ZONED R ONE AND INCLUDES BOTH UNDEVELOPED LOTS AND LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
WEST IS ZONED GA AND R ONE AND IS DEVELOPED WITH LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE SOUTH IS OKLAHOMA CITY AND IS DEVELOPED WITH LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL USES AS WELL.
THE BY RIGHT R ONE DISTRICT ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITH RELATIVELY LARGE SETBACKS.
THE MINERAL LOT SIZE IS 90,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE EDMOND PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE R ONE DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE.
GLAD TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. BRIAN AT THIS POINT IN TIME? THIS MAY BE A BIT BIT OF AN IGNORANT QUESTION.
WHO MAINTAINS 33RD GIVEN ITS ON THE CITY BOUNDARY? MM-HMM.
IS IT? I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE CITY LIMIT LINE IS, IF IT'S RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OR IT'S ON ONE SIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OR THE OTHER RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.
TYPICALLY IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT THERE'S SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, AN AGREEMENT WE WOULD ENTER SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT WITH ADJOINING JURISDICTION TO RESURFACE THE ROAD OR DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO CITY STAFF? UH, WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING? I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? AND WOULD ANY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR AGAINST THE PROJECT, SEEING NO ONE RUSHING THE MICROPHONE? DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR ACTUALLY, I GUESS DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FIRST? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOTION SECOND.
YEAH, I NEED TO, I'M OFF MY GAME TODAY.
[F. Case No. PR25-00002 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for The Replat of Astoria Executive Park Common Area, located on the east side of Coltrane Road, on the south side of Willowood Road. (Marsal Developments, LLC; Ward 2)]
BRINGS THIS TO ITEM THREE F, CASE NUMBER PR 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 2 PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RE PLAT OF ASTORIA EXECUTIVE PARK, COMMON AREA LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLTRANE ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WILLOW WOOD ROAD.MARSAL DEVELOPMENTS IS THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT MR. BRIAN AS INDICATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 1.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WILLOW ROAD, WILLOW WOOD ROAD, EAST OF COLTRANE.
IT'S ZONED, UM, PUD, WHICH ALLOWS A VARIETY OF OFFICE AND SERVICE USES.
AND THE PUD WAS APPROVED IN OCTOBER OF 2024.
THE, UH, LOTS ARE CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.
THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT INCLUDES TWO TRACKS, ONE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRUCTURE AND ONE TO REMAIN COMMON AREA DETENTION STAFF FINDS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE APPROVED PUD AND CONFORMS TO THE STANDARD REGARDING ACCESS, UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSION MAY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
[00:20:01]
OR? YES, NOT FULLY.WELL, REMEMBER THIS ONE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION WHEN WE CAME THROUGH IN OCTOBER.
UM, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS JUST THE, THE DETENTION.
WHAT MAKES IT, WHY IS IT NO LONGER SAT? I MEAN, I GUESS MY COMMENT WHEN IT WAS BUILT, IT WAS SATISFACTORY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO WHAT, I MEAN, WHY DO WE NOW BELIEVE THE NEW ONE IS, IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR IS THAT COMMON AREA TRULY LEFT AND MEANT TO BE DEVELOPED, I GUESS IS WHERE'S THE WATER GONNA GO? MORE RAIN? YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THEY HAD, UH, I THINK THERE WAS SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE STORMWATER OR THE DRAINAGE SITUATION.
I THINK ENGINEERING'S HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT.
I FORGOT ABOUT THIS ADDRESS THAT MR. B ORIGINALLY, WHEN THE PLAT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE, THIS PARTICULAR AREA RIGHT IN HERE WAS FLOODPLAIN.
AND SO IT WASN'T DEVELOPABLE, BUT WHEN THE CITY DID THE WILLOW WOOD PROJECT TO REDUCE FLOODING THROUGH THE WILLOW WOOD ADDITION, THAT TOOK THIS AREA OUT OF FLOODPLAIN AND REMOVED IT FROM THE FLOODPLAIN.
SO THEY'RE WANTING TO GO BACK IN AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S NO LONGER FLOODPLAIN AND PUT A BUILDING ON IT.
THEY'LL HAVE TO RE-LOOK AT THE DETENTION AND MAKE SURE THE DETENTION WORKS FOR THE ORIGINAL PHASE AS WELL AS THEIR ADDITION.
AND THAT, THAT, THAT WILL BE, THAT WILL BE HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.
OBVIOUSLY WITH WATER, WHEN THEY COME IN WITH WATER, WHEN THEY COME IN WITH FINAL PLANTS AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
WE'LL BE LOOKING AT ALL THE DRAINAGE AND THERE ARE SOME MINOR DRAINAGE ISSUES OVER IN THERE.
THEY'RE GONNA BE WORKING TO ADDRESS THOSE OKAY.
THAT WE HAVE OVER THERE IN THAT AREA.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF BY ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING? DON'T NEED TO UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO THE APPLICANT? AND SINCE THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, I ASSUME THERE ARE NO COMMENTS, UH, ANY COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO BE APPROVED.
THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO AND IT ENDS HERE TONIGHT.
[G. Case No. EPC24-00020; Public Hearing and Consideration of an amended Final Plat for Amend’s Subdivision, located southwest of Boulevard and Danforth. (City of Edmond; Ward 1)]
[H. Case No. EPC24-00021; Public Hearing and Consideration of an amended Final Plat for Bigbee’s Santa Fe Addition, located northeast of Fretz and Thatcher. (City of Edmond; Ward 1) ]
[I. Case No. EPC24-00022; Public Hearing and Consideration of an amended Final Plat for Bigbee’s 2nd Santa Fe Addition, located between Fretz Ave and Bigbee Dr, and between Clegern Ave and Wayne St. (City of Edmond; Ward 1)]
[J. Case No. EPC24-00023; Public Hearing and Consideration of an amended Final Plat for Kale Sub, located north of 8th St along Littler Place. (City of Edmond; Ward 1)]
[K. Case No. EPC24-00024; Public Hearing and Consideration of an amended Final Plat for Shaefer’s Subdivision, located northeast of Broadway and 9th. (City of Edmond; Ward 1)]
[L. Case No. EPC24-00025; Public Hearing and Consideration of an amended Final Plat for South Park Addition, located northwest of Boulevard and 8th. (City of Edmond; Ward 1) ]
OKAY.THAT BRINGS US TO ITEMS 3G THROUGH THREE L UH, ALL NUMBERED EPC 24, NUMBER 20 THROUGH 25 SEQUENTIALLY.
AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR THOSE TOGETHER AND IF, UH, CITY STAFF WILL PLEASE PRESENT THEM.
UM, WE'RE BRINGING BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, UH, THE FOURTH AND FINAL BATCH OF A SERIES OF HISTORIC PLATS THAT INCLUDED ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATORY RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO PREVENTING PEOPLE OF COLOR FROM OWNING PROPERTY WITHIN THE PLATTED AREA.
EVEN THOUGH THIS LANGUAGE WAS DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLE DECADES AGO, LOCAL JURISDICTIONS DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO FORMALLY CHANGE THESE DOCUMENTS.
UNTIL RECENTLY, EDMOND RESIDENTS AND OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN WORKING SINCE WITH THE STATE LEGISLATURE OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS TO GRANT CITIES THIS AUTHORITY.
THIS WAS COMPLETED WITH THE PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL 1617 IN 2024.
SINCE LATE LAST YEAR, EDMOND HAS BEEN WORKING TO BRING THESE PLAT DOCUMENTS BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO FORMALLY STRIKE THIS LANGUAGE.
UM, WE'D LIKE TO QUICKLY REVIEW THE LOCATION OF THE PLATS THAT ARE ON, UH, THE AGENDA THIS EVENING AND WITH THE REMINDER THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND EACH ITEM WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE VOTE.
UM, THE FIRST ONE, AMENDS SUBDIVISION SHOWN HERE SOUTH OF DANFORTH BETWEEN BOULEVARD AND BROADWAY.
DO WE HAVE ALL THESE ON ORDER? UH, ITEM H, BIG B SANTA FE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THATCHER BETWEEN FRETZ AND THE BNSF RAILROAD, UM, CORRIDOR ITEM I BIG B SECOND, WHICH IS JUST NORTH OF THAT.
UM, ALSO BETWEEN FRETS AND THE AND THE RAILROAD ITEM J THE KALE SUBDIVISION NORTH OF EIGHTH STREET AND ON BOTH SIDES OF LITTLER PLACE.
AND ITEM K SCHAFFER SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF BROADWAY AND NINTH INCLUDES THE SINGLE FAMILY AS WELL AS THE ON QUEUE THERE ON BROADWAY AND ITEM L.
FINALLY, THE SOUTH PARK EDITION, UM, IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF NINTH AND BOULEVARD ALONG LITTLER AVENUE.
SO INCLUDES THE FRONTAGE ON BOULEVARD WITH SOME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THEN THE HOUSES ALONG LER STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS TO CITY STAFF BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME? AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THERE TO BE ANYBODY TO SPEAK.
SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 3G, CASE NUMBER EPC 24
[00:25:01]
TRIPLE ZERO 20? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.SECOND, WE'RE GONNA VOTE INDIVIDUALLY, RIGHT? EACH ITEM REQUIRES DECEMBER VOTE.
THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO AND WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON 4 28.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON CASE NUMBER EPC 24 TRIPLE 0 21? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SECOND, THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO AGAIN, 4 28.
UH, ITEM THREE I CASE NUMBER EPC 24 0 22.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SECOND, THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO AND THAT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 28TH.
ITEM THREE J, CASE NUMBER EPC 24 DASH TRIPLE 0 23.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SECOND, THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.
IT WILL AGAIN BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 28TH.
ITEM THREE K, CASE NUMBER EPC 24 TRIPLE 0 24.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOTION OR TO APPROVE SECOND FIVE TO ZERO APPROVED AND IT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 28TH.
THE LAST ITEM OF THAT SEQUENCE, ITEM THREE L, CASE NUMBER EPC 24 TRIPLE 0 25.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND.
AND THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO AND IT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 28TH.
[A. Nomination and Election of Planning Commission Chair]
THAT BRINGS US TO THE NEXT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, A NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR.
I WOULD, DO WE HAVE A NOMINATION? YEAH, I HAVE ONE.
UM, I WANT TO THANK MARK HOS FOR HIS SERVICES, CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMISSION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, NOMINATE, UH, BRIAN BLUNDELL TO BE THE NEW CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMISSION IF HE SO WILLINGLY ACCEPTS IT.
AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
ANY FURTHER NOMINATIONS SCENE? NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR OR SHOULD WE ACTUALLY DO THIS BY PUSHING THE BUTTONS TODAY?
I ASSUME THAT THAT IS APPROVED BY VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO AND NOMINATION
[B. Nomination and Election of Planning Commission Vice-Chair]
AND ELECTION OF THE VICE CHAIR.DO WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIR? UH, I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE CHIP WINTER FOR VICE CHAIR.
AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND, A SECOND OFF.
FIVE TO ZERO BRINGS US TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS BY THE WAY, CONGRATULATIONS GUYS.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR ME? I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU AGAIN GUYS.
WE NOW ADJOURN AT, I'M GONNA CALL AT FIVE FIFTY EIGHT.
MOTION SHOULD TURN, I'M SO EXCITED.
I FORGOT TO CALL FOR THE MOTION.